Skip to comments.
Judge in Dover case still fighting
Philadelphia Inquirer ^
| 05 June 2006
| Amy Worden
Posted on 06/05/2006 4:53:41 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 281-288 next last
To: PatrickHenry
I agree and support seperation of powers. Thats why I think the juducial branch should not be creating new laws nor ordering the legislative branch to create others.
To: VadeRetro
but it isn't true that the system should work that way or that we should openly root for such. A constant frustration I have here in FR is just that -- "Good Judge" = "Judicial Activism in judgements we like"; "Bad Judge" = "Judicial Activism in judgements we DON'T like."
They Shaivo threads were one example, abortion is another. I am personally against abortion, but to me it is the Fed should stay the heck out of it and let the States decide.
I believe the 10th Amendment is perhaps the most important, yet it loses in every case to any other concept (not even a clash of Amendments).
22
posted on
06/05/2006 5:22:59 PM PDT
by
freedumb2003
(Charles Hendrickson is FRee!!)
To: PatrickHenry
If you think about it, science is just the study of how Cthulhu did it.
Hmmm. If this thread gets switched to Religion, can I be banned for the above remark ex post facto?
23
posted on
06/05/2006 5:25:17 PM PDT
by
VadeRetro
(Faster than a speeding building; able to leap tall bullets at a single bound!)
To: freedumb2003
A constant frustration I have here in FR is just that -- "Good Judge" = "Judicial Activism in judgements we like"; "Bad Judge" = "Judicial Activism in judgements we DON'T like." Amen! (I know where THIS thread is going.)
24
posted on
06/05/2006 5:26:32 PM PDT
by
VadeRetro
(Faster than a speeding building; able to leap tall bullets at a single bound!)
To: Brilliant
"If he really wanted to enforce the Constitution, he'd declare the entire public school system unconstitutional."
Federally you would be correct; on a state level you are wrong. Most states (if not all, I have not checked) have constitutionally required government schools.
To: VadeRetro
Amen! (I know where THIS thread is going.) Hey, that clearly violates FRs separation of Church and State ;)
26
posted on
06/05/2006 5:29:53 PM PDT
by
freedumb2003
(Charles Hendrickson is FRee!!)
To: PatrickHenry
Typical liberal judge. He's now surrounded by liberal sycophants. I expect him to issue more disgusting rulings soon. Gotta keep up his popularity at the cocktail parties somehow.
There is no wall separating church and state. There's a limited clause that sets limits on the outer edges of church-state interaction, but nothing more.
Of course, some who support evolution just love this ruling, regardless of its historical correctness. To such people, it doesn't matter how they keep other views away, just so long as they are the only ones who have the ears of the children of this nation.
The proper answer to the question of whether ID teaching violates the "establishment clause" is a simple, "No." The accuracy of the ID theory or any other theory shouldn't matter when it comes to the CONSTITUTIONAL analysis of the situation. It's not unconstitutional to teach that 2+2=5, after all.
27
posted on
06/05/2006 5:30:58 PM PDT
by
NinoFan
To: King Prout
how long until this, too, gets smoked or frocked? ROFL!
28
posted on
06/05/2006 5:34:52 PM PDT
by
Right Wing Professor
(...and I'll have the roast duck with mango salsa.)
To: VadeRetro
Hmmm. If this thread gets switched to Religion, can I be banned for the above remark ex post facto? If this gets switched to Religion, I want someone to explain to me how Noah missed this "kind":
29
posted on
06/05/2006 5:38:50 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(Stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death--Heinlein)
To: Coyoteman
Not sure how you ride that but it would probably be fun.
30
posted on
06/05/2006 5:41:38 PM PDT
by
VadeRetro
(Faster than a speeding building; able to leap tall bullets at a single bound!)
To: PatrickHenry
". . . judges don't act according to bias or political agenda." Har har. And neither do scientists. s/
The Constitution prohibits incursions upon the free expression of ideas in any context, whether it be science, public schools, or private academies. It certainly is not favorable toward prohibiting a discussion of intelligent design in connection with organized matter that performs specific functions. This is a judge who, like a politician, decided whom he would like to please and acted accordingly, beginning with himself. This is also a judge who does not have the capacity to distinguish between a theory and it's implications.
To: Coyoteman
Part of me says I want one of those. Then again, I hate it when the cat misses the litter box.
