Justice O'Conner announces retirement

[TheAnvil 0]

You're misconstruing what Mr. Bork stated and taking it out of context for your own purposes. Do that if you like - and even believe it if you desire - the fact that liberals personally attacked the man in a massive smear campaign of lies is res ipsa loquitor for anyone familiar with the nomination. Ms. Kopechne's murderer's comments on the floor of the Senate with regards to Mr. Bork were blatantly false and extremely disgusting.

The vitriolic campaign of lies against Mr. Bork was so vile and unfortunately effective that the term 'Borking' is now quite common when discussing presidentially appointed nominees. Quite funny that many leftists stated that they were going to 'Bork' John Ashcroft and did so with pride. How fitting for some of the people who used the term during the Ashcroft confirmation imbroglio.

I state again to any leftist reading this - find me a Clinton or Carter nominee who was on the receiving end of such vile and vitriolic treatment by conservatives.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kelpdiver 2]

Clinton received his share.

He never nominated a whack job, either out of fear (quite likely) or a sense of duty. In the fairest of worlds, Thomas is still a marginal candidate.

[TheAnvil 0]

Clinton was a politician, not a political appointee.

Which GWB nominee, exactly, is a whack job? Whatever your answer, compare that person to Lonnie Guinier (sp?) and get back with us. Or TeddyK, better still! Perhaps GWB should nominate Ted Kennedy, Byrd or Pelosi to show the nation what a truly unqualified whack job actually would resemble.

If Thomas is marginal in your world, then what do you think of Bill Lan Lee? Have you read any of his writings?

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kelpdiver 2]

which GWB nominee are you claiming was Bork'd?

[TheAnvil 0]

Ashcroft was Borked - unsuccessfully.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>Where does it require that? The word slave appears nowhere in
>the original Consitution.

Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3, Interstate Relations and Fugitive Slaves:

"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

It's interesting, isn't it, that back when, the Constitution needed to be amended to change what the Constitution meant. Nowadays, there's no need to amend the Constitution when judges can do it by "interpretation."

That clause you cited was invalidated by the 13th Amendment, bill. Should we look at the 13th Amendment and say, "Hmm. The 13th Amendment says, 'Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.' Let's call it "conscription" now. 'Conscription' is not banned in the Constitution. Forget what the intent was of the writers of the Amendment. After all, it is a "living, breathing document."

Bill, I respect your opinions a lot. But, I still gotta say that when the Framers said that escaped slaves should be returned, they meant it. Apparently, that's what people thought the entire way through. So they amended the Constitution.

Bill - you've given a perfect example of how the system is supposed to work. Just because we don't like what the Constitution says does NOT mean it should be ignored or twisted into something that is more agreeable. Instead, it should be amended.

That's all Bork said.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[storm1977 0]

Very Well put Lawrocket!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote

Quote

>Where does it require that? The word slave appears nowhere in
>the original Consitution.

Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3, Interstate Relations and Fugitive Slaves:

"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

It's interesting, isn't it, that back when, the Constitution needed to be amended to change what the Constitution meant. Nowadays, there's no need to amend the Constitution when judges can do it by "interpretation."

That clause you cited was invalidated by the 13th Amendment, bill. Should we look at the 13th Amendment and say, "Hmm. The 13th Amendment says, 'Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.' Let's call it "conscription" now. 'Conscription' is not banned in the Constitution. Forget what the intent was of the writers of the Amendment. After all, it is a "living, breathing document."

Bill, I respect your opinions a lot. But, I still gotta say that when the Framers said that escaped slaves should be returned, they meant it. Apparently, that's what people thought the entire way through. So they amended the Constitution.

Bill - you've given a perfect example of how the system is supposed to work. Just because we don't like what the Constitution says does NOT mean it should be ignored or twisted into something that is more agreeable. Instead, it should be amended.

That's all Bork said.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[billvon 3,131]

>But, I still gotta say that when the Framers said that escaped slaves
>should be returned, they meant it. Apparently, that's what people
> thought the entire way through.

Actually, it was something the southern states demanded, and the notherners put it in there to placate them. But yes, it was indeed the law of the land.

>So they amended the Constitution.

Right. They later realized they made a mistake, so they changed it. We now ignore that clause due to a later amendment.

>you've given a perfect example of how the system is supposed to
> work. Just because we don't like what the Constitution says does
> NOT mean it should be ignored or twisted into something that is
>more agreeable. Instead, it should be amended.

That's what I'm saying as well. It's not a static document that can never be changed. It can be changed, and it has been changed via the amendment process. It will be changed again. Until it is changed, the SC's job is to interpret it. Does the right to bear arms mean you have an inherent right to own and operate an antiaircraft battery? Does the right to free speech mean the right to burn a flag, or disagree with the administration, or yell "fire" in a crowded movie theatre? Those are the issues the SC decides.

[jdhill 0]

And "public use" shall mean seeking a higher tax base...

And "Equal Protection" shall mean equal protection except for Affermative Action...

And "no law respecting an establishment of religion" shall mean that a cross cannot be placed in a public sqaure at personal expense, in spight of the words that immediately follow that clause, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"...

or we can even create new principles "the separation of Church and State" that appear nowhere in the Consitution.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[billvon 3,131]

>or we can even create new principles "the separation of Church
>and State" that appear nowhere in the Consitution.

Actually Jefferson said that. His way of describing the clear constitutional separation between religion and government. His exact quote was:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

The principle of not allowing government to legislate religion is one of the clearest in the constitution.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

Actually Lincoln said that. His way of describing the clear constitutional separation between religion and government. His exact quote was:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

Either Abe was a plagiarist or it was actually Thomas Jefferson that wrote that in 1802. It was in response to a letter he received from the Danbury Baptisits who were complaining about the CT state legislature's view of religious rights, that being they were "favors" granted by the government, not rights... Jefferson's response was to assure the group that the government at the national level would not trample their rights , more pursuant to the "Free Exercise" clause.

It did not really become part of the Consitutional vernacular until Everson v. Board in 1947

Quote

The principle of not allowing government to legislate religion is one of the clearest in the constitution.

Yet the government routinely does... it gives religions preferential tax status... free exercise is prohibited in schools...

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[billvon 3,131]

>Either Abe was a plagiaristor it was actually Thomas Jefferson that wrote that in 1802.

Yeah, my typo. I fixed it.

>The principle of not allowing government to legislate religion is one
>of the clearest in the constitution.

>Yet the government routinely does... it gives religions
>preferential tax status...

Uh, no - it doesn't tax them. Taxing someone is something government does. If it doesn't tax them, it's NOT doing anything.

Consider - if government collapsed tomorrow, and you didn't have to pay taxes any more, who would have granted you your new tax-exempt status?

>free exercise is prohibited in schools...

No it's not. Any child is free to pray to whomever or whatever he or she wishes. There is just no forced exercise of religion, which is how it should be.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

Uh, no - it doesn't tax them. Taxing someone is something government does. If it doesn't tax them, it's NOT doing anything.

The government taxes everyone, then exempts certain groups, they have recognized them by granting an exepmtion... this is particularly true when it comes to property taxes...

Governments also provide services to them, police and fire protection, trash hauling etc... yet no taxes... if the govenment colapsed tomorrow, I would stop paying taxes, but would also stop receiving services.

Quote

There is just no forced exercise of religion, which is how it should be.

But there is forced exclusion of religion... no religios songs in student talent shows for example... or where a "Jesus Saves" t-shirt to school... or let a group of kids try to start a prayer club at lunch...

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[billvon 3,131]

>The government taxes everyone, then exempts certain groups,
>they have recognized them by granting an exepmtion... this is
> particularly true when it comes to property taxes...

Wow, they have you brainwashed!

Not paying taxes is natural. Paying taxes is unnatural, and requires a government with revenue agents, police to threaten you if you don't pay, courts to prosecute you if you don't pay etc. "Granting you an exemption" is like someone breaking into your house, threatening to shoot you, then just beating the crap out of you and telling you you should be grateful. You got an exemption!

Taxes exist so government can run and provide basic services like protecting the US from invasion, running ATC, running the CDC etc. Congress is not allowed to pass any laws that have anything to do with a specific religion, so no taxes, no requirements to belong to a religion for any govermental purpose, no regulation of religious practices etc.

>Governments also provide services to them, police and fire
> protection, trash hauling etc... yet no taxes...

I'd have no problems with the government discontinuing any of those services. Not sure why they do in the first place.

>But there is forced exclusion of religion... no religios songs in
>student talent shows for example...

The choir of my local high school (public) sang "Gloria in Excelsis Deo" at a competition of all local high schools. No problems.

>or where a "Jesus Saves" t-shirt to school...

No problem provided there is no rule against logo T-shirts.

>or let a group of kids try to start a prayer club at lunch...

Again, no problem. Now, if they want school (i.e. government) money for that club, then there's a problem. But if they just want to pray during lunch, then there's nothing wrong (or illegal) about that.

The problem lately has been radical religious right-wingers who want mandatory prayer for all students, government funding for evangelical groups, and laws reflecting their christian morals.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

Wow, they have you brainwashed!

Do I get to give you a warning?

Yes paying taxes is unnatural... but it is something that property owners do... and by the church down the street getting a pass, mine are higher...

The intent of the Establishment Clause, and the Free Exercise clasue is that the government cannot establish a religion, nor prevent you from practicing one... that is all... no special treatment or lack of treatment... they should be just like any other organization, property owner, yada yada yada...

Ya know... as I think about it... that church down the street would be a great place for a Denny's... it would mean jobs and a better tax base for the community... time to work up an ED case...

Quote

The choir of my local high school (public) sang "Gloria in Excelsis Deo" at a competition of all local high schools. No problems.

Perhaps your school... each example I gave is something that has been in the news within the last year... governments preventing the "free exercise" of religion.

Edit to add... So which side has me "brainwashed"? I think churchs should pay taxes, but there should be more flexibility in public use of public facilities...

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Until it is changed, the SC's job is to interpret it.

Which is why liberals hate Bork so much. He prefers to interpret it as the drafters intended it to mean instead of finding new meanings and reinventing it.

The Warren court was great at this. There was a definite agenda to that court. Prior to that, in the 1930's, the Supreme Court ROUTINELY overturned a century of jurisprudence to be more progressive.

Now we've come to the point where Rehnquist wrote an opinion a couple of years ago upholding Miranda wherein he wrote that the Miranda decision was based on an overreaching interpretation of the Constitution but because it is so well known they can't reverse it.

In a sense, these judges want to do something and then try to squeeze in a Constitutional justification.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,131]

>The intent of the Establishment Clause, and the Free Exercise clasue
> is that the government cannot establish a religion, nor prevent you
> from practicing one...

That's your interpretation of it. But we have to take what is written, not someone's interpretation. From the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

So - can Congress pass a law that requires a church to pay taxes? No. Now, you may not like that the first amendment says they can't tax churches, but says nothing about not taxing you, but that's the constitution. If you want to change it, by all means, start the process.

>that is all... no special treatment or lack of treatment... they should
>be just like any other organization, property owner, yada yada yada...

Sorry, constitution requires you give religion special treatment (i.e. not passing laws concerning them.)

>Perhaps your school... each example I gave is something that has
> been in the news within the last year... governments preventing
> the "free exercise" of religion.

So? They're wrong. Free exercise of religion is guaranteed by the same amendment that exempts them from governmental regulation.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

But we have to take what is written, not someone's interpretation.

Did you forget which side of the debate you are on? If you take what is written, " no law respecting the establishment of religion" the government cannot establish official religion of the United States... interpritation has gotten us where we are today...

The Constitution does not require special treatment, it requires that the government ignore religion... to provide spacial treatment is to respect the establishment.

Quote

So - can Congress pass a law that requires a church to pay taxes? No.

That's correct, you can't pass a law that says tax the church... but you can (or should) pass one that says ALL property owners must pay taxes... to then exempt the church is to respect the establishment. By the way the 1st says nothing at all about taxation of anyone, me or the church.

Edit to add... by your logic, Bill, no laws apply to the church... so they can do what ever they please...

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[kallend 2,175]

Many, mostly conservatives, seem to think that the activist SC finds rights where none exist in the BoR or Constitution, and that this is bad. I think it should be the other way around, that the people should have rights unless the government is specifically empowered to take them away or call them privileges.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,131]

>it requires that the government ignore religion...

Again, that's your interpretation. What it SAYS is that the government shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion. It does not say the government shall ignore religion, or give it special treatment, or require students to pray. It says that the government cannot pass laws that apply to religions. That means it can't tax them or regulate them or require them or forbid them. It does not have to ignore religion; indeed, you may recall that our president calls on his God all the time. Heck, in the 1950's, our government put the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance! Clearly there is no "the government must ignore religion" section of the constitution.

Use what's there. Don't make up stuff that supports your position, unless you consider it OK that other people do the same.

>but you can (or should) pass one that says ALL property owners must pay taxes...

Then you are passing a law that applies to religions and requiring them to pay the government, which is directly contrary to the first amendment. If you want to do this, amend the constitution. I'd even support it; no reason religions should get a free pass on taxes. But until that happens, it is the law.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

It says that the government cannot pass laws that apply to religions.

