Tendo City

Supreme Court resignation in as expected, but it's one of the moderates... and I just know Bush will nominate a radical right person. This will probably get ugly...

Woohoo!

I for one don't care at all about the supreme court. I don't believe in the power it wields, and whoever gets on there, I couldn't care less. No matter what they say, I will never recognize a handful of stiff-assed old pricks as the "ultimate authority" on matters. Their sense of justice is no more right or wrong than mine, or anyone elses'.

I don't think it really makes much difference whether you believe it or not...

That doesn't make sense, Darunia. So you don't like the Constitution? Would you rather have a parliamentary system like England, where one branch (the legislative) dominates the government? The US was founded based on the idea of balance of powers, and the judiciary is just as big a part of that as the executive and legislative.

I absolutely adore democracy and the US Constitution. I do not believe in the way the US Supreme Court is heading . The US Constitution was plain and basic. It allowed basic rights, etc. The US Supreme Court of today is a panel of old cronies, who base their decisions on their personal politics and not on what is actually right. Example:

US Constitution: Separation of church and state.

US Supreme Court: Separation in some states; government-sponsored display of the Ten Commandments in others. We really have no idea what to do here, so we just, like totally, decided to go down the middle.

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

No where does it say anything about "seperation" of church and state. No LAW respecting an establishment of religion. Is showing the Ten Commandments at a courthouse or other public place a LAW? What exactly does prohibition of free exercise MEAN? You could argue it means that making a law that says that the Ten Commandments or a similar religious icon cannot be shown in a public place is PROHIBITING the free excercise of religion. The Constition is NOT clear on this subject. The only thing we have to go on is a vague line and the intent of the framers, both which are highly contended.

Quote:You could argue it means that making a law that says that the Ten Commandments or a similar religious icon cannot be shown in a public place is PROHIBITING the free excercise of religion.

No, not unless you give equal time to all religions -- that's the point of that clause, really. Giving equal time to all. Of course, in 1789 it was mostly referring to the various Protestant factions, but times change and now it refers to all religions... so even if you manage to read the constitution to mean that, making a law like that would require you to also allow just about any legal religion to put displays in similar places in public buildings. :) "Ten Commandments Only" would never past legal muster.

In modern times we recognize that promoting one religion above others isn't right (or at least we do most of the time). That's why they said what they did in Kentucky. Texas? I really don't know... bad decision, I'd say. But that did have a bit more going for it -- it was at the statehouse, not a courtroom; it'd been there for 40 years; and was one of 20-something displays. But yes, the courts will have to work through this to figure out which displays are legal and which aren't... because this is clearly something where we cannot simply transmute what the Founders meant into current policy. The times have just changed too much. We need to build on their work and interpret it for modern times... we do that already of course, but it's an important part of legislating.

Quote:What exactly does prohibition of free exercise MEAN?

It means anything that promotes one religion over the others... such as, oh, displaying a religious symbol of one religion over the others? However, in practice as we see here the issue is very muddy -- historical use/display has been allowed, mostly -- witness the Pledge of Allegiance (though I think that should definitely be changed), 'In God We Trust' on our money, swearing in witnesses in court (or the president) on a Bible, etc. Because of how important religion is to so many people the issue never ends up as clearcut as it sounds like it could be going by the Constitution... so I wasn't really surprised to see one of those displays held up in court. I don't think it's in keeping with how we interpret that clause of the constitution now, but with how important the religious right is to the Republican party...

A Black Falcon Wrote:No, not unless you give equal time to all religions -- that's the point of that clause, really.

No it isn't. The point of the clause is simple:

Congress cannot make a law establishing an official state religion (e.g. The Anglican Church). Conversely, Congress cannot make a law prohibiting anyone from practicing any religion.

How anyone can read this and assume it means anything but what is says boggles me. I also cannot see how placing the Ten Commandments in a courtroom implies that Congress made a law establishing Judaism or Christianity as an official national religion.

I find Darunia's views on faith quite reprehensible, but at least he's honest about wanting to purge all trace of it from society. That's the same goal of people who use the imaginary Seperation clause in all of these lawsuits. They just lack the moral backbone to admit it, and instead use that golden term of equality.

On the matter of the Supreme Court... I find a big issue with the Judiciary branch. I find the whole process very faulty and undemocratic myself. Supreme Court judges are not elected by the people, and serve as long as they want to serve. They are appointed. They are practically royalty. I think the Judicial branch should be subject to public elections and limited terms as the other two branches are.

