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

To: angkor
It's worth noting that the Supremes haven't ruled against Judge Roy yet. They simply refused to grant him an emergency stay. All that means is that they don't see where he's in danger of irrevocable harm. They can still elect to hear an appeal of the latest Appeals Court decision on it's merits, and even decide in his favor (the former may happen; I'll bet against the latter though).
168 posted on 08/21/2003 3:01:03 PM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: RonF
It's worth noting that the Supremes haven't ruled against Judge Roy yet. They simply refused to grant him an emergency stay. All that means is that they don't see where he's in danger of irrevocable harm. They can still elect to hear an appeal of the latest Appeals Court decision on it's merits, and even decide in his favor (the former may happen; I'll bet against the latter though).

You make an important distinction, that needs to be understood. However, your final conclusion is rather sad. While the majority that voted against Texas on Sodomy might well rule against Mr. Justice Moore, there is not a sound legal basis for such a ruling. Anyone who understands the ordinary meaning of the English language will appreciate how completely and absurdly stretched the whole skein of anti-religious cases has become.

Note that what the First Amendment prohibits Congress--not the States--from doing, is making any law respecting an establishment of religion. That doesn't just mean they cannot establish a religion; they cannot deal with any of the existing establishments of religion that still existed in some States. How can the theoretical application of the First Amendment to the States, by reason of the 14th Amendment, extend a power to the Federal Courts to do the exact opposite of what the Amendment seeks to accomplish?!

Let us say, theoretically, that Justice Moore's position is not just to honor the Biblical roots of Western Law, but the extreme end that the anti-religious wackos would accuse him of--i.e. that he is seeking to preserve an established religion. That is the very thing that the Federal Government, in the form of Congressional legislation, is forbidden to deal with. There is no way that prohibition rationally translates into an empowerment of the Federal Judiciary to interfere in what Congress was forbidden to touch.

Those that consider these cases acceptable interpretation, have lost sight of the very great actual diversity in the values of the States that created our Federal Union, and their mutual toleration for their respective rights to maintain those separate and diverse cultures, while still working together for those purposes that they did in fact have in common. In these anti-religious decisions, the Courts are embracing a new fanaticism, where the most basic cultural as well as religious rights of our respective peoples are being subordinated to a Collectivist Socialist norm, being imposed by theorists without a semblance of legal or rational justification.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

171 posted on 08/21/2003 3:54:45 PM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | 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