Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is because you are not reading those words in the context of the rest of the constitution. The 14th Amendment via the due process clause incorporates the 1st Amendment.
I didn't know that the modern interpretation of the Constitution tied the 14th Amendment to the 1st. I wonder if the people who proposed the 14th Amendment had that in mind. Somehow I think they were just thinking that they were protecting former slaves. I don't even think they were thinking about the children of illegal aliens. Interpretation of the document does certainly depend on who is doing the interpretation, I think.
I very much doubt if there is only one atheist in that town...There are probably many but they are afraid they might be burned at the stake by violent Christians...Christians are known for that.
Can you point out the last time Christians burned anybody at the stake? I wonder if that is still considered good practice.
Same exact scenario as in my local town. For over 50 years they put a star on a fire tower up at Christmas and a cross at Easter. Then a lone atheist complained and the ACLU stepped in to force the removal on grounds it was public property. The mayor refused and said take us to court. The cross is( long ago) paid for by private funds and maintained by private funds. If any other religious group wants to put up a symbol on the tower they are free to do so if they pay for it. The city overwhelmingly wanted it to stay and were willing to donate to fight them in court. The ACLU backed down and the person who wanted it removed dropped the suit.
Call their bluff. Take them to court. Drag the person in who wanted it removed and expose them to public scrutiny.
I can't find the Internet in there anywhere either.
The Constitution is interpreted by the courts in the context of our time. To do otherwise is just stupid.
And every GD decision that is handed down seems to be thought either right or wrong determined by the political bias of those considering it. For example, which court has had the most reversals from the Supreme Court the past few years? Is there a reason for that or are their biases different than most of the rest in the nation?
Go ahead and look at decisions without bias and then tell me about that context of our time. The 9th Judicial Circuit has caused more trouble in the last few years than all the rest put together. Wouldn't it be nice to get their political thoughts out of their heads and for them to become unbiased? I think it would.
Same exact scenario as in my local town. For over 50 years they put a star on a fire tower up at Christmas and a cross at Easter. Then a lone atheist complained and the ACLU stepped in to force the removal on grounds it was public property.
And rightly so. Christians have to obey the same laws as everyone else in this country.
Quote:
The mayor refused and said take us to court. The cross is( long ago) paid for by private funds and maintained by private funds.
But is it on public property? Just paying for it with private funds doesn't disconnect the governmental nexus.
Quote:
If any other religious group wants to put up a symbol on the tower they are free to do so if they pay for it.
And they would also be violating the Establishment clause. The law applies to every religion.
Quote:
The city overwhelmingly wanted it to stay and were willing to donate to fight them in court.
When the majority wants something that is against the law, we should allow it?
Since when? Are we not a nation of laws?
Quote:
The ACLU backed down and the person who wanted it removed dropped the suit.
I suspect there is more to this story than what you are relating here. If the plaintiff backed off, it's possible (probable) that the ACLU could not gain party status and was prevented from continuing the suit on its own.
Quote:
Call their bluff. Take them to court. Drag the person in who wanted it removed and expose them to public scrutiny.
Not a fan of the US Constitution, I see. Why stop there? Why not stone them to death?
And every GD decision that is handed down seems to be thought either right or wrong determined by the political bias of those considering it.
Not political, legal. And it only SEEMS so to people who don't understand how the system works.
Quote:
For example, which court has had the most reversals from the Supreme Court the past few years? Is there a reason for that or are their biases different than most of the rest in the nation?
The 9th Circuit, I believe. It's not as political as you think - California has a huge and diverse population which tends to generate more legal issues than, say, a state like Oklahoma. They 9th has the dubious honor of having to sort all this stuff out, and so naturally they get to deal with more issues, and more wacky issues, than other courts.
We see the same thing to a lesser degree in the courts of Florida, NY and Texas. Along with California, they are the leaders in development of new case law.
We don't get much of that out of Idaho or southcentral Kansas, for simple reasons of demographics.
Quote:
Go ahead and look at decisions without bias and then tell me about that context of our time.
I have, in fact I've literally spent decades studying it. I've written about it. I've even taught graduate and undergraduate students about it.
I hate to keep telling you this, Roy, but not everything you read in right-wing op-ed pieces and blogs is true or accurate.
Quote:
The 9th Judicial Circuit has caused more trouble in the last few years than all the rest put together.
Define "trouble." Is it decisions that you do not personally agree with? If it wasn't the 9th causing legal ruckus, some other court would fill the slot (like the 11th) and you would be arguing about them instead. California is HUGE and DIVERSE. It's a matter of demographics.
Quote:
Wouldn't it be nice to get their political thoughts out of their heads and for them to become unbiased? I think it would.
Courts don't file the cases that come before them, people do. Again, demographics.
The 9th Circuit, I believe. It's not as political as you think - California has a huge and diverse population which tends to generate more legal issues than, say, a state like Oklahoma. They 9th has the dubious honor of having to sort all this stuff out, and so naturally they get to deal with more issues, and more wacky issues, than other courts.
I have, in fact I've literally spent decades studying it. I've written about it. I've even taught graduate and undergraduate students about it.
I hate to keep telling you this, Roy, but not everything you read in right-wing op-ed pieces and blogs is true or accurate.
Courts don't file the cases that come before them, people do. Again, demographics.
The 9th Circuit does get a high number of wacky cases, as you say, and then the Supreme Court has to shuffle through their decisions and too many of them have to be reversed. I believe that they have, what, 2/3 of their justices appointed by left leaning presidents. Seldom do you see anything other than the entire group making decisions where there is a 2 - 1 vote.
I think that I understand the system well enough to understand everything you say here, but maybe you don't teach those graduates and undergrads with a totally unbiased perspective. About two years ago a man who had served about 10 years on our state Supreme Court died and I lost one of my favorite lefty arguers. I can't speak to how he voted on most cases but too many times he went just as I thought he would and as the Governor who appointed him wanted him to go.
The 9th Circuit does get a high number of wacky cases, as you say, and then the Supreme Court has to shuffle through their decisions and too many of them have to be reversed.
How many is "too many?"
Wackier cases get reversed more often, it's their nature.
Quote:
I believe that they have, what, 2/3 of their justices appointed by left leaning presidents. Seldom do you see anything other than the entire group making decisions where there is a 2 - 1 vote.
I'm not saying that judges are completely immune to political bias, but you also have to understand that unless overruled by the SCOTUS, they are bound by their own previous decisions - as are all the courts under them. Most cases are declined by the SCOTUS, which means the 9th Circuit gets the last word, and has to stick by their decisions unless and until the SCOTUS tells them otherwise (or if a novel fact pattern or statutory change causes them to distinguish a case from a previous decision).
Quote:
I think that I understand the system well enough to understand everything you say here, but maybe you don't teach those graduates and undergrads with a totally unbiased perspective.
I don't teach anymore, but I was very careful not to editorialize. That's not how to teach law to anyone. I taught the case law and used the Socratic method - the students can draw their own conclusions, and were graded on how well they understood the reasoning of the court - whether they agree with it or not. Most law professors (I didn't teach in law school) hold themselves above that sort of thing...but no one is completely immune to bias.
Quote:
About two years ago a man who had served about 10 years on our state Supreme Court died and I lost one of my favorite lefty arguers. I can't speak to how he voted on most cases but too many times he went just as I thought he would and as the Governor who appointed him wanted him to go.
Judges are human.
Thank God. For all the whining that people do, our system really does work pretty well overall. The downside of having a reactive, organic legal system is that it can be really, really complicated sometimes.
In your town is there a law that says the one poor soul can't move out of the city limits? I didn't know any place had a law like that.
Aw, the poor sniveling, whining Christians of that town, being persecuted by the one evil, godless atheist that lives there, but hey, that is what Christians do best.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For all the whining that people do, our system really does work pretty well overall. The downside of having a reactive, organic legal system is that it can be really, really complicated sometimes.
