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?

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.

[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

[Meh Gerbil]

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]

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?

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?

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.

[Meh Gerbil]

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.

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.