Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 General Skepticism
 US Supreme Court pusses out
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 06/14/2004 :  09:04:37  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message
The Pledge case has been decided......sort of.

The court decided to deny Newdow standing instead of ruling on the subject.

Cowards

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26022 Posts

Posted - 06/14/2004 :  10:24:55   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
I figured that'd happen. Dammit.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 06/14/2004 :  12:36:56   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
And this is supprising, how?


"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 06/14/2004 :  14:35:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
It's an easy out for them. If a parent who actually had custody of his child ever takes this up, they may have a chance. As long as Bush doesn't get to pick the next justice.....

Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

Gorgo
SFN Die Hard

USA
5310 Posts

Posted - 06/14/2004 :  14:53:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Gorgo a Private Message
The guy at the Washington Post said that Scalia recused himself (if recuse is the right word) and did not vote because of some comments that he made. From what I see, Newdow would have lost if Scalia had voted on the idea that In God We Trust is not unconstitutional. Here's a good analysis too:

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/092206.htm#more

I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter



Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26022 Posts

Posted - 06/14/2004 :  19:32:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
Gorgo wrote:
quote:
The guy at the Washington Post said that Scalia recused himself (if recuse is the right word) and did not vote because of some comments that he made.
Indeed, those comments were "critical" (to use the word of a New York Times reporter) of the earlier circuit-court decision that brought Newdow to the Supreme court. He made the comments prior to hearing Newdow's arguments before SCOTUS, and so basically said "my mind is made up" before ever speaking with the plaintiff. Not good for a Supreme.
quote:
From what I see, Newdow would have lost if Scalia had voted on the idea that In God We Trust is not unconstitutional.
Well, while all eight (nine minus Scalia) agreed that Newdow didn't have standing to bring the suit in the first place, only three of them went further to say that they thought the Pledge is Constitutional (using, if your cite is correct, lousy arguments). Scalia would make four, unless one of the other five is a Scalia puppet who decided to stay mum.

An NPR commentator said something about how finding "under God" to be unconstitutional would have been a political nightmare, and attempting to justify Newdow's standing would have been a legal and social nightmare (those nasty Feds interfering with California custody battles, etc.), so the SCOTUS took the easy way out of both problems. While I agree with Newdow's ideals, I've also got sympathy for the Supremes faced with such a hot-button issue. And I also wish someone other than Newdow had gotten there (someone with clear custody), to force the Justices' hands.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.08 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000