Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past; joanie-f; FBD; scholar
"Gutless. This settles nothing. In my opinion, they just couldn't rule because they didn't want to look like fools, yet to be consistent with past rulings, they would have had to rule 'Under God' unconsitutional. This was the chicken way out."

That's exactly what the pack of robed, cowardly SOBs did again, too.

The a-hole will be back to get those two words removed as sure as God made little green apples.

Only next time, there'll be no "technicalities".

...for the USSC to use in obfuscating their lawful responsibily.

36 posted on 06/14/2004 7:44:30 AM PDT by Landru (Indulgences: 2 for a buck.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: Landru
The a-hole will be back to get those two words removed as sure as God made little green apples.

It won't be him, unless he gets custody of his daughter. It can be someobody else who does have custody of their kid, however.

SCOTUS did the right thing here. Whatever the merits of this case, this guy had no standing to sue.

I don't think this is the last we'll be hearing of this issue, though.

68 posted on 06/14/2004 8:10:42 AM PDT by Modernman ("I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members" -Groucho Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

To: Landru

I keep waiting for some of these Supreemies to be called to their Heavenly (or Hellacious) Reward.

They do seem to have unnaturally long life spans.


108 posted on 06/14/2004 9:52:33 AM PDT by Palladin (Proud to be a FReeper!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

To: Landru
Thanks for the ping, Dan.

I don't believe the court had any choice but to rule as it did today. But the issue will rise again, filed by a Newdow clone with an itchy trigger finger and God in his crosshairs. And when the case is finally heard, it will be interesting to see how O’Connor, Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, or Stevens (or a combination of the above judicial tyrants) borrow excerpts from the Constitution of Kyrgyzstan, or legal precedents from Mauritanian law to remove any mention of God from the American pledge.

P.S. I have beautiful framed copy of the twenty-third Psalm above my desk in my municipal building office. Back in April, for the first time in the twenty-one years that I have been in my position, a township resident who came in to talk with me mentioned (in a courteous way) that he did not believe that such a ‘religious text’ belonged in an office in a government building. We spent a good twenty minutes discussing the issue (during which I attempted to inform him about the Christian underpinnings upon which this country was founded, that I was not foisting my religion on anyone else, and the fact that the Constitutional requirement for separation of church and state is a figment of the leftist, secular humanist imagination). He was not convinced. I braced myself for the receipt of an official complaint, but so far (two months later) no sign of one. I figure either I did plant a seed in at least semi-fertile soil or he decided it wasn’t worth the hassle (I’m placing heavy odds on the latter).

~ joanie

166 posted on 06/14/2004 9:33:10 PM PDT by joanie-f (Pat Toomey ... his time will come ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson