Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
mtnyoung
Trad climber
Twain Harte, California
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - May 5, 2014 - 10:16pm PT
|
Not this Supreme Court.
Counting the days until "Justices" Scalia and Thomas retire.*
* What does one call a lawyer with an IQ of 80?
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Oregon
|
|
* What does one call a lawyer with an IQ of 80?
Managing partner?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
a Supreme Court Justice
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Here, here.
There should be term limits for extremists like those guys.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
* What does one call a lawyer with an IQ of 80? Clarence Thomas. Thank you John McCain, Orrin Hatch and George HW Bush.
I believe you Anita! (Anita Hill)
mtnyoung
just out of curiosity which clause are you concerned with?
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Oregon
|
|
In a related story, the NIH has decided to stop using rats in their science experiments.
They will instead use licensed attorneys.
The reason is three fold:
1) they aren't as likable as rats.
2). There are more of them, so easier to procure.
3) there are some things you just can't get a rat to do.
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Oregon
|
|
just out of curiosity which clause are you concerned with?
It is pretty short. One sentence, in fact:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
Donald Sterlings bimbos...Not...
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Brujo de la Playa
|
|
Zone or man-to-man? Man-to-man, I'm going with Bill Russell.
Zone? Full or half-court?
|
|
mtnyoung
Trad climber
Twain Harte, California
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 5, 2014 - 10:43pm PT
|
mtnyoung
just out of curiosity which clause are you concerned with?
(From a CNN story, for example):
"If you don't like it, leave the room.
That's the essence of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's advice for atheists and others who object to sectarian prayers before government meetings.
In a 5-4 decision written by Kennedy, the Supreme Court allowed Greece, New York, to continue hosting prayers before its monthly town board meetings - even though an atheist and a Jewish citizen complained that the benedictions are almost always explicitly Christian."
I absolutely loved Justice (with a capital "J," which she deserves) Kagan's comment in her dissent (from the same article):
"To illustrate her point, Kagan, who is Jewish, raises a hypothetical scenario.
Let's say there's a Muslim resident of Greece, New York, who appears before the town board to share her policy views or request a permit.
Just before the Muslim woman makes her argument, a minister "deputized by the town" asks the room to pray in the name of "God's only son Jesus Christ."
With less than a dozen people the room, every action is noticed.
So, the Muslim woman has two choices, Kagan argues: 1) Go along with the majority and pray, despite her religious objections, or 2) Risk causing some kind of disturbance or public disagreement with the very people she is trying to persuade.
"And thus she stands at a remove, based solely on religion, from her fellow citizens and her elected representatives," Kagan writes.
|
|
mtnyoung
Trad climber
Twain Harte, California
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 5, 2014 - 10:45pm PT
|
Oh, and the answer is: "your honor."
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
SCOTUS made the right call. Preventing the prayer would have been in violation of the 1st Amendment. Making a Fed Law preventing the 'free expression' of religion.
Nobody is compelling anyone to pray in these meetings. They simply have chosen to allow various groups to pray. Free expression.
|
|
Greg Barnes
climber
|
|
Another nail in the coffin for public respect of the Supreme Court.
By now no one expects anything but partisan politics out of the "independent" branch of government.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
The First Amendment automatically defends it's own self.
Nothing can ever destroy it, ever.
That's why it's capitalized also.
It always remains supreme.
It may become out of sight at times due to circumstance but it's illumination never extinguishes.
Just as the sun at times is out of our sight but it always is shining ......
|
|
mtnyoung
Trad climber
Twain Harte, California
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 5, 2014 - 11:09pm PT
|
They simply have chosen to allow various groups to pray. Free expression.
Bluering, how often do "various" groups get to pray? Are you really that vapid?
Look "Bluey," let's be honest. I've never met you. Everything I know about you I know from years of reading Supertopo.
I've gained the impression from that reading that you are an honorable and good husband and an excellent father. Those are two of the most important things a man can ever do. Good on you.; be proud of and happy for yourself.
But your political views are total nonsense. The only difference between most of your views and most views of a hard line islamist (I don't' think you like them much do you) is that you call yourself a "Christian" and they call themselves "Muslim."
Do us all a favor and read the tiny quote from Justice Kagan's dissent that I posted above. Actually read it. There, thanks.
Now, put yourself, as a Christian man into the situation where you're asking from or presenting to a small governing body that is of a different religion than you are (say, Muslim for example). Still "free expression?" Or is the subtle and unspoken intimidation you feel fair to all?
|
|
mtnyoung
Trad climber
Twain Harte, California
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 5, 2014 - 11:21pm PT
|
Dave:
All of us in support of the mosque were very proud of our city that day.
And well you should have been. Board members John Telesion and Ron Guerriero sound like true and great Americans.
I believe it is possible for people to seek divine guidance from their faith and still be objective about the faith of others.
I totally agree.
Two of my best friends are Christians whose beliefs I totally respect because they practice exactly what you've just "preached."
What I disagree about is that our government should support any such group over another. Even if that support is only tacit (certainly no-one is arguing that prayer itself or attendance at it should be compelled).
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
"To illustrate her point, Kagan, who is Jewish, raises a hypothetical scenario.
Let's say there's a Muslim resident of Greece, New York, who appears before the town board to share her policy views or request a permit.
Just before the Muslim woman makes her argument, a minister "deputized by the town" asks the room to pray in the name of "God's only son Jesus Christ."
With less than a dozen people the room, every action is noticed.
So, the Muslim woman has two choices, Kagan argues: 1) Go along with the majority and pray, despite her religious objections, or 2) Risk causing some kind of disturbance or public disagreement with the very people she is trying to persuade.
"And thus she stands at a remove, based solely on religion, from her fellow citizens and her elected representatives," Kagan writes.
I fail to see the wisdom of this argument.
|
|
mtnyoung
Trad climber
Twain Harte, California
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 5, 2014 - 11:34pm PT
|
I fail to see the wisdom of this argument.
Well, thank you for at least reading it then.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
This is just another truly disgusting Supreme Court decision, backed by a majority who paint themselves as Constitutional literalists,
So what do these "literalists" do?
They ignore the Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Fookin Christo-fascists.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!