tortdog

>The ACLU's position (not mine, their's) is that you're not supposed to have religious displays on public property.

Where does the Constution prohibit religious displays on public property?

Why has the ACLU not filed suit against the U.S. Supreme Court for having the image of Moses in its chambers?

Why has the ACLU not filed suit to prohibit Congress from opening its sessions with prayer?

>So, are you saying that it's impossible to be brilliant and unbiased in their legal views at the same time?

Bias brings in prejudice and "unreasoned judgment". I do not believe any judge should bring bias to the bench. That does not mean that judges cannot have opinions as to how to interpret constitutional law. Of course they should, and the President/Senate should be well informed of those views. If a nominee lacks an opinion on how to interpret constitutional law, I do not think such nominee is ready for the bench. In the twisted view you have in requiring an unconstitutional supermajority vote for judicial nominees, you have just that (people who can get through the gauntlet because they have not written their opinions down).

>I would love to be safe in the knowledge that those sitting in the courts are those with the best legal minds. But that's just not the way it is.

Justice Scalia is widely regarded as being among the most brilliant legal minds in this nation. Had your rules been in place, he would not be on the bench today. We do get it right sometimes.

>Rather than looking for the best mind, both parties just look for candidates that fit their ideology, which is exactly what you DON'T want in a judge, who is supposed to be completely impartial.

I disagree.

>Instead, a lot of judicial candidates, especially those in high ranking positions, are selected because they fit the ideology of the party in the majority, and nowadays, I think that they look for candidates that they can count on to NOT think independently, but just toe the party line.

I disagree.

>You're not getting the best minds by doing that, either.

I disagree. Owens from Texas is brilliant. I have read her opinions and she is extremely sharp. Pryor also is a brilliant jurist. Brown from California is widely recognized for her intellectual capability. Pickering has shown his ability on the bench.

The nominees that I am familiar with and that have been filibustered are no cheap fools. They have proven their abilities, but are being blocked because a minority of senators disagree with their opinions. That is unconstitutional. The President should get his nominees if a majority of senators agree to it.

Period.

I don't care who the President is. If a person doesn't like that rule, then change the Constitution. Stop twisting the Constitution to something that pleases a person at that one moment (since the Democrats sure opposed filibusters before).

That's my beef. The Republicans have the high ground today, TODAY, because they are on the side of the Constitution.

Well, I took Bob White's advice regarding looking in the manual and here is what it requires:

All boys are to be in uniform.

The Varsity uniform consists of:

BSA shirt*

BSA shorts/pants

BSA socks

*Regarding the shirt, the handbook allows a scout designed T-shirt.

Now, the manual also states that the activity uniform can be substituted for the field uniform where it is appropriate (hence a T-shirt, including custom shirts, during activities).

Here is the conflict. If you follow the handbook, the Varsity scouts must always be in uniform and you therefore must wear scout pants or shorts (and BSA socks) while engaged in the Varsity athletic competitions, including swimming and basketball. That is absurd. There is no way I am going to advise my Varsity scouts to wear BSA shorts and socks while swimming or playing basketball. Therefore, I am advising my Varsity scouts to NOT be in uniform (in contradiction of the Varsity handbook).

Perhaps that is why SHAC as advised that the Varsity uniform includes not only the custom T-shirt but also shorts and socks appropriate for the activity being conducted. In SHAC's opinion, the Varsity scouts are in uniform, but in apparent contradiction of the handbook.

Since the handbook's rules are absurd, I'd have to say someone didn't think it through and that SHAC is correct.

>We are not suppose to judge others. That's God's job.

Well, I completely disagree with that.

Jesus Christ: "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment."

I disagree that foreknowledge = predestination. Predestination robs man of his freedom (in my view). Foreordination does not. Yet, regardless of that belief, the mere knowledge by one being of what another will do does not rob that other being of its free agency. Just because a Sam CAN choose another path but Joe knows that Sam will not does not mean that Sam is not free to choose. It does explain, however, why Joe would be foolish to share this knowledge with Sam as that would infringe on Sam's rights. Hence, God may know all things but does not tell us everything.

Dug.

>If God knows what your daughter will do, eat or not eat, and she doesnt do exactly what he forsaw, was he 100% right?

He is 100% wrong on that one thing. But since God has perfect knowledge, He will make the right "forecast". In my view, the reason that God knows all things is becaues time for Him is not linear as it is with us. For him, all things are present, both past, present and future. Thus He is able to see what we have done before we have done it. That sight does not make my choice anymore less "free" than were He to have closed His eyes and ignored what He can see before him.

>Things can be less than 100% correct. However, if something is perfect, by definition, then it must always be 100% correct.

I disagree. Any one particular thing is either right or wrong. There is no middle ground. If something is less than 100% one way, there are more issues at hand and we are muddling the waters.

I don't think you are getting my argument on robbing the best minds. By refusing to allow votes on nominees who hold established points of view (which results when you require a supermajority vote), we limit ourselves to nominees that can get through both parties. That means you get middle-of-the-road candidates, or dark-horse candidates that hide their opinion. You don't get honesty. You don't get stellar candidates who are well written (because the other "viewpoint" will stop that candidate from getting a vote).

Not brining religion in this, solely as the analogy, you get luke warm water as opposed to hot or cold, and luke warm is good for nothing. I would rather have a stellar liberal on the court, then a Ginsburg or Kennedy. Give me someone who is well written and at the top of his class in his writings - someone who actually puts forward a viewpoint. Don't give me someone who pleases both sides, because that person is either a liar or a man without an opinion. Frankly, we don't need that sort to lead our country in any branch of government.

>If God knows that your daughter will eat the ice cream, is she NOT going to eat the ice cream, was God right?

I don't understand that question.

>In what way can someone be wrong but still be 100% right?

Wrong right so if someone is wrong they cannot be 1% right, let alone 100%.

Am I the only one who is laughing because "pint" informed us how U.K. scouts can drink a pint?

>If your daughter will always take the ice cream then she will never not take the ice cream. 100% of the time she will take the ice cream.

No. Based on the circumstances at hand she either will or will not take the ice cream. She may have just eaten a banana split when the cone is offered. At that point, she would not take the ice cream from me and my knowledge of that choice would not deprive her of her freedom.

>Choice depends on the existance of alternatives. If 100% of the time she will take the ice cream then there is no other laternative then to take it. Thus, there is no choice in the matter. By definition of choice there must be alternatives.

As mentioned, my example does not mean there was no other alternative. Rather, my knowledge consisted of knowledge of what she would do in that circumstance. If I, being imperfect, am able to know beforehand what my daughter will do in certain circumstances (what choices she would take), why would not God, being perfect, know better than I? How does that knowledge rob man of his choice?

Well, I disagree. I believe that God is literally our father. But that might get us into a whole area that we don't want to go...i.e., who is God?

I think what almost anyone will agree is that God is perfect and all-knowing.

>Indeed, if God created beings with true free will, arguably God can't fully know the future.

I disagree. I, with my imperfect knowledge, know that if I offer a chocolate ice cream cone to my daughter that she will accept the offer and eat it. Knowing that my daughter will do this does not rob her of her free agency.

God's knowledge that I will fail in a certain test (or succeed) does not rob me of my free agency. It just means that God has perfect knowledge of who I am and how I will respond to life's challenges.

I think you are confusing God ability with law. While God can arguably do anything, because He is perfect He cannot break any law. Thus your dilemna of a rock too heavy for God to lift is more an interesting puzzle than a serious philosophical debate.

I disagree that it's just politics. It's the heart and soul of our Constitution. I believe strongly that the President has the right to nominate judges, and that Senate's sole right is to advise and consent on those nominations, and that since the Constitution does not require a supermajority, the vote requirement is a simple majority.

By allowing a minority of senators to rule the majority, and for the first time in Senate history block judicial nominations with majority support is to trample on our Constitution. It robs us of the best minds, and shifts power unconstitutionally from the President to the Senate.

If a rule imposes a higher restriction than that imposed by the Constitution, it is unconstitutional in my opinion. I have always had that opinion. That used to be the opinion of many Senate Democrats.

Consistency sure is nice. Reality is that the Senate Democrat leadership is playing this game because it wants to placate liberals in its party. The Republicans are doing the same to placate conservatives. But...the Republicans in this instance have the moral high ground. They are arguing to follow the Constitution, pure and simple, exactly as Democrat senators argued before.

And...you are playing with numbers. The Senate Democrats have filibustered about 1/3 of the President's nominees to circuit courts for no other reason than they disagree with the nominees' viewpoints. The nominees have received ABA approval. Some of them sit on state supreme courts. The President nominated them, a majority of Senators consent to the nominations, but a minority is using a rule to prevent a vote.

And you argue that's okay. Would you have sided with Democrats a few years ago when they argued filibustering of judicial nominees was unconstitutional?

Yeah, but to be fair the LDS BSA leaders generally don't get the training. We have some good ones, but far too many who are "called" to a scouting position and then either (i) don't follow through with the leadership calling or (ii) act as a leader but don't get BSA training.

For example, we have about 40 LDS BSA units in our district. Of all those units, we will have about 5-7 LDS leaders show up at roundtable. I bet only about 20% of them have been trained. We have 10 Varsity units and only one unit is actually doing the program.

We have a lot of work to do (but we can do the program well if we decide to).

DEMOCRAT SENATORS OPPOSED TO FILIBUSTERS OF JUDICIAL NOMINEES

Senator Lieberman: Argued in 1995 that a supermajority requirement for cloture has "no constitutional basis

Senator Tom Harkin: "[T]he filibuster rules are unconstitutional" because "the Constitution sets out...when you need majority or supermajority votes in the Senate." "I urge the Republican leadership to take the steps necessary to allow the full Senate to vote up or down on these important nominations."

Former Senator Daschle: "I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination."

Senator Kennedy: "Senators who believe in fairness will not let a minority of the Senate deny the nominee his vote by the entire Senate."

Senator Boxer: "It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor."

Senator Reid: "[W]e should have up-or-down votes in the committee and on the floor."

Senator Feinstein: "It is our job to confirm these judges. If we dont like them, we can vote against them."

I agree.

BTW...I am incorrectly stating it takes 61 votes to break a filibuster. I think it's 60 votes.

NJCub.

>The U.S. Constitution does not, indeed, say how many votes are needed to confirm a judicial (or other) appointee. All it says is that these appointments are to be made by the president "with the advice and consent of the Senate."

Right...and that rule is a majority. The Constitution provides that certain items need supermajority status, while others have always been assumed to be a majority.

>Somewhere else in the constitution it says that the Senate and House make their own rules. Therefore the rules of the Senate govern how the Senate decides whether to give consent, and right now the rules of the Senate permit 41 Senators to block a nomination (or legislative proposal) from coming to a vote. These rules have been used by both parties and by ideological coalitions (like when Republicans and Southern Democrats blocked the nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice), to block both judicial and non-judicial appointments.

First of all, that's the ONLY case of a filibuster of a justice nominee, and that appointment did not have majority support. So it's a weak one. NEVER (until now) in the history of the Union has a minority of senators blocked a nominee having majority support.

NEVER.

>During the Clinton administration the Republicans used "holds" that could be imposed by only ONE Senator (rather than 41) to kill some judicial nominations, so the current conservative talk-show talking point that this has never happened before, is untrue. The mechanism used may be different, but the fact is that both parties have used techniques in which less than a majority can block a vote on a judicial nomination.

Yes, and I disagree with it...and the use of "holds" was done by both parties during Clinton's administration (and both parties during Bush's administration). It's wrong...so let's stop it, no?

>My understanding of what is being proposed in the so-called "nuclear option" is that the Republicans are going to change the rules of the Senate to disallow the use of the filibuster for judicial nomination. The problem is that the non-partisan Senate parliamentarian has stated that to pass such a measure by majority vote (in the face of a certain Democratic filibuster) would in and of itself violate the rules of the Senate. So calling it the "constitutional option" is very cute but the fact remains that the constitution says nothing about the number of votes required to bring a matter to a vote. In fact, since the constitution does say each house makes its own rules, it would be more accurate to call the "nuclear option" the "UN constitutional option."

So would you opine that a rule requiring any measure to pass a constitution amendment need 99% of all senators to pass (when the Constitution states only 2/3s are required) as being constitutional?

What about a "rule" that states that any nominee by the President must first dance a jig on one leg for at least 30 minutes before the senators would be able to vote?

When do you draw the line between a valid rule (set up by a majority of senators to govern the Senate) and a rule that imposes a requirement far more burdonesome than the Constitution?

Pack. I think you are mostly right. The one thing I wouldn't mind seeing is that if the BSA is attacked by the ACLU and the BSA wins, that it gets to recover all its attorney fees from the ACLU, i.e., put up or shut up.

What I disagree with is "The simple and honest approach would be for governments to obey the law thus leaving no need for action by the ACLU." If the ACLU were always right, you would be accurate. But, as we all know, people file lawsuits based on their private interpretations of the law (even the ACLU) and sometimes those interpretations are wrong, e.g. Dale.

Prarie. I am well read on the view of separation of church and state, with it going back to Jefferson's letter. But I disagree that a private letter by Jefferson makes it constitutional law, and until rather recently, it was not the law. Some judges agree with the view of separation of church and state, while others disagree. My view? Once it's in the Constitution, I will agree. Until then, the Constitution prohibits Congress from making a law respecting a religion, and I don't see how Congress is doing that when a private party puts a Bible in front of a state courthouse. (Not that I agree this is a good idea...but that's my point.)

You give me one example of a filibustered judicial appointment (in the 225+ year history of the union). That ONE nominee was filibustered, but he failed to have support by the majority. In other words, he never got the 51+ votes necessary to become a judge. So that one is irrelevant to the cases at hand, in which judges having majority support from the senators are being filibustered.

>I'd more or less agree, but at least theoretically, a conservative judge could limit the effects of a law passed by a liberal Congress by using court cases to do so.

I could see that, theoretically. It's what Roosevelt reacted to in threatening to pack the Supreme Court. In that case, the courts are refusing to allow a liberal law to stand, when the people's representatives passed that law.

Okay...that's wrong.

But...on the spectrum of things, it's not nearly as bad as when the courts impose NEW laws on the people that they never passed. Brown vs. Board of Education was a good result, but the PEOPLE should have been the ones passing the law (not the unelected judges). Miranda rights are good. But the PEOPLE should be the ones giving us those rights, not unelected judges.

That's my view.

Well, my point is any blocking of nominees by a President is wrong, regardless of the party. Senator Frist has offered to prohibit any artificial maneuvers that block a nominee from getting his vote. I agree with that. I don't see a good argument against it (other than the party out of power doesn't want the President to get his nominees through despite having support by a majority of Senators).

I considered putting my boys into a non-LDS BSA unit, warning the Bishop that unless the program got its act together I was going to make sure my boys found a good BSA unit. I also know a 17-year young LDS lady who has joined a non-LDS BSA crew. She can't join the LDS BSA crew, since we do not intermix our genders thus the solution was the non-LDS crew.

So...I'm sure LDS youth find their way into non-LDS units.

>But what about the requirement to rank advance by birthday (is this for Cubs only?)

That's only a rule for the LDS units, not for all LDS youth. The LDS Church would not care that an LDS youth was moving up in a non-LDS unit according to the age-standards of that non-LDS unit.

>and the rule that age cohorts do not mix with others (if I understand that right?).

That rule is there to keep the priesthood quorums together, with the BSA unit the activity arm of each priesthood quorum. Where an LDS boy is in an non-LDS BSA unit, that rule would not apply anymore than an LDS youth in Little League or YMCA and being put into an age group that did not follow the LDS pattern of 12-13, 14-15 and 16-18.

>Are there special considerations a SM should know about?

Really, the only two I can think of is (i) to keep the Sabbath Day holy as the LDS Church views it, meaning no recreational activities on that day and allowing the members to attend their church/sacrament meetings, and (ii) LDS youth are not to do overnight activities with members of the opposite sex (whether youth or adults). Also, with youth younger than 16, there should not be a lot of inter-gender activities. There will be exceptions, but that's bascially it.(This message has been edited by tortdog)

I think it's important to understand that LDS units do not do recreational Scouting on Sundays. That means, as units, we don't travel. That means we don't canoe. That means we don't rock climb, etc. In the past, we could hold church services at the campsite, but no longer (except where there is special approval and adequate facilities for worship...e.g., Philmont church services).

However, we will hold courts of honor and other Scouting recognition events.

Thus, the way to accomodate LDS units is to allow them to break camp early during a camporee (or arrive late). We pack and go right after the Saturday campfire. We arrive Monday morning for Scout camp, as opposed to Sunday.

For Woodbadge, the SHAC held a 6-day training, as opposed to two 3-day weekends. Most of the participants in the Woodbadge course were LDS. SHAC also accomodates the LDS in canoeing training, by doing it over two Fri-Sat as opposed to one Fri-Sun (other than instructors).

The no-camping on Sunday restriction would hold for the LDS scout regardless of the sponsoring unit. The LDS Church believes that the youth and adults need to attend church and renew their baptisimal covenants via the sacrament, and it does not approve sacrament "on location" unless under special circumstances.

Of course, the individual members make their own choices. Steve Young played football on Sundays. Eli Herring (drafted by the Raiders), refused to play in the NFL because of the req't to play on Sunday.

Usually, I personally refuse to do any recreation on Sundays (including camping), but made an exeception this last weekend for Red Cross certification in canoeing. I "justified" it as a requirement for the boys to have a qualified instructor/first aid.

So...there it is.

Pack. I guess if you cave into whatever the ACLU's view of the Constitution is on any given day (sans the right to bear arms, of course), then we would have no litigation.

Prarie.

>I would say, rather, that the ACLU tries to maintain the separation of church and state as required by law.

I can't seem to find anywhere in the Constitution that requires church and state to be separated. Can you help me on that?

>In regards to your feelings about judges, you might be targeting the wrong people. Judges only act on cases brought before them; they don't get to just make up things.

That's true, but when they get the "right" case in front of them, activist judges use it to create new law.

>The job of the judge is to interpret law; do some of them overreach? I'm sure they due, and I would bet that there is pretty much an even split between conservative and liberal judges who do that.

I completely diagree. Liberal means open minded and one lending towards change, with a rejection of established positions and values. Conservative is one who maintains the status quo. So an activist liberal judge is one who changes the law. An activist conservative judge is what...one who takes the law back to where it was before? The activist conservative cannot, by definition, bring in something that the people have not already decided.

So I'll just have to disagree.

>And, judges aren't quite "unelected". When it comes to federal judges, at least, there is a process of review and then a vote by the Senate, who are our representatives.

I disagree. Unless the people are casting ballots for a judge (which is the case in some state judges), then the judges are unelected. Ballet = election. If there's no ballot, there's not election.

No?

>>Regards the filibuster, it has been widely reported in the media that, while not a popular tactic, the use of the filibuster in this situation is not without precedent.

I missed this. Give me an example. Since it's so widely reported, it should be extremely simple. When is the last time a judge who had majority support by the Senate was filibustered?

>The Democratic Party, I would guess, sees the judicial committee as a group simply rubber stamping the judicial nominations, and is doing what it can when it sees nominees that it considers to be clearly unacceptable.

I don't recall the Constitution even requiring a vote by Committee. If the Judiciary Committee "rubber stamped" the nominee, why is that unconstitutional? Furthermore, have give me the name of ONE judge that you consider to be "rubber stamped", and I'll point you to the hearing reports. Just one will do.

>You'll see that they've done this with only a very small number of judges, while passing on many, many more.

The little guys don't count. These are the big dogs, the ones who are proficient, capable, but have a viewpoint that a minority of Senators disagree with.

>It's one thing to let the President have his "team". While Cabinet members, for example, do get scrutinized, more often than not the minority party will vote the candidate on to a full vote in the Senate. Judges, because they are lifetime appointments, should have further review and care, and extra efforts are made to try to stop those that are too extreme in either direction.

Okay. That's fine. Scrutinize.

>Rules allowing the minority to block a vote aren't "hiding" in some "penumbra" someplace. They are rules that were created by the Senate and have existed and worked just fine for 200 years.

Then why have the filibuster rules never been used to do what Senate Democrats are doing now? Why didn't the Senate Democrats use the filibuster to block Clarence Thomas, who they strongly disagreed with and barely passed? They had the votes to block it by filibuster...so why didn't they?

>Doesn't require an amendment to the Constitution, and they needn't be changed just for the convenience of the party in power.

If a rule changes the requirements set by the Constitution, I think it is unconstitutional. Tell me why that is wrong, please.

>I'd have a hard time painting the Democrats as the "evil" party here. Both parties have gotten to the point where the political battle is more important than the process of government.

True. But the Democrats took this fight a step further than has EVER been attempted before.

>The Democrats use unpopular tactics to block judicial appointees; the Republicans have a member in trouble with the ethics committee, so they just change the ethics rules to get around the problem. Tit for tat down the line. I've got a button around here someplace that says "Re-elect Nobody". Sounds good to me.

Sorry. I don't see ethic rules in the Constitution. I don't care if the houses set their rules, so long as those rules do not get in the way of what the Constitution requires.

Fact 1: The Constitution gives the President the right to nominate judges.

Fact 2: The Constitution requires a judicial nomination to receive 51 votes in the Senate prior to taking his seat.

Fact 3: As the result of the use of the filibuster by Senate Democrats, a judicial nominee needs to receive 61 votes.

Now please answer my question, that I've posed before. Why do you defend a rule that imposes a higher standard for judicial appointments than that provided for in the Constitution?

If a judicial nominee has the support from 55 Senators (more than that required by the Constitution), why would you argue that a minority Senators be permitted to block that nominee?(This message has been edited by tortdog)

>Law is society's statement on "order" - not morality. We lock up bad guys, not because they're immoral, but because they gum up the works, cost money, and make "good" people feel uncomfortable, thus interrupting their day and the blissful "order" of our communities.

I disagree. When society says that it is illegal to drink and drive, it passed a moral judgment. Society decided wrong and right, and the individual is now able to choose whether to follow or not. Society passes moral judgments all the time. This thought to not "legislate morality" is a new game played by those who want no moral absolutes, and it's completely misguided.

>Nowhere in this country is it taboo to mention God in a public school.

Well, other than the pledge (unless you are one of the judges on the 9th Circuit and even THAT is unconstitutional).

>I understand your disagreement with Judge Ginsburg's legal opinions. You're disrespect seems uneccessary. Do you have any former bosses? Do they own you? Should we define anyone according to any particular previous job they've held?

If someone were legal counsel for the KKK, I would never pick him for a decent job and doubt that I would ever respect him.

Justice Ginsburg has shown her true colors while opining for the court. She is the ACLU on the bench, and the Republicans (to their credit) did not filibuster her. (Not to give the Republicans too much credit...they probably just weren't smart enough to think filibustering would work.)

>I disagree with your interpretation of a judge's role re: interpreting law. Again, I think your over-generalized summation is disrespectful - and worse.

Apparently I'm full of disprespect today. Must be preparation for the canoe instructor training that I have to run to in a hurry.

>As far as states'(CA or TX) vs. federal govt. rights, I believe that's been decided, - the word we use is "indivisible". Democracy is messy, we can't all get our way all the time.

The states gave the federal government limited rights, while retaining all other rights/powers to themselves. Only now are the states starting to claim back some of the territory they lost due to legislative and judicial overreaching.

And..yeah...I think that's a good thing. Democracy is messy, and judges like to "clean it up" for us. Judge made law is the ultimate in tyranny, and we have a few on the Supreme Court and the other benches that have grown to like it.

>Would you argue that the rules be changed?

I argue that a bad rule should be stomped out, regardless of how long it's been around.

>They've been around for many, many years. I guess if you were a Senator and therefore inside the process, it might be more appropriate for you to want to change the rules. You know, like trying to change ethics rules.

Any rule that circumvents the Constitution should be abolished. Why is that opinion wrong?

>Then again, if you think (outsiders or) insiders have the right to work for organizational change, then logically, it would follow that you would be comfortable with the ACLU and/or Scouters working to change BSA policies.

I don't know why the People would be considered "outsiders". Doesn't the Senate belong to the People?

How about my question. The Constitution says that the President nominates judges and the Senate gives "advice and consent" on a majority basis. Why is it in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution when a rule allows a minority of Senators to block a vote? If by filibustering you need 61 senators (though the Constitution says you only need 51), shouldn't that rule require an amendment to the Constitution? Doesn't that rule frustrate constitutional intent?

Funny, isn't it, how we can stretch the Constitution to say that (i) no states can outlaw abortion, and (ii) you cannot execute a minor, but when the Constitution says a majority approves the judges we can't seem to find it in there. Must be in the penumbra, somewhere, that a minority of senators can block the vote.

>Once a young man hits 12 years of age, he camps any time he'd like for as long as he'd like, except because of his priesthood commitments, he really should be home on Sunday. Local leadership interprets this guideline differently, BUT the direction is that they should be encouraged to attend church on a weekly basis.

I have yet to be in one that allows Sunday camping (except 20 years ago when I was in scouts as a youth). I've tried to convince the local authorities that because in Jewish tradition the Sabbath ends at sundown (Christ was a Jew), that we could thus travel as soon as the sun hit the top of the trees on Sunday...but no one has bitten yet.

>Sorry, I just don't see how the ACLU is "removing God" from society. They have raised issues in court over groups who have allegedly overstepped Constitutional grounds in their displays or use of public facilities. Those are issues of law, not morality.

Law is society's statement of morality.

The ACLU has fought to build a wall between God and society. I disagree with that view. Society can include God without discriminating on the basis of religion. I bet you didn't know that our founding fathers, the ones who wrote the 1st Amendment, also provided government funding for religious institutions. Because the government funding was not for any ONE specific church, it was not viewed as forcing ONE religion on man by government. Today, it's taboo to mention God in school (except in Texas). I think that the founding fathers would be shocked at how the ACLU has twisted and contorted the 1st Amendment.

>And the ACLU is presenting their case in court, and there is an opposing side; a judge or jury makes the final determination, not the ACLU.

Correct. And sometimes those unelected judges can't stop themselves from making new laws that the people never agreed to. For example, there was once a time when the People of California felt it was okay for a doctor to perform an abortion, while the People of Texas disagreed. Each had its own laws. As a result of a few unelected lawyers, the rights of hundreds of millions of people to make their own laws were trampled.

If the courts want a law, they should step off the bench and become legislators so that we the people can have a say. But if they are going to sit behind that bench with the robe, they should strive mightily to only interpret what the people defined the law to be. When the majority of the people disagree with the "new and novel" definition provided by unelected lawyer-judges, maybe the judges ought to step back and reconsider.

>Saying that the ACLU has a seat on the Supreme Court is a bit of stretch, don't you think?

Absolutely not. Ginsburg worked for the ACLU. She is now on the Supreme Court. She might even still be a member. Would you feel the same way if a lawyer who worked for the KKK were now on the Court?

>Since Republican presidents appointed the majority of the Supreme Court, does that mean that the Republicans own the majority of seats?

I'd say they are responsible for them.

>As far as other judges supporing the ACLU, the majority of judges in the higher courts were appointed by Republicans. Unfortunately, I guess they sometimes have a nasty habit of being independent thinkers.

I don't think that was the question. The question was why the ACLU is listened to and I tried to answer it.

>Not to get too OT, but since you brought up the filibuster issue, we should remember that so far the Democrats have blocked 10 of the Presidents judicial nominees, while passing along many, many more. The Republicans blocked, what, 170?, during the Clinton Administration. And now the President, knowing that these candidates have been rejected before, is submitting them again in the full knowledge that this will cause a fight in the Senate that is nothing but political warfare. Who's being brash?

Both parties have used procedural games to prevent votes on the President's judicial nominees in the past. Both parties were wrong to do that. In the past, however, when a judicial nominee DID get past the committee, the Senate voted on it (as the Constitution requires). Today, for the first time in the history of the Senate, judicial nominees that have the support of the majority of Senators are being filibustered. Why? Because a minority of Senators disagree with the viewpoints of those nominees.

The old way of using procedural games in committee to prevent a vote was bad - and wrong. But this new way of filibustering to prevent a vote at all is unheard of. It guarantees that we get judges with no recorded opinion to the bench since anyone with an opinion is now open to filibustering by just 41 members.

Either rewrite the constitution to require consent by 61 senators, or have the senators vote.

Why would you disagree with that position?(This message has been edited by tortdog)

You might think of moving him to a unit that meets on another night. For example, we have three Varsity teams in our immediate area (all go to the same high school). Each meets on a different night.

During the summer, our Varsity team has picked an activity that is conducive to part-timers and summer. We will often be meeting at a lake or the Gulf on a day other than Tuesday (our regular meeting night). That way, people who are busy during the week can still make our Saturday training.

>On what basis do you think that the ACLU is "tearing down morality"?

I'd say in removing God from society. Can't do much worse than that.

The ACLU "tells" a court just as any private party can "tell" a court in filing "friend of the court" briefs. They hold a lot of sway because certain prominent members of the legal community strongly support (or are part of) the ACLU. Also, many judges agree with the ACLU views, with some having worked with the ACLU. Justice [holds my nose] Ginsburg was counsel for the ACLU...so basically the ACLU has a seat on the Supreme Court.

Just as I posted something came to mind. Had the Republican senators been so brash as the Democrat senators today on the filibuster, Justice Ginsburg would not be a justice on the Supreme Court. There is no way she would have gotten past 41 opposition votes. Of course, Clarence Thomas would not currently be on the Supreme Court if the filibustering of justices had been conducted back then either.(This message has been edited by tortdog)

>Maybe God just is just a really great practical joker?

Obviously so. He made vegetarians and also made animals out of meat.