32
posted on
06/05/2006 5:43:26 PM PDT
by
VadeRetro
(Faster than a speeding building; able to leap tall bullets at a single bound!)
To: SamuraiScot
b) he broke new ground in judicial overreach in presuming to tell the litigants what science is, rather than just ruling on the case and shutting up.
You are neglecting to mention that the defendants in the case specifically requested a ruling to this effect.
33
posted on
06/05/2006 5:44:09 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Fester Chugabrew
It certainly is not favorable toward prohibiting a discussion of intelligent design in connection with organized matter that performs specific functions.
Given that there is no blanket prohibition on such a subject, your statement is a non-sequitur. Moreover, given that you are the only individual who defines "Intelligent Design" as "organized matter performing specific functions", your statement is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
34
posted on
06/05/2006 5:46:50 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Coyoteman
probably due to absurd dietary requirements
35
posted on
06/05/2006 5:49:31 PM PDT
by
King Prout
(many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
To: Dimensio
Moreover, given that you are the only individual who defines "Intelligent Design" as "organized matter performing specific functions"...I think there's a word for doing it solo.
36
posted on
06/05/2006 5:50:19 PM PDT
by
js1138
(Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
To: VadeRetro
"
(I know where THIS thread is going.)" So do I,
and I really, really, regret the absolute tsunami of bile and arrogance that drives it.
If you can't dazzle 'em with (debate) then baffle them with (innuendo).
Oddly enough, I'm perfectly OK with someone disagreeing with me with a degree of respect - but tossing bombs is just SO islamist.
And, no, I neither know nor care what your side of the debate is, I am not directing comment toward your position or your self;
only toward the inevitable unraveling of anything FR is supposed to represent when crevo/evo links appear.
I'll respect either theory you put forth and I'll allow that you might be just as innocent of oiling the burning waters as I hope I am.
(My OPINION is that the Evo side simply cannot address dissent without a slathering of superiority complex mixed with knowledge that neither side can prove themselves "right" in terms of the dominant debate.
Evolution is observable, apparently sometimes reversible, and certainly logical.
It's the God versus convenient 'soup' thing that can't be proved, screws up the voltage, and [as I understand it] was only part of Darwin's contribution to evolution by osmosis from other contemporary and subsequent commentators.)
37
posted on
06/05/2006 5:52:01 PM PDT
by
norton
To: PatrickHenry
"If a poll shows a majority of Americans think we should teach creationism in schools, we should just go with the flow?" he asked. "There's this messy thing called the Constitution we have to deal with."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Should students be exposed to evolution against their will? Should they be forced into an environment that is hostile to their religious beliefs and actively undermines their most cherished family traditions?
If it is unconstitutional to subject students to creationism then it is unconstitutional to FORCE evolution on children believing in creationism.
So what about the Constitution?
1) It is IMPOSSIBLE for any education of the young to be religiously, politically, or culturally neutral. IMPOSSIBLE! That should automatically rule out any government involvement in education of the young. No matter what the government chooses regarding curriculum and policies, the government school WILL be establishing, promoting, and upholding the religious beliefs of some while actively, deliberately, and possibly maliciously trashing the religious beliefs of others.
2) All schools MUST restrict free speech, free press, free expression of religion, and free assembly. If they didn't chaos would reign. When government schools FORCE children into their centers and then tell them to shut up, ban their publications, restrict their religious practices, and tell them with whom they may or may not assemble, then government schools are TRASHING our state and federal constitutions.
What are government schools?
They are politically, culturally, and religious NON-neutral. They can and do threaten parents and children with armed police, court, and foster care action if the parents and children do not cooperate with them. Government schools have the power to sell at sheriff's auction the home and/or business of those citizens who refuse to hand over money to pay for the non-neutral government political, cultural, and religious indoctrination of government schools.
38
posted on
06/05/2006 5:53:12 PM PDT
by
wintertime
(Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
To: js1138
39
posted on
06/05/2006 5:54:30 PM PDT
by
King Prout
(many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
To: All
With deep respect for everyone's religious opinions, I ask you to please consider that this thread was not posted in the Religion Forum. It was intended for a discussion of the scientific, political, and legal issues in the lead article. If you want to discuss theology, which is certainly a worthy topic for discussion, then as a courtesy to those who prefer to discuss the secular issues, I urge you to start a new thread in the Religion Forum, which this website provides for that purpose. Thank you.
40
posted on
06/05/2006 5:54:34 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 281-288 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson