• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Was the Supreme Court decision on the pledge of allegiance politically motivated?

R

Riprorin

Banned
The supreme court's evasive nonruling on whether the phrase "under God" belongs in the Pledge of Allegiance is not playing well across the country. The most common complaint seems to be that the court "punted," a polite way of saying that the justices did not want to do their job by ruling on the substance of the issue. Call me a cynic, but I think the liberals on the court didn't want to cause an uproar that would help Republicans in an election year. Better to come up with a soothing but temporary political decision--restoring "under God" for now while clearly inviting a future challenge that the court will be only too happy to grant once the political coast is clear. We deserve a better, more honest Supreme Court.

Like many lawyers, Jonathan Turley of George Washington University Law School was not impressed by the fig leaf chosen by the court: that the California atheist who brought the challenge was not the custodial parent of the child reciting the pledge and therefore lacked standing to bring suit. The court misunderstood legal developments in California, Turley said, where the state Supreme Court does not grant absolute control of a child to the custodial parent. Even noncustodial atheists have a stake in the way their children are raised. More important, Turley caught the mood of cynicism about this decision by writing, in Newsday, that the court was dancing an eyes-closed shuffle to avoid a ruling. "At the head of this constitutional conga line," Turley wrote, "was an 84-year-old justice, John Paul Stevens, who showed that an octogenarian can still dance wildly in a crowded legal room without touching a single substantive issue."

More dancing in the dark
 
How about the ragingly obvious reason that the man had no legal basis to bring the question before the court.....


you know, laws, facts, the process..

it's really useful to hear from a partisan hack like Jonathan Turley that HE thinks the court "misunderstood" the facts...yep, he got it right and all those justices got it wrong.


are all liberals this soft in the head....a michael moore conspiracy behind every decision that doesn't agree with the communist...er,.....liberal agenda?
 
So much ignorance so little time.

Call me a cynic, but I think the liberals on the court didn't want to cause an uproar that would help Republicans in an election year. Better to come up with a soothing but temporary political decision--restoring "under God" for now while clearly inviting a future challenge that the court will be only too happy to grant once the political coast is clear. We deserve a better, more honest Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

I thought you "conservatives" wanted "god" in pledge of allegiance. Not that I give a flying crap either way, it's simply not a issue for me as a peagan communist.

Oh btw, there are no liberals in the Supreme courts, they're called "moderates". I guess they would be liberals compared to how far right field you dittoheads are these days.

Now if you don't mind, I'm going back to reading the good lord's book
while plotting the next course of my marxist agenda.
 
Wake up, Riprorin- the court has little choice but to rule against the inclusion of "under God", the day they're forced to do so... There's those minor issues of the Constitution, separation of Church and state, and a mountain of legal precedents... The inclusion of that phrase dates from another, fairly recent wave of fearmongering and shameful hysteria, anyway, the McCarthy era...

Turns out that the Constitution was written by flaming liberals- surprise, surprise....
 
Read the transcripts of the oral arguements, several of the liberal judges seemed like they would side with the conservative judges. They had quite pointed questions, and even made statements, that to them it seemed under god passed constitutional muster.

The Supreme Court did what it did, so they wouldnt set precedent of ruling on a case were the plantiff had no legal standing.
 
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
So much ignorance so little time.

Call me a cynic, but I think the liberals on the court didn't want to cause an uproar that would help Republicans in an election year. Better to come up with a soothing but temporary political decision--restoring "under God" for now while clearly inviting a future challenge that the court will be only too happy to grant once the political coast is clear. We deserve a better, more honest Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

I thought you "conservatives" wanted "god" in pledge of allegiance. Not that I give a flying crap either way, it's simply not a issue for me as a peagan communist.

Oh btw, there are no liberals in the Supreme courts, they're called "moderates". I guess they would be liberals compared to how far right field you dittoheads are these days.

Now if you don't mind, I'm going back to reading the good lord's book
while plotting the next course of my marxist agenda.
Click to expand...

