Supreme court ducks the issue

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

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?
More...

Well done Optional.
 
Washington post says: Supreme Court dodges church-state issue by ruling father had no standing to sue over phrase in Pledge oath.


The UnionTribune says: The Supreme Court allows schoolchildren to keep affirming loyalty to one nation "under God" but dodges the underlying question of whether the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.



The LATimes says: Justices sidestep "under God" debate by ruling that a non-custodial parent can't sue.



Sacramento bee says: The Supreme Court preserved the phrase "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling Monday that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath but sidestepping the broader question of separation of church and state.



Yup..... they didnt address the core issue. Not debateable.

peace

axeman
 
Wow... are you fricken retarded or what???

Answer this SIMPLE yes or no question:

Did the supreme court address the core issue of separation of
church and state in the schools?

YES OR NO.

peace

axeman



Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

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.
More...
 
Attacking the messenger, rather than defending the message?

Maybe it is an alias, so there is no personal baggage, you know the kind you carry from thread to thead, even use as your signature.

Nope, just deal with this issue at hand, and try to leave the personality out of it.

Is that possible? Or are you too emotional right now?


Quote from axeman:

LOL!!! ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz very FIRST post to ET is on my thread.
Surprise surprise :p

Geezuz im sick of all the COWARDS with the 100 aliases on ET.


peace

axeman
More...
 
Optional??? that you 777?!?!? LMAOOOOOOOOOOO no wonder
youre not making ANY sense.... ROFLMAOOOOO :p



peace

axeman




Quote from Pabst:

Well done Optional.
More...
 
They did not address it, for good reason in my opinion.

Does that mean they "ducked" it?

No.

Quote from axeman:

Wow... are you fricken retarded or what???

Answer this SIMPLE yes or no question:

Did the supreme court address the core issue of separation of
church and state in the schools?

YES OR NO.

peace

axeman
More...
 
Youve already been called out with your ALIAS coward, you blind? LOL!


I already DEALT with the issue.

Its a done deal. Its an objective fact and hard reality that the
supreme court DID NOT RULE on the core issue.

Read the newspaper clippings I just posted.... dodge dodge sidestep ...etc.

Now go register your 100th alias since Pabst already gave
your banned silly self away....LOL! :p

peace

axeman


Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:


Attacking the messenger, rather than defending the message?

Maybe it is an alias, so there is no personal baggage, you know the kind you carry from thread to thead, even use as your signature.

Nope, just deal with this issue at hand, and try to leave the personality out of it.

Is that possible? Or are you too emotional right now?
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

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.
More...

well done! AXE said it he OWNS it. PROOF is right here. nice work. :D
 
I see....youre only interested in little 777 semantic games.
Totally predictable.

If you want to assume that "ducked" means there is some grand
conspiracy to avoid the issue by the justices, then be my guest.

But there is no proof of this one way or the other.

My position is that the core issue was NEVER ADDRESSED.
Period. Its not arguable.

All those newspapers used terms such as "ducked" and "sidestepped", does
this mean they believe that the supreme court really avoided
the issue ON PURPOSE because they have some agenda???

Come on now.... I have my suspicions...but there is no real
proof for this. ITS MERELY A CHOICE OF WORDS.

Youre reading into it WAY too much. Thats your own fault.



peace

axeman



Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

They did not address it, for good reason in my opinion.

Does that mean they "ducked" it?

No.
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

They did not address it, for good reason in my opinion.

Does that mean they "ducked" it?

No.
More...


This whole thing simply depends on the definition of "ducked" or "dodged". One can use the term to imply something nefarious, or the term can be completely benign -- as in "I dodged a bullet" or "I ducked out of the meeting".

I can't speak to how Axe is using the terms, but I for one feel that the Court dodged a bullet here. It's gonna be a interesting situation when someone with standing takes it back to them. I'll enjoy the hell out of watching that one.

JB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top