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

Court is in session in fifteen minutes...
1 posted on 06/27/2005 6:51:27 AM PDT by RobFromGa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last
To: RobFromGa

I am so outraged....WHAT THE HECK DO WE DO?? Our Capital in Texas houses one of those monuments and now they will have to take it down...I AM SO PISSED, you have no idea!! WHAT DO WE DO?? I'M SICK OF THOSE BASTARDS ruling against the people in crucial rulings, and siding with the criminals(ACLU)!! Will this be the straw that broke the camels back?? C'MON folk what do we do?


65 posted on 06/27/2005 7:17:23 AM PDT by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RobFromGa
I am the Supreme Court Justice,
thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Thou shalt bow down thyself to us, and serve us.

Thou shalt not take the name of the Supreme Court in vain:
for we will not hold him guiltless that taketh our name in
vain.

70 posted on 06/27/2005 7:18:04 AM PDT by NautiNurse ("I'd rather see someone go to work for a Republican campaign than sit on their butt."--Howard Dean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RobFromGa
Has the Supreme Court Shown the Hand of Authoritarian Free Enterprise?

116 posted on 06/27/2005 7:37:11 AM PDT by Happy2BMe ("Viva La Migra" - LONG LIVE THE BORDER PATROL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RobFromGa

I think SCOTUS is giving us the middle finger.


129 posted on 06/27/2005 7:42:16 AM PDT by Recall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All

Has anyone visited DU for their reactions?


137 posted on 06/27/2005 7:44:46 AM PDT by Chuck54 (Someone please ping me when Barak Obama utters an original thought.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RobFromGa; All

I'm sure you all have seen this, or will, but I'll ping it out nonetheless.

It's a shameful day, a shameful decision, a decision that mocks Truth with a capital T.

The Nazgul who voted that the 10 Commandments cannot be displayed because it's an endorsement (or whatever their foul words were) of religion, are thereby endorsing atheism.

If (some) people think that words and actions have no reaction, they're in for a verrrry bumpy ride. It's calling reaping what you sow - karma - the natural law that God has created. Everything we do and say will have some kind of reaction, sooner or later. There is no way we can avoid it. The laws of man are often unjust or unjustly applied; criminals "get away with it" all the time, and sometimes the innocent are punished.

But the laws of the universe that God has created are irreversible, inescapable, and always just. You and I may not see the result; that's ok. Perfect justice will happen. And it is all for our benefit; He wants us to become enlightened to the truth that He is the merciful and all powerful master, and we are (so many have forgotten) the loving servants.

So now the SCOTUS has said that having the basic rules given to mankind are VERBOTEN if it seems as though they are displayed in a serious manner. But it is just fine to put condoms on cucumbers in schools (also government facilities) and teach kids about every perverted method of sexual gratification.

The basic laws so that humans can be human are essentially the same in every monotheist religion. They are not sectarian. They are the foundation of all civilizations that rise above bestiality. They were given to mankind for our benefit. To reject them is to reject the good God Who gave them to us.

(Freepmail me if you want on/off the Moral Absolutes pinglist.)


183 posted on 06/27/2005 7:59:43 AM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RobFromGa
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200506%5CNAT20050627a.html

No Courtroom Display of Ten Commandments

(CNSNews.com) - In the now-familiar 5-4 ruling Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that two Kentucky courtrooms may not display framed copies of the Ten Commandments. But in a separate Texas case, the Supreme Court said Ten Commandments displays are allowed on public land.

The first major ruling involves framed copies of the Ten Commandments hanging in the McCreary and Pulaski County courtrooms.

Those framed copies could be construed as endorsing religion, the court ruled.

Writing for the majority, Justice David Souter said, "When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality."

The ruling said only "neutral" displays - in historical contexts, for example -- are permissible.

Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer, and Sandra Day O'Connor ruled with the majority.

One conservative group called the decision devastating.

"The Ten Commandments have played a crucial role in shaping the values and legal system of the United States and of all Western Civilization as is evident in many of the buildings here in Washington. In fact, the Supreme Court building itself boasts three different displays," said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council.

"This ruling by the Supreme Court is not only denigrating to our culture but it undermines the very laws we already have in place. Forbidding the Ten Commandments opens the door to hostility toward religion, which is contrary to the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment.

Perkins called the Kentucky ruling "contrary to the Constitutional history of this country." He added that banning public displays of the Ten Commandments runs counter to the nation's legacy of religious freedom and religious tolerance.

Thomas Mikulski, director of governmental affairs for the Family Research Council, told Cybercast News Service that Justice Sandra Day O'Conner "has been a disappointment to the people who fought for her nomination in the 1980s under President Ronald Reagan."

He said rulings such as the Kentucky Ten Commandments case, where O'Connor provided the swing vote, "show the "importance of having a strict constitutionalist appointed to the bench."

Texas display okay

In a separate case, the Supreme Court ruled that a granite Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the State Capitol in Austin is constitutional.

The Family Research Council called that ruling a "bittersweet victory for religious freedom." Tony Perkins, FRC president, said he disagrees with the Court's decision on the Kentucky case, "but we welcome the court's decision to uphold the right to display the Ten Commandments on public property in Texas." According to Perkins, the Founding Fathers "never intended the Establishment Clause to be used to remove monuments and displays which educate people about the basis of our system of laws."


212 posted on 06/27/2005 8:21:08 AM PDT by ppaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RobFromGa
I've gotta head out now, but I wanted to Thank You for starting this thread, Rob. It beats having to endure the talking heads on TV.

*BTW - I'd love to know your source for getting SCOTUS rulings so quickly

223 posted on 06/27/2005 8:36:30 AM PDT by lunarbicep ("Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve." - G. B. Shaw)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RobFromGa

Hi Rob, just in... Do you have a short version of everything up to now, gotta hop soon...can't read the thread till later.


254 posted on 06/27/2005 10:41:41 AM PDT by AliVeritas (Ignorance is a condition. Stupidity is a strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RobFromGa

MGM V. GROKSTER
June 27, 2005

In a unanimous decision written by Justice David Souter, the U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of record labels and Hollywood movie studios against Peer-to-Peer ("P2P") file-sharing services, holding that distributors of "a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright...[are] liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties."

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/04-480.html

The Studios' Lead Lawyer
http://pview.findlaw.com/view/3292042_1

The File-Sharing Services' Lead Lawyer
http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1954885_1

Read The Case Docket
http://rd.findlaw.com/scripts/nl.pl?url=11198556002_nl

RIAA Litigation
http://news


256 posted on 06/27/2005 11:36:02 AM PDT by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RobFromGa
RULINGS IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT'S TEN COMMANDMENTS CASES
257 posted on 06/27/2005 11:36:37 AM PDT by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RobFromGa
The New Motto Of The United States

In a 5-4 Decision We Trust

258 posted on 06/27/2005 12:00:56 PM PDT by devnull (In a 5-4 Decision We Trust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last

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