Theres only one moderate on the Supreme Court and thats O'Conner, Souter, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Bryer are lean towards the left are varying degrees.
 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Wake up, Riprorin- the court has little choice but to rule against the inclusion of "under God", the day they're forced to do so... There's those minor issues of the Constitution, separation of Church and state, and a mountain of legal precedents... The inclusion of that phrase dates from another, fairly recent wave of fearmongering and shameful hysteria, anyway, the McCarthy era...
Click to expand...

Exactly.

But every move Rhenquist makes is politically motivated anyway.
 
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
So much ignorance so little time.

Call me a cynic, but I think the liberals on the court didn't want to cause an uproar that would help Republicans in an election year. Better to come up with a soothing but temporary political decision--restoring "under God" for now while clearly inviting a future challenge that the court will be only too happy to grant once the political coast is clear. We deserve a better, more honest Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

I thought you "conservatives" wanted "god" in pledge of allegiance. Not that I give a flying crap either way, it's simply not a issue for me as a peagan communist.

Oh btw, there are no liberals in the Supreme courts, they're called "moderates". I guess they would be liberals compared to how far right field you dittoheads are these days.

Now if you don't mind, I'm going back to reading the good lord's book
while plotting the next course of my marxist agenda.
Click to expand...

I think it's a bit more than just the "conservatives". Why don't you do some research?

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/06/29/poll.pledge/
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/pledge_poll020701.html


Eighty-four percent in an ABCNEWS.com/Washington Post poll oppose last week's ruling by the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that the pledge is unconstitutional because the phrase "under God," added by Congress in 1954, violates church-state separation.

Eighty-nine percent also say the phrase should remain in the pledge.
 
When you get right down to it, a pledge of allegiance kind of runs against the grain of American ideals in the first place. It's a jingoistic ritual that loses meaning as it becomes rote. Sure, there were some feelings when the decisions came down, but I bet the same polls takes six months from now would reveal that more than 50% won't care one way or another.
 
Let's take the issue directly to the American people rather than allowing the ACLU to use it's bullying tactics to force unwanted change.
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Let's take the issue directly to the American people rather than allowing the ACLU to use it's bullying tactics to force unwanted change.
Click to expand...

I agree Bush should add that to his anti-rights amendment. You could have all the bigiots get together and vote to outlaw gays, burning the flag, and make God official.
 
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Theres only one moderate on the Supreme Court and thats O'Conner, Souter, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Bryer are lean towards the left are varying degrees.
Click to expand...
Wow. Your definition of "moderate" and "left leaning" is eye opening in it's right wing bias, IMHO.

Addtionally, it simply does not jibe with your assertion in another thread that John Fitzgerald Kennedy's Senate voting record was "quite conservative".

You really can't have it both ways.
 
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Let's take the issue directly to the American people rather than allowing the ACLU to use it's bullying tactics to force unwanted change.
Click to expand...

I agree Bush should add that to his anti-rights amendment. You could have all the bigiots get together and vote to outlaw gays, burning the flag, and make God official.
Click to expand...

As opposed to the ACLU's tactic of using a handful of liberal, unelected judges and the theat of litigation to force changes that the majority of Americans don't want?
 
Let's take the issue directly to the American people rather than allowing the ACLU to use it's bullying tactics to force unwanted change.
Click to expand...

Nice Spin! Could have been a cut n' paste directly from some uber right website- probably was, come to think of it... "bullying tactics"? "unwanted change"? Slick, very slick indeed... Maybe America's growing non-believers are tired of being bullied themselves, tired of having religion dragged along into arenas where it has no place- You don't have to be a Christian to be a Patriot, Thomas Paine proving that a long time ago...

Take it to the people? Sure, have at it- the process already exists, it's called a constitutional amendment...
 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Let's take the issue directly to the American people rather than allowing the ACLU to use it's bullying tactics to force unwanted change.
Click to expand...

Nice Spin! Could have been a cut n' paste directly from some uber right website- probably was, come to think of it... "bullying tactics"? "unwanted change"? Slick, very slick indeed... Maybe America's growing non-believers are tired of being bullied themselves, tired of having religion dragged along into arenas where it has no place- You don't have to be a Christian to be a Patriot, Thomas Paine proving that a long time ago...

Take it to the people? Sure, have at it- the process already exists, it's called a constitutional amendment...
Click to expand...

