1985 Boy Scout commercial with a (now) non-supporter

[skeptic 999]

Ah yes; "citizens bring lawsuits". In most of these cases you can find a political and/or extremist group pushing it from the background, at least to start. Of course, I am not sure what it says about an individual if they are "so threatened by an idea or belief" that they need to sue in the first place. If you do not believe in something, then tune it out and move on; or find some other group with which to interact.

 

The real problem is the development of a radically egocentric society. As long as people feel that "only their feelings or beliefs" are important, there will be friction. People on both sides of disagreements need to get over themselves. As Rodney King said (RIP), "Why can't we all just get along?"

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

That's certainly not true of the Santa Fe case; of course, every lawsuit that ends with an opinion that says the plaintiff's civil rights were violated is justified -- unless people aren't supposed to complain about their civil rights being violated.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

SeattlePioneer writes:

You are kidding yourself. The courts and institutions such as the ACLU are out there patrolling the United States for lawsuits over issues like this.

 

You don't know how the real world works; the federal courts settle issues that come before it; in order to bring a court case, a plaintiff is needed. Even if a court official found some violation, that official would not have standing to bring a case. A person actually affected by the violation would be needed. Same with the ACLU. That's why both of these organizations have cases brought to them by people who have been affected to some degree.

 

You seem to be a true believer in the religion of Court Worship and judicial rule we have had foisted upon us by the judiciary.

 

Nope, I just live in the real world, where court decisions, even ones I dislike, disagree with, or consider unconstitutional, are case law.

 

It's ironic that the Supreme Court and all the littler courts are out censoring religious activities in the public square, what they do in fact is to create space for new religions to take control and dominate in those spaces.

 

Only in your paranoid fantasies. The first amendment does not mean anyone and everyone gets to say prayers and make speeches at graduation exercises.

 

It's ironic that the Supreme Court, which fancies itself the protector of the constitution, is the biggest and most persistent corrupter of that poor document.

 

Oh, yawn.

[BSA24 10]

> It's ironic that the Supreme Court,

> which fancies itself the protector of the constitution,

> is the biggest and most persistent corrupter of that

> poor document.

 

The Supreme Court can be overruled by majority opinion. Just amend the constitution. It's quite simple. It has been done 27 times before.

 

HOW TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION

 

 

To Propose Amendments

 

In the U.S. Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate approve by a two-thirds supermajority vote, a joint resolution amending the Constitution. Amendments so approved do not require the signature of the President of the United States and are sent directly to the states for ratification.

 

Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)

 

To Ratify Amendments

 

Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or

 

Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition.

 

 

 

 

From: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/constamend.htm

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

SeattlePioneer writes:

The issue of standing is an interesting one, and a pliable one depending on how readily the courts want to solicit cases.

 

In its liberal activist years, issues of standing were relaxed. In recent years, barriers to bringing cases have been made more rigid.

 

Got any examples?

 

By the way, you failed to note that the standing issue trashes your assertion about courts patrolling the United States for lawsuits.

 

The extent to which the Federal courts and the ACLU are enmeshed to patrol public spaces for signs of religious activity is no secret, and no joke.

 

And no examples on your end, still.

 

This has the political effect of empowering atheists and creating official hostility towards religion.

 

Whine, whine, whine.

 

Of course you don;t want to recognize any of this.

 

A lack of examples sure makes it easy to miss.

[skeptic 999]

Actually Merlyn, the standing issue likely will eventually reach the high court with the San Diego case. The lower court's ruling on standing is thin at best, and completely illogical (logic is not always used in these decisions obviously) in that the primary litigants "never" actually tried to use the facilities because the very idea of even dealing with the BSA would somehow cause them emotional trauma. Reality is that they would not have been turned away in the first place if they had actually applied; though their first choices may have been taken by others, including scout units. I just wish this one would finally get to SCOTUS, as it just reeks of questionable rulings almost from the start, and is one of the best examples of the activist court.

 

Yes, I know you disagree and think the public good is not a factor with the cases. If the scouts should lose the camps, the city and area will be the real losers. None of the government entities have the wherewithal to administer the "open to public" facilities or to maintain them, especially in this economy. So, Balboa, or at least the areas without buildings, would likely return to the natural state and become overgrown and another fire concern. And the Mission Park facility would likely be closed or become a private park with exorbitant costs. This just reflects the self centered positions of those bringing these suits.

 

You will call it whining, or some other juvenile comment; I just call it logic and reality.

[SeattlePioneer 144]

>

 

 

Of course it doesn't.

 

 

The first time the Supreme Court ruled an act of Congress unconstitutional was Marbury vs Madison in 1803.

 

The second time was the Dredd Scott case in 1857, 54 years later. (A case that materially helped start the Civil War).

 

 

Now Federal Courts parse huge numbers of executive branch decisions and Congressional laws. Every Federal judge stands ready to make his own interpretation of the constitution should he have an opportunity to do so.

 

The Federal Courts make their own law on issues like abortion, establishment of religion and pornography, and they can depend on people and institutions bringing cases to allow them to enforce those decisions.

 

We have eleven million illegal immigrants in this country most of them not being disturbed by Federal enforcement actions. But a kid making a high school commencement speech can pretty much depend on being hauled before a Federal judge should he have the temerity to include a prayer in his speech.

 

You need to look at how things actually work, not to be distracted by some elaborate theory that functions to deceive people.

 

 

[Tampa Turtle 1011]

Seattle,

 

Can you cite an actual case where a " kid making a high school commencement speech "was hauled before a Federal judge for including a prayer in his speech?" Or is that just hyperbole?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

skeptic writes:

Actually Merlyn, the standing issue likely will eventually reach the high court with the San Diego case.

 

It might; but you'll notice that standing was still a requirement, however thin.

 

Yes, I know you disagree and think the public good is not a factor with the cases.

 

Actually, I DO think the public good is a factor; ALL of the public, not just the public that the BSA prefers.

 

If the scouts should lose the camps, the city and area will be the real losers.

 

Well, cities should be more careful making public contracts with discriminatory organizations like the BSA. I have no sympathy.

 

 

 

SeattlePioneer writes:

You need to look at how things actually work, not to be distracted by some elaborate theory that functions to deceive people.

 

Like all your not-an-actual-example examples? Your made up fanatasies?

 

(I know I mistyped "fantasies", but I think it came out better).

[packsaddle 753]

SeattlePioneer, can you prove to me that you are NOT evmori?

[SSScout 1616]

Solipsism.

 

If no one heard the Supreme Court, would it exist?

 

Does the SCotUS have a function if no one agrees that it does?

 

Did Dred Scott have an alternative until 1868? (He was dead by then)

 

Does YOUR "bad decision" mean that MY "good decision" is still "good"?