1 Ruling on 10 Commandments
This morning the Supreme Court ruled that displays of the 10 Commandments in two courthouses in Kentucky were unconstitutional. Justice Souter said, "When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates the central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality."I agree with this decisions and those like it which seek to maintain a separation of church and state. I think documents like the Ten Commandments have historical relevance in public places, but they must be presented in that context and not just thrown up on the wall.
By Kyle - 6/27/2005
6 Comments:
i agree with the ruling, but am not happy about it. now all the fake religious clowns are going to get all loud.
BRAVO!
The court finally gets one right!!
Liberal justices today actually agreed that the constitution protect individuals from government.
I was thinking today about the ridiculous supreme court ruling lately, and especially Kelo v New London.
I think it is so funny that liberal justices can use the 9th ammendment and the "tradition of protecting privacy rights" to protect individuals from government interference on abortion issues. Then, they turn around and rule that the 5th ammendment doesn't protect individuals from having their property rights stripped, and their houses given to a big corporation.
Obviously the government has a tradition of protecting property rights, and even more obviously, the 5th amendment protects property rights unless the land is taken for public use. Property rights are more grounded in our constitution than abortiuon rights, but liberals do not care about that silly constitution. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for abortion rights, I just don't get how one second the document can be used to protect individuals on such shaky ground, but all of the sudden, it doesn't protect individuals when the case is so much stronger.
Now, if you honestly believe that taking property from one person, and handing it over to a private corporation is public use, then you must be a liberal lawyer.
Jeff: "hey man, can I use your pencil a sec?"
Liberal lawyer: "sure dude"
--hands jeff a piece of paper with writing on it--
"read this article I wrote, it's about the leftist victory over property-rights extremeists!"
Jeff: "Can I use your pencil first?"
Liberal: "Reading this article IS using my pencil! You are so stupid, can't you see I wrote it in pencil?"
Jeff: No no, I want to actually use the pencil myself.
Liberal Lawyer: "Ok, Ok, you must be one of those silly libertarians or something, I'll try and talk slower, ok? Since this is written in pencil, and you'll benefit by reading it, OBVIOUSLY that makes you a user of my pencil..... You still look confused, need me to draw a picture?
Jeff: "I don't know if I should shove that pencil through my head or yours."
Just to clarify, I didn't mean the above post to be a direct attack on chuck. I realized after writing it that chuck is indeed a liberal lawyer. So if you wish, replace "liberal lawyer" with "liberal supreme court justice."
No offense was taken.
I have to say that I don't think its liberal lawyers that are handling such takings cases. It is big-time millionaire law firms, who serve millionaire corporate interests and millionaire developers
And I just think the rulings correspond with the judges (liberal) beliefs in strong powers for the government to serve the public. But i bet the results of such takings (shopping malls with millions of dollars going to developers) anger most liberals
the more i think about it, i hate all these property takings, because they just fill the pockets of rich guys.
No kidding
Seriously, who is gonna influence the gov't the most, a bunch of middle class suburbanites, or a multi-billion dollar corporation.
I was just thinking about that time you got angry and told me
"I hope your mom gets sexually harrassed at work today."
Maybe after you buy your first house and have kids some big oil company will take your land through eminent domain and drill for oil next to your tyke's new swing set.
But seriously, your not one of the judges who ruled the way they did, so I can't blame you. I just am very afraid of giving gov't power, I mean c'mon look at the people who just won the last election, maybe your local gov't will be the next one to host clowns like these. There's alot of stupid people out there willing to vote for a lot of stupid issues and shady politicians, that constitution is all we have to protect ourselves.
I guess I should be happy that at least they ruled pretty well on the ten-commandments case. Too bad they flucked up on that grokster case.
Post a Comment
<< Home