JTiger Wrote:This may be a bit naive of me, but I do remember from my civics class that the supreme court is supposed to be non-partisan, which is why the get a lifetime appointment and they are the final authority.

They are supposed to be removed from politics, yes. Meaning their decision aren't swayed by current events or the moods of the voters. Supreme Court decisions are simply supposed to be based on the constitutionality of the question before them.

To think that the Founding Fathers intended all Justices to enter office with a clean ideological slate is a little silly.

JTiger Wrote:This may be a bit naive of me, but I do remember from my civics class that the supreme court is supposed to be non-partisan, which is why the get a lifetime appointment and they are the final authority.

you got a rotten civics lesson.

when an elected, partisan, politician is doing the appointing, and when an elected senate minority seeks to interpose their collective will above that of the constitutionally designated officer who selects the Supreme Court nominees, i'd call it a good old fashioned partisan back alley slugfest, and may the folks bringing the mostest the fastest and the bestest prevail.

and all federal judges get a lifetime appointment.

Quote: It seems that some on this board want to do away with SCOTUS and leave everything in the hands of the executive and legislative branch.  If it's about a "majority." 

i have never seen a suggestion of doing away with the Supremes.

Quote:Like I said, what if the shoe was on the other foot

it was. take a peek at FDR's court packing scheme if you're really caught up in the left-side fervor. maybe take a peek at the Clinton SCT appointments while you're at it.

Quote:and Kerry had won by 3%?

some things are too terrible to contemplate.

Quote:I don't think I would be hearing you talk about how you  would like to see a majority for a majority.  I'd like to see a moderate take O'Conner's spot.  The good thing about a moderate is that it pisses both sides off so we have something to argue about on message board and flex our e-brains.

where does this nonsense come from? the idea that "you won, but be nice cuz if we win we'll actually be true to our principles as well?" as if that's a bad thing.

Lethemeul Wrote:They are supposed to be removed from politics, yes. Meaning their decision aren't swayed by current events or the moods of the voters. Supreme Court decisions are simply supposed to be based on the constitutionality of the question before them.

To think that the Founding Fathers intended all Justices to enter office with a clean ideological slate is a little silly.

I didn't mean that they were to be apolitical, but to request a conservative to vote conservative is not what I think we need in the highest court in the land.

JTiger Wrote:I didn't mean that they were to be apolitical, but to request a conservative to vote conservative is not what I think we need in the highest court in the land.

you were thinking what, a liberal to vote liberal?

How about instead of selecting a replacement, they just let the court stand at an even number of justices. That way when there is an issue that is, you know, real close to 50% agree/disagree, the court will just split. That ought to take care of any pesky close decisions. Instead of makeing any controversy, they'll just walk away from a case leaving it to wallow in the void.

As for the surpreme court being non-partisan. Show me where in the Constitution it says that justices should be moderate? They are, in fact, appointed by the executive branch.

Article 2: Section 2: Clause 2:

Quote:He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Nothing about being non-partisan. There's no statement like, "The Prez should really make should he doesn't offend anyone." or "The justice should be especially cute, else bored high school kids will draw mustaches on the female justices." Just that they will be appointed, and approved.

JTiger Wrote:I didn't mean that they were to be apolitical, but to request a conservative to vote conservative is not what I think we need in the highest court in the land.

People submit briefs (I can't think of the proper name. Whatever 'friend of the court' is in latin) all the time to try to sway the votes of the Justices.

And I don't think any conservatives are asking that conservative judges vote that way. We're asking that conservative judges be appointed to tilt the balance of the court to conservatives.

I think I should've used the word conservative a few more times in that sentence.

Edit: Amicus Curia briefs. God bless Google.

gruehls Wrote:that the Founding Fathers' guidance by Scripture in carving out our most fundamental liberties and rights may have been unconstitutional and unrecognized as such by them as they wrote the Constitution;

With all due respect, that must be the most ridiculous statement I've heard in the church-state discussion.

Quote:that the Supreme Court still has multiple references to the 10 Commandments prominently featured throughout its own building while insisting on restricting the use of them elsewhere;

This is quite probably false (I haven't been over the building with a fine tooth comb), but I will categorically state that the primary instance that you would site is not the ten commandments.

JTiger Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:What part of the private property ruling was "moderate"? The only way I can see it as "moderate" is the fact that it pissed everyone off from Free Republic to Democratic Underground. IMO, everyone that voted on that should resign. They are supposed to uphold the Constitution. With that task comes interpreting the law as it was written. They "added" to an already existing amendment, THEN interpreted it. That word? Private. With that, rights were lost.

