Predictions for Bush second term

Re: Actually you have it wrong

I checked this out, and the most reliable sources I have found indicate that you are correct. It appears that I was mistaken. Thanks for the info.

 

Etymology by sound is not sound etymology.

 

<<Two, the pledge of allegiance includes the words "under God". It doesn't say "under Christ" or Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. (It's also noteworthy to remember that the phrase "under God" was added to the pledge sometime in the 1950s during the Eisenhower administration. Previous to that the pledge did not contain that phrase.)>>

I agree. But today's "left" seems determined to not only secularize our society, but to convince everyone that the constitution has always mandated as much. They seem determined to completely remove God, any God, or any mention of God, from the public forum. My point was that our country was not formed as a Godless society, our government was not formed as a Godless government, and today's rendering of the constitution (with regard to religion) no longer resembles its original meaning. Our country was formed with an admirable (and quite public) reverance of God, and we were free to express that admiration and reverence, even in public office, schools, etc. This is no longer the case, not because of an ammendment to the constitution, but because of judges legislating from the bench. While Christianity was certainly never mandated, nor should it ever be, it was the common faith of our constitutional framers. It's rooted in our heritage and is evident in virtually every peice of history we have. To pretend it's not, as many do, is just silly. I am happy we live in a democracy. As I've mentioned here before, the great thing about democracy is that we, the people, can change something if we don't like it. But when judges, not the people, take matters into their own hands, it does us all a grave disservice. If enough people voted to completely secularize our society, as judges seem to be heading, so be it. But leave that for the people.

Pug

 

That is not true.

The plurality of the founding fathers were Deists. There were some who considered themselves Unitarians. But there were very few who considered themselves Christians.

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
-Thomas Jefferson

"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ."
-Thomas Jefferson

"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."
-John Adams

"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny."
-James Madison

 

Pug-

I'm not sure that you understand what Judges actually do and how they do it.

Please remember that Judges do not simply announce a decision; there has to be a specific lawsuit between genuine parties before the Court. So Judges do NOT take the law into their own hands as so many people seem to think. Rather, a Judge is empowered and REQUIRED to decide between litigants.

Second, remember that every decision of every Judge of the first instance, meaning every trial Judge, is subject to review for legal errors. A Judge cannot change the law to suit his own biases. Even the U.S. Supreme Court is bound by its own earlier decisions, though, of course, that Court is much freer to disregard precedent than any other Court.

Third, legal principals are often not as clear as advocates of "strict constructionism" would have you believe. There are frequently contradictions and conflicts in case law, statutes, even in the constitution itself. A Judge must try to determine what the law is and he must do so often with little guidance.

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with a given ruling but you should try to argue using the same rules that the Judge has to use. Otherwise, you are making a political statement rather than a legal statement. Nothing wrong with that, but it isn't really fair to the Judge you are attacking. He CAN'T decide on political grounds, you see.

 

I understand the legal process, but to suggest that judges don't have a particular bias on any given issue would be incorrect. Why do you think Presidents LOVE to appoint judges? They appoint judges that are likely to reflect their own views. Judges are most certainly NOT neutral in many cases. The problem, in my opinion, is when you get a judge who is so overly opinionated that he/she "interprets" existing legislation in a way that essentially creates new legislation.

Pug

 

Like in Bush v Gore?

 

No, not at all like that. I can't even award you points for originality or effort...the whole Bush v Gore thing is played out to death. Let it go.

 

Pug-

Judges like that DO exist, such as the former Chief Justice of Alabama. But the fact remains that they get reigned in but superior courts.

Do you have a specific case in mind?

 

No, not really, but the recent cases of same-sex marriage certainly comes to mind. Some judges, ignoring precedent set by other states, Federal Law (Marriage Protection Act), and popular opinion, have decided that the exclusivity of heterosexual marriage is unconstitutional. Amazing.

 

I really ought to read that decision before I comment on it.

 

LOL! Fair enough.

Actually, I know that you were talking about cases like Roe v Wade. In this case, apparently the justices made their decision and then groped to find Consitutional backing for it. I happen to agree with the decision, but I also understand that this is a pretty clear case of legislating from the bench.