Quote:No it isn't. The point of the clause is simple:

Congress cannot make a law establishing an official state religion (e.g. The Anglican Church). Conversely, Congress cannot make a law prohibiting anyone from practicing any religion.

How anyone can read this and assume it means anything but what is says boggles me. I also cannot see how placing the Ten Commandments in a courtroom implies that Congress made a law establishing Judaism or Christianity as an official national religion.

But it's so simple... when you support one religion above the others, you are saying that that religion has a special place in our society (and government) that the others do not. That clause of the Constitution specifically says that that is not okay. Yes, it's never been fully complied with, but that doesn't mean that we should stop trying to comply with it! Your statement is flawed because you fail to realize that the definition of where state sponsorship of religion begins isn't some clearcut line that begins and ends with laws banning other religions, or forcing everyone to attend the services of whatever the state-sponsored church is, or whatever.

No, what is really going on here is that modern-day (religious in thise case) conservatives want to subvert the Constitution and dismantle it, one piece at a time, starting with the Bill of Rights... this clause has been under attack for a long time, because our government now is almost certainly more religious in a lot of ways than most of the Founders were, and cases like this show that they're slowly making ground...

Yes, the early republic had church services in Congress, etc... I know. As I said, back then the main understanding of 'freedom of religion' was for the Protestant sects... but times change, and it doesn't mean that anymore (of course it never fully did, as other religions (Jews, Catholics, etc) weren't officially prosecuted or anything...). But even so, I'm sure that there are some of the founders who at least in part would have disagreed with this (what the Religious Right is doing to this country)... they weren't all exactly the most loyal Christians, you know.

Quote:On the matter of the Supreme Court... I find a big issue with the Judiciary branch. I find the whole process very faulty and undemocratic myself. Supreme Court judges are not elected by the people, and serve as long as they want to serve. They are appointed. They are practically royalty. I think the Judicial branch should be subject to public elections and limited terms as the other two branches are.

Absolutely not. Never. That's a horrible idea... because, think about it. The purpose of being a judge is to be ABOVE the party system -- to be impartial. And if judges had to be elected, guess what we'd get? Yeah, not just judges put onto the court because the administration thinks that they'd vote their way, but judges that actually have to HOLD to that or they'll get voted out of office! That would have the result of damaging perhaps beyond repair the judicial system of this country... the Constitution was set up to provide layers upon layers to insulate government policy from the current wind on the streets. Yes, it was done because of a suspicion of the common people, but that suspicion was, I think, well founded in too many ways for me to say that we should substantially change that beyond what we've already done (giving direct elections for senators, for instance, is okay -- the legislative branch is meant to be elected regularly...).

As for their power, the balancing act between interpreting the law and making the law through 'interpretation' is indeed a fine one sometimes, and the courts (or rather, the Supreme Court, which holds by far the most power for that) definitely over time have gone back and forth on the issue. It's a tough question which cannot be answered in absolutes... what is appropriate in some situations may not be in others.

A Black Falcon Wrote:As for their power, the balancing act between interpreting the law and making the law through 'interpretation' is indeed a fine one sometimes, and the courts (or rather, the Supreme Court, which holds by far the most power for that) definitely over time have gone back and forth on the issue. It's a tough question which cannot be answered in absolutes... what is appropriate in some situations may not be in others.

Can I ask, when is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to "make the law"? Wouldn't that be the Supreme Court usurping the power of the legislature?

You may think so, but the Supreme Court has been making decisions that helped shape US policy since the very early 1800s... thank John Marshall for that, in part. :)

I just don't like the idea of people placed into a position of inordinately high power, sitting on high, issuing proclamations to us with impunity, and we have absolutely no say over any of it, we can merely hope one of the two elected branches has the balls to stand up to them.

The Supreme Court is designed to interpret laws and to balance the rest of the trinity, not make their own as they see fit.

Quote:I just don't like the idea of people placed into a position of inordinately high power, sitting on high, issuing proclamations to us with impunity, and we have absolutely no say over any of it, we can merely hope one of the two elected branches has the balls to stand up to them.

You know that's not true. All you have to do to overturn a Supreme Court case is write a law that changes that law... yes, that can be hard in some cases, but it's hardly impossible. Balance of powers...

Quote:The Supreme Court is designed to interpret laws and to balance the rest of the trinity, not make their own as they see fit.

That was true for 10 years... maybe 20, tops (when in the very beginning the Supreme Court was weak). But that changed early and permanantly. And besides, they have to base their decisions on the existing laws... yes their interpretations of the existing law can shape policy, but that's what they're technically doing, not passing new laws.

A Black Falcon Wrote:You know that's not true. All you have to do to overturn a Supreme Court case is write a law that changes that law... yes, that can be hard in some cases, but it's hardly impossible. Balance of powers...

That's what I said. Unfortunately, it's exponentially easier for the Supreme Court to alter the interpretation of a law than it is for the legislature to counter it. The Judiciary has the most unfettered and inaccessable power structure of the three branches. It is a balance that is surely tipping. They answer to the other two branches, but that's not enough. They also need to answer to us. After all, it's our lives that are affected by their decisions, and usually in a very direct way. It's against the entire democratic process to allow one point of the triad to be able to ignore public scrutiny and act with impunity. It's harder for the legislative and execuitive branches to counter the judiciary because they have to worry about what we think. The Judiciary needs that same kind of worry. They need to have to think about what the people care about before they hand down cast-iron rulings that affect our lives.

My interpretation of the system is that the judicial branch of our goverment is supposed to serve as the ultimate check against the other two, which in theory have more broad policymaking powers at their disposal. Instead, it is the judiciary that seems to wield the least-checked power. It should not be that way. No official in any position of lawmaking power should be above public scrutiny. This is our government and our system. Our president and Congress rule because we as citizens allow them to. We don't have any say in who rules on the Court, and it's really wrong that we don't.

So ABF what do you think of the eminent domain ruling?

You're telling me that when the US government, (not a private citizen), funds the acquisition of a granite statue which bears the Ten Commandments, and places it in public property for all too see, it has nothing to do with that government sponsoring a religion? The US Government paying to have the words "Have no other Gods before me" and unabashedly displaying them in public has no pro-preligious implications at all? This is the twenty-first century, and the government blaring "HATH NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME" means nothing to you, it's hunky dorey, a-okay? What about the Muslims and Buddhists, atheists, Taoists and all other minorities, however comparatively few and negligible they may seem? The truth is that they don't count as long as the majority of America is Christian... that's the exact way of it.

Man I'm glad I'm from the Goron Empire, where we actually have NO state-sponsored religion.

What ARE you talking about? What about the three goddesses?

But, you have a point. People shouldn't be paying taxes to support construction of such things if they don't want to.

At any rate, just one additional note. I do believe the Supreme Court should in fact exist, but from what I understand their role is in interpretating and judging what the law says, not in actually making it themselves.

Quote:What about the Muslims and Buddhists, atheists, Taoists and all other minorities, however comparatively few and negligible they may seem? The truth is that they don't count as long as the majority of America is Christian... that's the exact way of it.

Yes, this is the essential problem of it. Weltall evidently seems to be trying to sneak in religion through a supposed loophole where it only "counts" if it's full government sponsorship, but legal history has shown that that does not hold up in court. Anything counts as support of religion, not just a law saying "the Methodists are right" or something. And anything that supports one religion to the exclusion of the others definitely is government support of religion... non-denominational Christianity might have been an acceptable "no government support" position one or two hundred years ago, but it quite definitely is not anymore.

Quote:At any rate, just one additional note. I do believe the Supreme Court should in fact exist, but from what I understand their role is in interpretating and judging what the law says, not in actually making it themselves.

Republicans say this all the time... and it's a lie. Why? Quite simple. What Republicans want isn't for us to go on what the Founders thought, or what the Founders intended, or what the Constitution says. That has absolutely nothing to do with it. What it is is a very simple marketing ploy to try to convince people that the opposition is un-American, or disrespects the Constitution, or something. As in, it's all about trying to push their agenda at the exclusion of all others -- "interpreting the law as it is written" has NO connection to the agenda that they actually want said judges to follow.

Quote:So ABF what do you think of the eminent domain ruling?

One of a bunch of not-so-great rulings the court released this session. There's no way that their interpretation follows the original intent of the Constitution, for sure, and it doesn't work by a social justice or liberalism test either (which is why both liberals and conservatives in Congress are uniting to try to do something about this)...

Quote:The Judiciary needs that same kind of worry.

No, they don't.

I don't like the Supreme Court anymore, and I think we all agree here that they've been passing some pretty bad judgements. The underlying matter is that they're politicians---judges first maybe, but they have their own views. And then we have the Ten Commandments case... it's OK in some places, but not in others? That just shows indecisiveness, and their unwillingness to come to a REAL decision, thus they split it.

The Three Goddesses is a Hyrulian religious view. The Holy Goron Empire banished all religion under pain of castration and defenestration three years after our conquest of the Holy Realm.

Fantasy is different because you can usually prove quite definitively that the deities exist... :)

Quote:I don't like the Supreme Court anymore, and I think we all agree here that they've been passing some pretty bad judgements. The underlying matter is that they're politicians---judges first maybe, but they have their own views. And then we have the Ten Commandments case... it's OK in some places, but not in others? That just shows indecisiveness, and their unwillingness to come to a REAL decision, thus they split it.

You don't like the conservative court, I'm sure you'd dislike a liberal court... what DO you want? No one is fully able to be completely impartial, after all... the best we can hope for is a good effort at it.

Quote:Get Ready...

Welcome to the fantasy zone.

Bush is sometimes clever, at least I'll give him that much... he indeed nominates a far-right conservative, but he nominates one with a bit less of a record about it (though some of that is now coming out with the Reagan administration papers) so that it's harder to oppose him...

I see that some nice people have tried to nail Souter and Stevens for their part in that fantastically stupid imminent domain ruling.

Ugh, I remember hearing about that domain ruling... it's stupid... That ruling was for PUBLIC WORKS, such as building a dam, roads, a public library, a military base, or anything along those lines that is owned by the government. By allowing them to say "we can also do this for the sake of improving the economy by placing economy stimulating businesses in already owned land" you intoduce a HUGE problem. At least with roads and government owned buildings, you know that they aren't in it for the money. At the most, they will be doing it for political gain. But, now they can look at a small business and say "you know, it would help the economy more if they put a Walmart in there" and DO it. It's just a bad law.

Among other bad laws involving property... I have issues with the endangered species act as well. That law has nothing to do with actually protecting endangered species and everything to do with land control. They can say "hey, this animal is plentiful over here, but not over here, you can't build until the population rebuilds over here". The problem there is, um, you can't build where the animals obviously DON'T like to live but suddenly you CAN build where they DO? Protecting animals is all well and good, but that law should be canned, because it is just the sort of power that will always be getting used for all the wrong reasons. There are better laws that actually show some promise, like an act labelling many miles of unclaimed land as a wildlife reserve. Nothing wrong with that.

And Darunia, you fool, you seem pretty selective in your skepticism. Oh sure, you can't believe in the goddesses, but something equally outlandish like another world with an item that grants infinite wishes so long as you hold it? Oh sure, put your entire force taking up the vast space one might find under a shoe to that task. Besides that, I channeled the Fire of Din just this morn, so don't tell me they don't exist. That certainly wasn't my mitochondria flarin' up! But that's all irrelevent. That pretty much proves you ain't the real thing. The actual Darunia goes on and on in speeches about the goddesses and the ruby they have being the key to their great gift to Hyrule.

To whoever keeps doing this: And from now on UPLOAD smilies to the FTP site and THEN add them to the smily list! They show up as dead images if you link directly to an image attachment in some post!

I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers wouldn't have approved of taken land from private owners and giving it to large corporations.

Yes indeed. Had large corporations existed at the time, I'm sure they would have said something to that effect.

Actually, there were some large corporations around back then, not very many though. In fact, George Washington spoke out against large corporations.

Really? I'm willing to take that bet! I offer US Steel!

...

I bet FOR it I mean!

Yes, the public domain ruling was awful and definitely not in the spirit of what the constitution suggests... but responding by siezing the land of supreme court justices is kind of silly. :)

... but then again, it IS New Hampshire, land of Libertairans, so I'm not that surprised...

Quote:but responding by siezing the land of supreme court justices is kind of silly.

It's entirely legal though, at least that's what they decided.

What better way to show them the error of their ways?

It does illustrate a point rather well :D.

It's not very nice, but I can see why they'd be really upset about this decision, so I don't know... but it is kind of funny. :)

Quote:It's not very nice,

The decision that SC justice made wasn't too nice either.

That's true, and hence my uncertainty.

It may not have been "nice", and taking of their land wasn't right, but when they made that law, they literally gave them permission to do it.

That much at least is true.