I completely agree with you on that ruling. The only winner in that was big business.

I can think of an even bigger winner that starts with the letter "g".

I45Owl Wrote:

gruehls Wrote:that the Founding Fathers' guidance by Scripture in carving out our most fundamental liberties and rights may have been unconstitutional and unrecognized as such by them as they wrote the Constitution;

With all due respect, that must be the most ridiculous statement I've heard in the church-state discussion.

with all due respect, you should read, or listen, more. the point is simple; the men who wrote it would be repelled by today's supreme court interptretation of what they meant when they scrivened.

what part do you find difficult? that the framers of the constitution, who expressly relied upon their faith in the christian god, would be shocked to learn that the supreme court misperceives their purpose and desire? or something else?

Quote:that the Supreme Court still has multiple references to the 10 Commandments prominently featured throughout its own building while insisting on restricting the use of them elsewhere;

Quote:This is quite probably false (I haven't been over the building with a fine tooth comb), but I will categorically state that the primary instance that you would site is not the ten commandments.

try visiting the place, at least once, before you render your opinion. failing that, at least look at the available pictures or research the issue before you before you proclaim its falsity and tell me i'm wrong.

<a href='http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=2441' target='_blank'>God in the Temples of Government</a>

gruehls Wrote:what part do you find difficult? that the framers of the constitution, who expressly relied upon their faith in the christian god, would be shocked to learn that the supreme court misperceives their purpose and desire? or something else?

I know this is going to turn into a debate on the founding fathers and religion in government, but here it goes. If our founding fathers were such good christians, why did they choose not to include the words God or Jesus in the constitution? Is it because it wasn't supposed to be intertwined with governemnt? No one argues that they weren't men of faith, but to say what they would want today is a bit presumtuous.

gruehls Wrote:what part do you find difficult? that the framers of the constitution, who expressly relied upon their faith in the christian god, would be shocked to learn that the supreme court misperceives their purpose and desire? or something else?

The framers, including Paine (referred to as "the father of the constitution") are on record as specifically being against such things as proclamations regarding the timing of religious holidays, publicly funded clergy-led prayer before Congress, and religious studies programs at public universities. It is foolish to argue that they established the United States as a Christian nation and that the contemporary arguments regarding establishment of religion are not a continuation of a dialog that has raged in America for nearly 400 years.

Quote:try visiting the place, at least once, before you render your&nbsp; opinion. failing that, at least look at the available pictures or research the issue before you before you proclaim its falsity and tell me i'm wrong.

<a href='http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp' target='_blank'>This discussion</a> provides better context for the specific images in your post. Note with particular attention the specific images in the site that you posted are discussed on the site that I reference.

The Weinman frieze is the item that I categorically stated is not the 10 commandments - this according to the man who created it.

JTiger Wrote:

gruehls Wrote:what part do you find difficult? that the framers of the constitution, who expressly relied upon their faith in the christian god, would be shocked to learn that the supreme court misperceives their purpose and desire? or something else?

I know this is going to turn into a debate on the founding fathers and religion in government, but here it goes. If our founding fathers were such good christians, why did they choose not to include the words God or Jesus in the constitution? Is it because it wasn't supposed to be intertwined with governemnt? No one argues that they weren't men of faith, but to say what they would want today is a bit presumtuous.

well, it's a fair debate on religion J, but there are many other presumptious aspects of supreme court interpretation of the constitution effected by faith or the lack thereof. if you seriously want to consider the faith of the founding fathers, there are many resources available.

personally, i'm still fascinated by the penumbral interpretation of the right to privacy and the due process clause.

as you noted before, bet your butt i want the constitution interpreted according to my majority.

I45Owl Wrote:

gruehls Wrote:what part do you find difficult? that the framers of the constitution, who expressly relied upon their faith in the christian god, would be shocked to learn that the supreme court misperceives their purpose and desire? or something else?

The framers, including Paine (referred to as "the father of the constitution") are on record as specifically being against such things as proclamations regarding the timing of religious holidays, publicly funded clergy-led prayer before Congress, and religious studies programs at public universities. It is foolish to argue that they established the United States as a Christian nation and that the contemporary arguments regarding establishment of religion are not a continuation of a dialog that has raged in America for nearly 400 years.

Quote:try visiting the place, at least once, before you render your  opinion. failing that, at least look at the available pictures or research the issue before you before you proclaim its falsity and tell me i'm wrong.

<a href='http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp' target='_blank'>This discussion</a> provides better context for the specific images in your post. Note with particular attention the specific images in the site that you posted are discussed on the site that I reference.

