1 posted on
10/01/2006 5:14:45 PM PDT by
Checkers
To: Checkers
Five bucks says that this Chemerinskty is either an atheist,a "reform" Jew or a Unitarian/Universalist.
(Not there's any difference between the three)
2 posted on
10/01/2006 5:21:22 PM PDT by
Gay State Conservative
("An empty limousine pulled up and Hillary Clinton got out")
To: Checkers
Oh, the lame ignorant partisan Wilson Plame lawyer speaks. He is going to get his ass handed to him in a very big way if the Wilson Plame lawsuit makes it to trial. Oh, BTW how did this guy ever become so famous, since I can not think of one case of substance he has ever won.
3 posted on
10/01/2006 5:21:43 PM PDT by
jrooney
( Hold your cards close.)
To: Checkers
Erwin also believes that private education in the United States should be made illegal so Christians can be compelled to attend public schools and get a 'proper education.'
I like how Erwin treats the establishment clause as a backwards civil rights guarantee to protect all Americans from religion. The Establishment clause was designed to protect state establishments of religion and prevent any measure of what Erwin is imagining. Erwin thinks the establishment clause is a private bulldozer suited to the demolition of all public religious institutions that can be demonstrated to have any connection to a tax base.
To: Checkers
5 posted on
10/01/2006 5:25:46 PM PDT by
Thud
To: Checkers
Congress rightly recognized that attorneys who bring such actions are serving society's interests by stopping the government from violating the Constitution.
And now Congress is rightly recognizing that attorneys bringing such actions are harming society's interest by restricting the free exercise of religion.
6 posted on
10/01/2006 5:25:57 PM PDT by
ThePythonicCow
(We are but Seekers of Truth, not the Source.)
To: Checkers
....enforcement of the First Amendment's separation of church and state. Ummm....Erwin. I think you need to read the 1st Amendment a little more carefully. Try again.
12 posted on
10/01/2006 5:33:07 PM PDT by
Bloody Sam Roberts
(I can't complain...but sometimes I still do.)
To: Checkers
Erwin Chemerinsky is red diaper communist who has an uncanny ability to be on the wrong side of every issue.
13 posted on
10/01/2006 5:38:13 PM PDT by
ARE SOLE
To: Checkers
So far to the left that he fell off the scale.
I enjoy listening to Hugh Hewitt take him apart on a regular basis on his radio show.
To: Checkers
"The bill has only one purpose: to prevent suits challenging unconstitutional government actions advancing religion."
That is a flat out lie. The bill keeps the ACLU from using my tax money to destroy my country and to support the Islamic terrorist.
16 posted on
10/01/2006 6:00:01 PM PDT by
YOUGOTIT
To: Checkers
17 posted on
10/01/2006 6:06:22 PM PDT by
mirkwood
(Gun control isn't about guns. It's about control.)
To: Checkers
Excuse me, Professor--where did the Constitution allow provision of litigants in ANY suit at law with free attorneys on the federal taxpayers' dime? I must have missed that!
22 posted on
10/01/2006 6:09:34 PM PDT by
LibertarianInExile
(Mark Foley is what happens when personal character isn't relevant to voters or party leaders.)
To: Checkers
32 posted on
10/01/2006 6:22:51 PM PDT by
Checkers
To: Checkers
FYI: Another name for BARF is Regurgitate.</p>
To: Checkers
. . .the First Amendment's separation of church and state. He can't be referring to the United States Constitution.
36 posted on
10/01/2006 6:28:23 PM PDT by
TravisBickle
(Are you talkin' to me?)
To: Checkers
undermines enforcement of the First Amendment's separation of church and state How can you undermine enforcement of a non-existent prinicple? There is NO separation of church and state!
37 posted on
10/01/2006 7:49:03 PM PDT by
LiteKeeper
(Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
To: Checkers
Hugh Hewitt understands the power of logic and reason, and of the original intent of the Constitution. He gives Chemerinskty a radio forum because he illustrates the "best" arguments that the left has, and those are mainly specious and misleading. Too often, Chemerinskty shows us why we are burdened by the modern liberal "activist" court, and why they do not care what original intent is, as they will argue against it when it suits their agenda, and yet bring up original intent when it suits that same agenda. This is more than disingenuous, it is intellectually corrupt, and a threat to the individual freedoms the Constitution protects.
To: Checkers
The 1st Amendment protects the rights of individuals to practice their faith....not just in private . But according to the dictates of their own conscience.
Forcing anyone to take part in activity that violates their code of ethics is a religion in and of itself. More accurately a bullying cult.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson