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.
I don't get why any religion feels they need to start a freakin' meeting with a prayer to anything. Just get down to business and stop screwing around with the superstitious nonsense.
Can you provide me a Canadian citizenship? I am actually willing to move there where Christians are being exclusively promoted and has no Establishment Clause discrimination! Until there is no free movement between USA and Canada, I will continue to pray in public and promote Christianity based on freedom from the First Amendment.
No, it now allows public Christian prayers nationwide since it was a US Supreme Court case, not a lower state/municipal court case.
Wait....what?
Christians are being exclusively promoted? What are you talking about?
I think picking Supreme Court justices based upon religion might be the dumbest thing I've heard today.
They do things like that in countries where different ethnic and religious communities have been at war with one another for centuries, but this is not what the US needs.
They do things like that in countries where different ethnic and religious communities have been at war with one another for centuries, but this is not what the US needs.
Ah cmon, we need our own Supreme Council just like Iran!
My spouse is Jewish actually, but is tolerant and acceptable and respectful of Christianity, the majority religion.
I'm not Anti-Semitic at all... I want to have a fair government.
Then you should advocate getting ALL religion out of our government. That's the only way to have the "fair government" you seek.
Do you believe we should be able to elect new U.S. Supreme Court justices? Right now we have 6 Catholics and 3 Jewish, and obviously most of them are biased and vote based on their religious and belief preference regardless of what the Constitution says. It is very sad and sickening how for example the 3 Jewish justices voted against predominately Christian public prayers at the case Town of Greece v. Galloway, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-696 when an atheist and Jewish resident filed lawsuit because they felt discriminated against having Christian prayers at a public meeting in a predominately Christian town and majority Christian country. It feels like the Jewish justices are against anything about Christianity, and I wouldn't be surprised if they would vote against Christmas as national holiday and removing the Gregorian/Christian calendar because it is based on Christ' birth year.
Time to elect new U.S. Supreme Court justices
So in America 78% are Christians; 2% Christians; 0.6% Muslims; 16% no religion, 4% other. Based on that we should have then 6 Christians, 1 Jew, 1 Muslim, 1 no religion.
Supreme Court Justices are not elected, and there is a valid reason that they are not. Why not study the Constitution and find out.
78% profess to be Christians. A Christian would strongly support his religion and faith, promote and boast it publicly and proudly just like the early Christians did and many still do. I am still disappointed by the majority of the congress who are afraid repealing the First Amendment so none of these issues would ever occur. 90% of congress are "Christians" so obviously they can do whatever they want.
Pride that stems from self righteousness is a sin. Pride is essentially self worship.
There's only one way to judge who is or isn't a true Christian, and it's way above our pay grades. Leave it to the expert. He'll take care of it later. It's not my job.
We have a very nifty provision in our constitution that really tempers the decisions made by the supreme court and at the same time puts limits on the political power of the government. It's called "The notwithstanding clause". If the court makes a decision the government really thinks is incorrect for whatever reason the can invoke this clause. This invocation makes the court's decision null and void and the government's position on the matter stands. That overriding of the decision is only good for 5 years at which time it has to be renewed. If the notwithstanding was seen by the people as something bad then the government would most likely be defeated come election time.
The political risks of over riding the supreme court are so great that the clause has only been used once in the 22 years it has been in force. This is the tempering of the political power. At the same time, the court surely does not want to be made moote by being over ridden and so therefore makes decisions that can not be seen as legislating from the bench.
Another aspect that would surely be interesting if the USA had such a thing as a not withstanding clause is that each State or Province as it is in Canada also has this power to over ride the federal Supreme court's decisions. That was the only time it has been used so far. Quebec used it to nullify the courts decision on it's clearly unconstitutional language law, Bill 101.
It's not true that the clause has only been used once. It's been used on a few occasions and not only by Quebec.
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.