So under that premis things like ritual sacrifice or multiple mairage are OK, because none of the nation's laws apply to religions... or hey, blowing up the WTC was OK because they were practicing religion, so the laws against hijacking and murder don't apply...

You think I'm making up stuff, look in the mirror... If you just look at the words that are there it says the government will not estabish a religion, or prevent the practice of religion... everything else is interpritation... I understand your interpritation coincides with the court's, and mine does not, so your's is the law of the land... that does not mean it is right, and that is why court appointments are so important.

You can't pass a law that only applies to religions, say all religions must pay a tax... but you can (or should be able to) pass a law that applies to a church as a larger group, say all property owners must pay a tax... they pay the tax not because they are a church, but becasue they are a property owner.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Many, mostly conservatives, seem to think that the activist SC finds rights where none exist in the BoR or Constitution, and that this is bad. I think it should be the other way around, that the people should have rights unless the government is specifically empowered to take them away or call them privileges.

This is an interesting thought, and I agree as a matter of personal philosophy that this should be the case. However, if this is what was intended, then the Bill of Rights would have been written in the negative, i.e., "People shall not have the right to _____."

Unfortunately (yes, I think unfortunately) this is not the case. The Constitution affirmatively states what rights we have.

Your statement is exactly what activist judges do. "This right is not in the Constitution, but I/we should be, and therefore we're going to give it."

I have a problem with that, for if it switches around 180, judges could say, "The Constitution gives the right to _____, but we don't think this should be a right. Therefore, we will abrogate it."

Same logic, and a very slippery slope. Take a look at the eminent domain decision a couple of weeks ago. It's already becoming the norm.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,131]

>So under that premis things like ritual sacrifice . . .

Yes. You can kill chickens if you want.

>or multiple mairage are OK . . . .

Yes. You can claim you're married to whoever you want for religious purposes. You can claim the earth is your wife, or all children are your children. A religion can claim that God is your father and Mary is your mother; no problem at all. Of course you won't be legally inheriting anything from them, because Congress cannot pass any inheritance laws that have anything to do with religion.

>You think I'm making up stuff, look in the mirror... If you just look
> at the words that are there it says the government will not estabish
> a religion, or prevent the practice of religion... everything else is
>interpritation...

No. Again, you're making up words. The actual words are "Congress shall pass NO LAW." Those words are really simple. Want to pass a law concerning a religion? Tax it? Regulate it? Ban it? See amendment 1 - the answer is NO. The words "establish a religion" or "prevent practice of a religion" do not appear in the constitution; they are ones you used.

>I understand your interpritation coincides with the court's, and mine
> does not, so your's is the law of the land... that does not mean it is
> right, and that is why court appointments are so important.

?? I'm not interpreting; I'm going by what it says. You're making up what _you_ think it means.

I think the constitution is a very important document that should not be reinterpreted to suit the views of the day. Now, I think churches should not have tax-exempt status; if there were an amendment proposed that allowed religions to be taxed like any other business, I'd support it. But until then, we should support the constitution of our country.

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Quote

Many, mostly conservatives, seem to think that the activist SC finds rights where none exist in the BoR or Constitution, and that this is bad. I think it should be the other way around, that the people should have rights unless the government is specifically empowered to take them away or call them privileges.

This is an interesting thought, and I agree as a matter of personal philosophy that this should be the case. However, if this is what was intended, then the Bill of Rights would have been written in the negative, i.e., "People shall not have the right to _____."

Unfortunately (yes, I think unfortunately) this is not the case. The Constitution affirmatively states what rights we have.

Your statement is exactly what activist judges do. "This right is not in the Constitution, but I/we should be, and therefore we're going to give it."

I have a problem with that, for if it switches around 180, judges could say, "The Constitution gives the right to _____, but we don't think this should be a right. Therefore, we will abrogate it."

Same logic, and a very slippery slope. Take a look at the eminent domain decision a couple of weeks ago. It's already becoming the norm.

I think you've forgotten:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Amendment IX is not forgotten. The problem is that it has not been used! The finding of these new rights comes from interpreting other provisions of the Constitution.

If the courts used Article IX I'd have no qualm. but they don't. They twist the meanings of other sections to give "new rights."

Article 9 is there for the using, but it isn't used. There's almost a lust to redefine other parts of the Constitution in order to get what they want instead of using the 9th.

My wife is hotter than your wife.