Supreme court ducks the issue

[axeman]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/scotus.pledge/index.html


The court has avoided an important First Amendment case concerning the status of government promoted religion," said Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists. "We can only guess why the court majority made this unfortunate move, but in doing so they have failed to resolve the basic issue of whether the state can use religion to promote patriotism."

"The court ducked the issue, which means that a legal conflict still exists," said Dave Silverman, Communications Director for American Atheists. "Like it or not, the Supreme Court is probably going to have to take up this question again at some point in the future."



As I predicted, the supreme court wiggled their way out
of answering the question, and refused to hear Newdows
argument on technical custody grounds

I smell the fear


But does this mean that the 9th district ruling stands?
No more "under god" in california, etc??


peace

axeman

 

[ArchAngel]

You can argue that they ducked the issue all you want.

However, the fact is that the real message the Supreme Court sent was to the lower courts (especially the overly aggressive and much overturned 9th Circuit) that instead of seeking to immediately jump in and forward their own activist agenda by trying to write new law from the bench, they should at the very least first address key fundamental issues with every case they hear - like whether the person bringing it even has the legal standing to do so.

This case should have died in the lower courts simply because Newdow lacks the status to legally bring the suit.

Clarification - no it does NOT mean the 9th Circuit ruling stands, in California or anywhere else. The Supreme Court ruling vacates all prior lower court rulings because the suit was invalid on its face because Newdow lacked legal standing to bring it.

 

[The_Coin]

The thing is that, mankind is so wretched, weak and hanging on by a thread...

Life is so mysterious it boggles the human mind: Why are we here? How did we get here? Why is all this going on? How did it start? Will it ever end? Will MTC ever give me a BJ? Why is there death? What IS death?

In this condition, it is these type questions that reduce mankind to mere groveling slime paste so we, or rather, they, like to think of the concept of "God" for comfort.

That does NOT mean He does not exist or that the Gospel is not true... it is just that mankind is in ultimate weakness in face of very harsh mysteries and realities found on this planet we call Earth.

c

 

[axeman]

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

Quote from ArchAngel:

You can argue that they ducked the issue all you want.

 

[Intoodeep]

It is clear?

Where is your proof?

Quote from axeman:

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

 

[ArchAngel]

Quote from axeman:
Its clear they ducked the main issue, its not even arguable.

A supposition on your part is far from a fact.

Do they want to deal with the issue? Some justices seem to have wanted to voice an opinion given the side comments (although you probably wouldn't have liked their opinions), but the vote was 8-0 to dismiss because the case was improperly brought from the very start - unfortunately all the Supreme Court can do is correct the situation with the dismissal, they have no way to go back and slap the hell out all the lower court judges who allowed the case to proceed up the chain.

So only the Justices know for sure what they're thinking and anyone else claiming to know should submit themselves to the Great Randi's test - because they must be a flipping psychic.

On the other hand, does the court want to bother hearing any case that should never have gotten to them in the first place? Absolutely not and there are decades of precedence that they do not and will not and have always turned down or dismissed cases that didn't belong there.

 

[dgabriel]

Quote from axeman:

[

But does this mean that the 9th district ruling stands?
No more "under god" in california, etc??


peace

axeman

THey kept the pledge in. But ruled Newdow did not have standing to sue. THey didn't issue an opinion on it.

 

[LongShot]

Quote from ArchAngel:

A supposition on your part is far from a fact.

nice job exposing a crank. but i beat you to it on the diet thread

http://elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22613&perpage=6&pagenumber=199

 

[axeman]

A supposition? Are you kidding me?

They dismissed the case on his legal standing to even bring it forward.


They therefore DID NOT RULE ON THE ISSUE OF SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

What part dont you understand???

Let me repeat... they did NOT rule on the core issue, now did they?

They ducked the core issue. Its not arguable. You look funny
pretending that they did and rejecting the obvious reality of the matter.


You even said it yourself:
"but the vote was 8-0 to dismiss because the case was improperly brought from the very start"
The core issue WAS NEVER ADDRESSED. Period.

peace

axeman

Quote from ArchAngel:

A supposition on your part is far from a fact.

Do they want to deal with the issue? Some justices seem to have wanted to voice an opinion given the side comments (although you probably wouldn't have liked their opinions), but the vote was 8-0 to dismiss because the case was improperly brought from the very start - unfortunately all the Supreme Court can do is correct the situation with the dismissal, they have no way to go back and slap the hell out all the lower court judges who allowed the case to proceed up the chain.

So only the Justices know for sure what they're thinking and anyone else claiming to know should submit themselves to the Great Randi's test - because they must be a flipping psychic.

On the other hand, does the court want to bother hearing any case that should never have gotten to them in the first place? Absolutely not and there are decades of precedence that they do not and will not and have always turned down or dismissed cases that didn't belong there.

 

[axeman]

Is this poser with no trading account still around
Get lost kid.... you proved yourself wrong on the diet thread
again. I threw down the gauntlet and you DODGED the core question
thus admitting defeat. You lost again.... as usual.
You never fail to deliver dipshit

You've been served.... for the millionth time.

peace

axeman

Quote from LongShot:

nice job exposing a crank. but i beat you to it on the diet thread

http://elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22613&perpage=6&pagenumber=199