The intolerance of the secularists is fairly transparent: they won't be happy to every remenant of religion is removed from the public square inspite of the fact that it's an integral part of our national heritage. It goes way beyond any concern about the separation fo church and state.
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Let's take the issue directly to the American people rather than allowing the ACLU to use it's bullying tactics to force unwanted change.
Click to expand...

I agree Bush should add that to his anti-rights amendment. You could have all the bigiots get together and vote to outlaw gays, burning the flag, and make God official.
Click to expand...

As opposed to the ACLU's tactic of using a handful of liberal, unelected judges and the theat of litigation to force changes that the majority of Americans don't want?
Click to expand...

Go for tell your senator/govenor to change the constitution to due away with the bill of rights and judge altogether and lets see if your changes is supported.

I'm sure the funding fathers had no reason for appointed judges or the bill of rights.
 
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Let's take the issue directly to the American people rather than allowing the ACLU to use it's bullying tactics to force unwanted change.
Click to expand...

I agree Bush should add that to his anti-rights amendment. You could have all the bigiots get together and vote to outlaw gays, burning the flag, and make God official.
Click to expand...

As opposed to the ACLU's tactic of using a handful of liberal, unelected judges and the theat of litigation to force changes that the majority of Americans don't want?
Click to expand...

Go for tell your senator/govenor to change the constitution to due away with the bill of rights and judge altogether and lets see if your changes is supported.

I'm sure the funding fathers had no reason for appointed judges or the bill of rights.
Click to expand...

Nice try with the exteremist rhetoric but it ain't going to work. The fact of the matter is that the ACLU uses the threat of costly litigation to get the other side to back down. There's going to be a backlash because they are trying to force changes that the vast majority of Americans are against.
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Let's take the issue directly to the American people rather than allowing the ACLU to use it's bullying tactics to force unwanted change.
Click to expand...

[1970] Darn right. The vast majority is against them darkies sharing our schools. This here is a democracy. [/1970]
 
Originally posted by: oreagan
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Let's take the issue directly to the American people rather than allowing the ACLU to use it's bullying tactics to force unwanted change.
Click to expand...

[1970] Darn right. The vast majority is against them darkies sharing our schools. This here is a democracy. [/1970]
Click to expand...

Nice non-sequiteur. What does that have to do with the ACLU's tactics for taking religion out of the public square?
 
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Theres only one moderate on the Supreme Court and thats O'Conner, Souter, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Bryer are lean towards the left are varying degrees.
Click to expand...
Wow. Your definition of "moderate" and "left leaning" is eye opening in it's right wing bias, IMHO.

Addtionally, it simply does not jibe with your assertion in another thread that John Fitzgerald Kennedy's Senate voting record was "quite conservative".

You really can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

One, Im not right wing. Im agnostic. I support gay marriage. And I do not support the death penalty. Im for the decriminlization and tight regulation of most illegal drugs, as well as prostitution.

Sure I dont agree with abortion, affirmative action, welfare(social or corporate), govt spending or socialized healthcare, but that doesnt make me right wing, it makes me libertarian, well LP hasnt decided on what their stand on abortion is. I admit Im more hawkish than most libertarians, but thats the only issue I diverge from, and even then Im for decreased spending via consolidation of our forces by closing bases creating less overhead, and shutting down our bases in other countries.

It also doesnt help that I get most of those old geezers confused with eacher, specifcally Souter and Bryer, and Kennedy and Stevens. O'Conner is the only truely moderate person on the court. Thats why she is called the swing vote. Though you could probably say Souter is fairly moderate. IMHO the two most partisan on the court are Scalia and Ginsberg. Everyone else are varying degrees of conservative, moderate, and liberal. And if you take note, I said varying degrees of liberal, most are moderate liberal, Id say Bryer and Ginsberg are the only two liberal liberals, again of varying degrees, while the rest are moderatly liberal to varying degrees. Scalia and Reinhquest are rather far right, while Thomas typically just sits there and does nothing while concurring with Scalia and Reinhquest. I guess I was off on Kennedy, like i said I get him and Stevens confused. Im not an expert on the Supreme Court, I really only know about the people that get bashed for being partisan(Scalia, Thomas, Reinhquest and Ginsberg).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top