Church & State Case At Supreme Court

[seer]

It violates the intention of the law as has been ruled by the courts, virtually without exception, every time they have been called upon to make a ruling.

See there you go, you are divining intention, you are not actually following the text. And these rulings are recent in our history, and I know you hate to hear it, but by liberal activist judges. No court had a problem with prayer in school until the 60s. Give me a straight answer Tass - is the little red school house having morning prayer a Congress making a law? Yes or no?

See above.

This is exactly why we have to go by what THE TEXT actually says because there were different opinions among the Founders. You can't claim that Jefferson's opinion was more correct than Washington's or Henry's, the text is what they agreed on.

[Tassman]

See there you go, you are divining intention, you are not actually following the text. And these rulings are recent in our history, and I know you hate to hear it, but by liberal activist judges. No court had a problem with prayer in school until the 60s. Give me a straight answer Tass - is the little red school house having morning prayer a Congress making a law? Yes or no?

Christians have been claiming special privileges as the majority religion for a very long time in the USA. They have behaved as though Christianity was the defacto “established religion.” It's not.

But, it was not until non-Christians started objecting that the issue was brought to the courts...ultimately the Supreme Court...and invariably ruled unconstitutional. It has nothing to do with “liberal judges and everything to do with the founder’s intentions re the Constitution and Amendments!

This is exactly why we have to go by what THE TEXT actually says because there were different opinions among the Founders. You can't claim that Jefferson's opinion was more correct than Washington's or Henry's, the text is what they agreed on.

No it’s intention underlying the text that’s important and it’s the role of the Supreme Court to determine this.

Just because you object to the loss of unwarranted Christian privileges is no reason to accuse the courts of bias. You’re as bad as Trump with his “so-called judges” remarks when he can’t get his own way...like the petulant spoiled child that he is. And yes,” the little red public school house having morning prayer” is abusing the intention of the Law.

[Meh Gerbil]

Tassman,
The sort of power you're granting the Supreme Court is such that they could reinstate slavery and we'd have no recourse.
People would claim it is unconstitutional and the pro-slavery people would retort: It isn't your call, the judges decide that.

I think that kind of power - the power to change the clear meaning of text - will serve you well in the short run but it is ultimately very destructive.
This isn't a church vs. state issue.
This is a judges-gone-wild-wet-muumuu contest that needs to be stopped.

-Meh Gerbil

[Tassman]

Tassman,
The sort of power you're granting the Supreme Court is such that they could reinstate slavery and we'd have no recourse.
People would claim it is unconstitutional and the pro-slavery people would retort: It isn't your call, the judges decide that.

I think that kind of power - the power to change the clear meaning of text - will serve you well in the short run but it is ultimately very destructive.
This isn't a church vs. state issue. This is a judges-gone-wild-wet-muumuu contest that needs to be stopped.

-Meh Gerbil

If the text has as “clear” a meaning as you’re suggesting then it would not require adjudication by the Supreme Court. The very existence of the Supreme Court is to interpret the text of the Constitution where the meaning is disputed by the parties concerned.

[Meh Gerbil]

If the text has as “clear” a meaning as you’re suggesting then it would not require adjudication by the Supreme Court. The very existence of the Supreme Court is to interpret the text of the Constitution where the meaning is disputed by the parties concerned.

Could not the purpose of the Supreme Court be to apply the clear meaning of the law to unclear situations?

To some extent, I agree with you that in some cases the law is vague (maybe even intentionally so) with the design to allow some of it to be worked out in court. However, in regard to the establishment clause there isn't much in the way of vagueness. So the question I pose to you is this: If the establishment clause is that open to interpretation and if our courts are free to change the meaning of words on the fly then what stops a court from the reinstitution of slavery?

What is the limit to the court's power if the clear meaning of words can be ignored?
I think that is a question that has to be answered even if we agree with the court's ruling on the establishment clause.

[seer]

Christians have been claiming special privileges as the majority religion for a very long time in the USA. They have behaved as though Christianity was the defacto “established religion.” It's not.

But, it was not until non-Christians started objecting that the issue was brought to the courts...ultimately the Supreme Court...and invariably ruled unconstitutional. It has nothing to do with “liberal judges and everything to do with the founder’s intentions re the Constitution and Amendments!

Which Founders intentions Tass? Washington's, Henry's, The Founders that instituted church taxes here in New England?

But let be try again: is the little red school house having morning prayer a Congress making a law? Yes or no?

[Tassman]

Could not the purpose of the Supreme Court be to apply the clear meaning of the law to unclear situations?

If the law is being challenged it’s the role of the Supreme Court to provide a definitive interpretation of it.

To some extent, I agree with you that in some cases the law is vague (maybe even intentionally so) with the design to allow some of it to be worked out in court. However, in regard to the establishment clause there isn't much in the way of vagueness.

Well apparently there is lack of clarity in that certain issues related to the practice of religion on state owned property have required adjudication by the Supreme Court...and nearly always to the detriment of the religious practices.

So the question I pose to you is this: If the establishment clause is that open to interpretation and if our courts are free to change the meaning of words on the fly then what stops a court from the reinstitution of slavery?

I don’t believe the Establishment Clause is “that open to interpretation”, merely that some Christians claim special privileges which don’t exist in actuality. The courts have been quite consistent in their rulings on these issues.

What is the limit to the court's power if the clear meaning of words can be ignored?
I think that is a question that has to be answered even if we agree with the court's ruling on the establishment clause.

Well it seems that what to you is “clear meaning” is not considered so by others, hence the need for litigation.

[Meh Gerbil]

Well it seems that what to you is “clear meaning” is not considered so by others, hence the need for litigation.

I'd suggest fetching a dictionary as a first step.
If feigning confusion over the clear meaning of text is all it takes to get major amendments reversed then all of our freedoms are at risk.

I understand that you want to roll back religion as much as humanly possible.
I get that.
I think in your zeal you're not understanding the godlike power being granted to the oligarchy.
It will bite all of us in the bum one day.

[Tassman]

I'd suggest fetching a dictionary as a first step.
If feigning confusion over the clear meaning of text is all it takes to get major amendments reversed then all of our freedoms are at risk.

Your side doesn’t have a monopoly on the “clear meaning” of the Constitution. And the fact that you’ve been ruled against so often actually suggests that you’ve got it wrong. Blaming the judges of “bias” is just sour grapes.

I understand that you want to roll back religion as much as humanly possible.
I get that.

No more than you trying to claim special privileges for your religion which don’t exist in actuality.

I think in your zeal you're not understanding the godlike power being granted to the oligarchy.
It will bite all of us in the bum one day.

It’s not “godlike power”. Every ruling has to be justified by the courts on the basis the Constitution and Amendments