[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Yes, I conceded that they were right to throw it out already. But how about the Lawrence case? If they ruled on precedent, they should have thrown it out, recognizing Texas' right to legislate in these matters. If they ruled on the actual case, they should have only said that Texas' law was inconsistent in that it allowed sodomy in some cases and not others. But no. They were eager to change the law. And they blathered on with such grandstanding that now state justices are citing the case as an excuse to mandate gay marriage.

The court takes what it WANTS to take, not what it should take. In my opinion, they ruled this way on the Newdow case because they were scared to rule consistently with previous rulings. That's all. They are saving it for another day.

[Valpal1]

.... because they were scared to rule consistently with previous rulings. That's all. They are saving it for another day.

You are absolutely correct. The libs don't want another issue to arouse flyover country in an election year. They want to elect as many demoncrats as possible this fall, then settle the gay marriage issue first. They know that the ACLU can drum up a plaintiff to sue again any time they feel the political landscape is back in their favor.

Right now there are too many organizations working on the recall or impeachment of judges and John Q. Public is already upset about judicial activism. They are just waiting for the opportune moment.

See http://www.article8alliance.org and help them remove the 4 activist judges who are bringing gay marriage to the U.S.