The Weinman frieze is the item that I categorically stated is not the 10 commandments - this according to the man who created it.

what discussion did you waddle into the middle of and misconstrue? the original comment was directed to the fact that the scriveners of all of our defining personal liberties and freedoms were devoutly religious.

who talked about religious holidays or proclamations?

if you want a debate about the faith of the founding fathers, bring it on. madison stood closer to the constitution than did paine.

it came about 100 years later but try reading your coins and your bills. what's "in god we trust" suggest to you?

Just throwing my 2 cents in.....but the presidential election came down to just 60,000 people in Ohio. If the scandal that has broken out in my state had come out before the election who knows what would have happened. Before you start slamming me for this statement I think you need to take a step back and realize that I was just at a statehouse ceremony in Columbus(the Governor was there) on Wednesday and nearly all of the people at my table have turned against him.

RocketAlum Wrote:Just throwing my 2 cents in.....but the presidential election came down to just 60,000 people in Ohio. If the scandal that has broken out in my state had come out before the election who knows what would have happened. Before you start slamming me for this statement I think you need to take a step back and realize that I was just at a statehouse ceremony in Columbus(the Governor was there) on Wednesday and nearly all of the people at my table have turned against him.

oh please.

i live in the same state you do.

this "but for those few ohio voters" nonsense is just that; nonsense.

take a look at a few states kerry won by a smaller percentage than bush did ohio and apply your same logic. you know, if only bush had carried those states kerry narrowly won, then the pro-kerry conspiracists would finally have to shut the hell up.

I45Owl Wrote:The framers, including Paine (referred to as "the father of the constitution") are on record as specifically being against such things as proclamations regarding the timing of religious holidays, publicly funded clergy-led prayer before Congress, and religious studies programs at public universities.

Thomas Paine, while a famous patriot, is hardly "the father of the constitution"...............that honor would go to James Madison........

<a href='http://http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/documents/consthist.html' target='_blank'>James Madison's contributions were so notable that he was dubbed "the Father of the Constitution."</a>

However, it is hard to argue how Madison would respond to the question of the Ten Commandments in public buildings.

Madison, while writing

"Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe"

he also wrote in the same

<a href='http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/jm4/writings/memor.htm' target='_blank'>Remonstrance</a>

"A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power"

While he remonstrates against paying teachers of religion, it is not clear from this, the most on point writing of his pen, that he would say that there is to be no public acknowledgement of religion or religious symbols.

RebelKev Wrote:What part of the private property ruling was "moderate"? The only way I can see it as "moderate" is the fact that it pissed everyone off from Free Republic to Democratic Underground. IMO, everyone that voted on that should resign. They are supposed to uphold the Constitution. With that task comes interpreting the law as it was written. They "added" to an already existing amendment, THEN interpreted it. That word? Private. With that, rights were lost.

While most don't like the outcome of the eminent domain decision(and I wish it hadn't come out that way), it might help if what was actually said by the SC was explained better on tv. The day the ruling came down it was covered pretty well by the lawyers on the news talk shows but after that it was only the "newsworthy" part-corporations will take your house.

As for those from the right who responded to me, I just don't think many Americans(mainly in the blue states) want to live in the 1950's wathching the world fly by us-and it is starting already(this is based on Bush's new court appointments and assuming much of the same for theSupreme Court nominee). I really don't want to go into religion because there seem to be so many red staters(and a few religous blue staters) here. But I want to say as someone who is not very religous, I wouldn't care if there was a little more wiggleroom for religion. Just keep it within reason.

RandyMc Wrote:However, it is hard to argue how Madison would respond to the question of the Ten Commandments in public buildings.

While he remonstrates against paying teachers of religion, it is not clear from this, the most on point writing of his pen, that he would say that there is to be no public acknowledgement of religion or religious symbols.

Thank you for your civil and considered response.

You are correct that it was Madison that I intended to refer to (I realized my mistake while driving home). IIRC, Madison notably disagreed with this characterization. Jefferson also spoke out against having paid religious instructors. The comment I referred to about opposing clerics before congress (something that moral relativists are fond of citing) is attributed to Madison, saying (in <a href='http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions64.html' target='_blank'>Detached Memoranda</a>: "The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion". It is abundantly clear that the founders understood the implications of such issues as referring to god in the constitution and cautioned against such abuses as government funding of clerics (in congress or school).

