Quote from Madison:
they clearly ducked it - they based the lack of standing on custody claims on the child that arose after the suit was filed. do you really think a custody claim was the reason the case made it to the supreme court? LOL.
Precisely.
I think some of the people here are just objecting to
Dave Silvermans choice of words when he said:
"The court ducked the issue, which means that a legal conflict still exists,"
And clearly they did. We were ROBBED of the long awaited decision
on the CORE issue of separation of church and state in the schools.
It stands today as UNADDRESSED.
So did the supreme court rule on the custody issue as a way
to avoid having to rule on the CORE issue? Maybe. Maybe not.
As you pointed out, it does clean up some political lose ends nicely
peace
axeman
Supreme court ducks the issue
- Thread starter axeman
- Start date
Oh, the verbiage is not yours.
Ok, then why not quote the source when you used the verbiage?
Are you simply a parrot of an atheist group?
There was no reason to address the core issue, if the case could be dismissed and avoided on technical issues.
This is very common.
They are saying in effect, bring back the case when you have done everything properly to the point when it cannot be dismissed on a technical basis.
In this way, by dismissing it on technical grounds, if a similar case is brought forth that is free of technical issues, no one can argue their actual juducial decision was technically influenced. The ruling was not judicial in the classic sense of the issue, but on the merit of the case technically, and it should not be evaluated if the technical grounds are not present. The Supreme Court has plenty to do with properly and technically grounded appeals.
That the group or individuals that sponsored the case to begin with did not get the ruling they wanted, and call it "ducking the case", means they don't completely understand the system, the law, and the need for every single technical ground to be covered before the issues at the heart of the case can be addressed.
The court is telling those who want to really address the issue of church and state to bring them something clean, not muddled with other issues of who is actually filing a suit, or qualified to file a suit.
Bottom line, they did the right thing, as you rarely see a court with both conservatives and liberals agree without dissent.
Your side lost, they are pissed, so what else is new?
Ok, then why not quote the source when you used the verbiage?
Are you simply a parrot of an atheist group?
There was no reason to address the core issue, if the case could be dismissed and avoided on technical issues.
This is very common.
They are saying in effect, bring back the case when you have done everything properly to the point when it cannot be dismissed on a technical basis.
In this way, by dismissing it on technical grounds, if a similar case is brought forth that is free of technical issues, no one can argue their actual juducial decision was technically influenced. The ruling was not judicial in the classic sense of the issue, but on the merit of the case technically, and it should not be evaluated if the technical grounds are not present. The Supreme Court has plenty to do with properly and technically grounded appeals.
That the group or individuals that sponsored the case to begin with did not get the ruling they wanted, and call it "ducking the case", means they don't completely understand the system, the law, and the need for every single technical ground to be covered before the issues at the heart of the case can be addressed.
The court is telling those who want to really address the issue of church and state to bring them something clean, not muddled with other issues of who is actually filing a suit, or qualified to file a suit.
Bottom line, they did the right thing, as you rarely see a court with both conservatives and liberals agree without dissent.
Your side lost, they are pissed, so what else is new?
axeman
Elite Member
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 3334
06-15-04 09:11 AM
Its clear they ducked the main issue, its not even arguable.
Guess we will have to wait for someone else with a stronger
legal standing to push the issue.
But its obvious the court really doesn't want to have to deal with it.
I wonder why
peace
axeman
-----------------------------------------------------------
No, it is not clear they "ducked" the issue.
That is an OPINION, not a fact. It is arguable, and your responsibility to make a case, which you haven't.
You can be pissed, that's understandable, that happens often when people lose.
Question is, is it your opinion, or are you parroting the opinion of others?
If it is your opinion, back it up with fact.
Or are you just a parrot?
Make a case, give us proof.
Elite Member
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 3334
06-15-04 09:11 AM
Its clear they ducked the main issue, its not even arguable.
Guess we will have to wait for someone else with a stronger
legal standing to push the issue.
But its obvious the court really doesn't want to have to deal with it.
I wonder why
peace
axeman
-----------------------------------------------------------
No, it is not clear they "ducked" the issue.
That is an OPINION, not a fact. It is arguable, and your responsibility to make a case, which you haven't.
You can be pissed, that's understandable, that happens often when people lose.
Question is, is it your opinion, or are you parroting the opinion of others?
If it is your opinion, back it up with fact.
Or are you just a parrot?
Make a case, give us proof.