None of this is to imply that there was total agreement amongst the founders or that the founders rejected religion outright. However, just a superficial glance at the titles of the books they authored (<a href='http://ahp.gatech.edu/age_of_reason1_1794.html' target='_blank'>The Age of Reason</a>, <a href='http://www.ethanallenhomestead.org/HISTORY/oracle.htm' target='_blank'>Reason - the only Oracle of Man</a>) should lend some indication as to the source of their principles.

To address you point (I agree), it is perhaps disingenuous to claim to speak for "the Founders" on specific points without having quotes that address those specific issues. Nevertheless, the responsibility for doing just that - and more - does lie with the Supreme Court. Even if the founders may not have agreed with specific applications of the constitution, it is inevitably the final responsibility of the Supreme Court to rule on the logical implications of the Constitution and its amendments.

By citing examples as I did previously, I am not attempting to say that because they believed A, it is implied that they believed B. Rather, it is to say that, when belief in C implies acceptance of D and acceptance of E and it is clear that they did not accept D, it is a dubious claim at best to believe that they would accept E. In this case, if the Founders believed the US to be a Christian nation, that would imply that they would accept both Clerics before Congress and Ten Commandments in the courtroom. Without stating that I know for certain that they would be offended by the displays, it is not a stretch to say that there is no compelling evidence that either the founders as a collective or that the more important ones specifically would favor those displays.

gruehls Wrote:what discussion did you waddle into the middle of and&nbsp; misconstrue? the original comment was directed to the fact that the scriveners of all of our defining personal liberties and freedoms were devoutly religious.

No. In point of fact, your comments center on three significant claims, each of which is false:

• 1. The founders emphasized the supernatural (faith) over reason in crafting the Constitution and Bill of Rights
  2. The founders did not mean what they said in prohibiting laws concerning an establishment of religion
  3. The Ten Commandments are displayed in the Supreme Court building in such a manner as to impute singular significance to them in the laws of the United States[/list:u]
  
  It is disconcerting that you didn't comprehend the import of your own words.
  
  

  gruehls Wrote:who talked about religious holidays or proclamations?
  
  if you want a debate about the faith of the founding fathers, bring it on. madison stood closer to the constitution than did paine.

  
  As noted below, I made a careless mistake in typing Paine instead of Madison. What is pertinent to the significant topics at hand is not their faith, but the importance of faith versus reason in establishing the mores and legal foundation of this nation. It is revisionist history to assert that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and that its foundation is based on dogma in deference to reason. If that is the case which you wish to make, please attempt do so.
  
  

  gruehls Wrote:it came about 100 years later but try reading your coins and your bills. what's "in god we trust" suggest to you?

  
  That is a profoundly unintersting question. However, what is more interesting is the fact that you would think about it or post it. What your choice suggests is that you are a moral relativist, and - as you did before in saying someone smuggled the 10 commandments under his cloak into the Supreme Court building, therefore it is permissible everywhere - that a single precedent contrary to the Constitution essentially invalidates its power. You clearly did not understand my point that the the founders clearly understood that.

I45Owl Wrote:No.&nbsp; In point of fact, your comments center on three significant claims, each of which is false:

• 1. The founders emphasized the supernatural (faith) over reason in crafting the Constitution and Bill of Rights
  2. The founders did not mean what they said in prohibiting laws concerning an establishment of religion
  3. The Ten Commandments are displayed in the Supreme Court building in such a manner as to impute singular significance to them in the laws of the United States[/list:u]

in point of fact, you're incapable of grasping the significance of any of my points, whether they total 3,2,1, or more. i referenced the Founding Fathers' guidance by Scripture in carving out our most fundamental liberties and rights; i include that Declaration of Independence thing in the carve-out.

Quote:The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America


WHEN in the Course of human Events,
it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Quote:It is disconcerting that you didn't comprehend the import of your own words.

i got my own words just the way i wanted them.

Quote:

gruehls Wrote:who talked about religious holidays or proclamations?

if you want a debate about the faith of the founding fathers, bring it on. madison stood closer to the constitution than did paine.

As noted below, I made a careless mistake in typing Paine instead of Madison.

how convenient for such an eminent scholar.

i note you addressed your screwup in response to another poster, and not my own, earlier, post pointing out your mistakes.

Quote:What is pertinent to the significant topics at hand is not their faith, but the importance of faith versus reason in establishing the mores and legal foundation of this nation.&nbsp; It is revisionist history to assert that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and that its foundation is based on dogma in deference to reason.&nbsp; If that is the case which you wish to make, please attempt do so.

well, now that we've got you moving in the right direction on James Madison, how bout:

James Madison
“ We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.