Anyone else just a little concerned - Page 12

sgtdmski · 07-29-2007, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billybobama

I never disputed Terri Schiavo's brain health. The whole debate is about starving innocent sick people to death. Sorry you missed the whole point of the debate.

No Billy the only person missing the point once again is you. You have said these were laws created by Republicans, now evidence has been shown to prove they have been created by Democrats.

So either you fail to accept the evidence provided, you are ignoring it, or you are just plain out lying. Or maybe it is that you are so close-minded in your views that the truth and facts mean nothing.

dmk

sgtdmski · 07-29-2007, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baloney_detector

Like the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case?

Nice try, however, this case was a 6 - 3 decision.

dmk

sgtdmski · 07-29-2007, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hio

That case is just plain BS
The kid was not on school property and had every right to free speech. The school had no atthority to take action due to the location. Just because he is a student there doesnt mean a thing. The school committee agreed that the students be let out of class and watch forfeiting any right they had over the students when they left the property.
If the students were still on school grounds the principal could of done that, but what he did was over the line.

Get the facts correct. This was a school sanctioned event. The student were allowed to attend the running of the torch through the town, they were let out of class, however, teachers and administration were tasked with supervising the students.

CNN reported this quote from the student

Quote:

Frederick is teaching English to students in China and did not attend the oral arguments. The 24-year-old told reporters two weeks ago that he displayed the banner in a deliberate attempt to provoke a response from principal Morse.

It would seem that he got his wish - a response, and he was unhappy with it.

dmk

Hio · 07-29-2007, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

Get the facts correct. This was a school sanctioned event. The student were allowed to attend the running of the torch through the town, they were let out of class, however, teachers and administration were tasked with supervising the students.

Nooo the board of education voted there to allow the kids to have the day off as a "holiday"
It wasnt a school sanctioned event or how simpler terms would call it a Field Trip.
The school board voted not to have school that day therefore relinquishing their athority over the students.
Not to mention that it was done OFF school property, that was the main number 1 proof that the school had on the kid that they were claiming that he was still on their property so they had any right to do what they wanted with the sign...they werent.

sgtdmski · 07-30-2007, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hio

Nooo the board of education voted there to allow the kids to have the day off as a "holiday"
It wasnt a school sanctioned event or how simpler terms would call it a Field Trip.
The school board voted not to have school that day therefore relinquishing their athority over the students.
Not to mention that it was done OFF school property, that was the main number 1 proof that the school had on the kid that they were claiming that he was still on their property so they had any right to do what they wanted with the sign...they werent.

No it was not a "holiday". The facts presented to the Court were as follows:

Quote:

On January 24, 2002, the Olympic Torch Relay passed through Juneau, Alaska, on its way to the winter games inSalt Lake City, Utah. The torchbearers were to proceedalong a street in front of Juneau-Douglas High School(JDHS) while school was in session. Petitioner Deborah Morse, the school principal, decided to permit staff and students to participate in the Torch Relay as an approvedsocial event or class trip.

Furthermore the Court itself has said that this event was as follows:

Quote:

The event in question occurred during normal school hours and was sanctioned by Morse as an approved social event at which the district’s student-conduct rules expressly applied. Teachers and administrators were among the students and were charged with supervising them.

The principle allowed the students to be released from class to watch the relay and then return. There was no holiday approved by the school board. Learn the facts of the case just don't make them up to support your argument.

dmk

Hio · 07-30-2007, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

No it was not a "holiday". The facts presented to the Court were as follows:

Furthermore the Court itself has said that this event was as follows:

The principle allowed the students to be released from class to watch the relay and then return. There was no holiday approved by the school board. Learn the facts of the case just don't make them up to support your argument.

dmk

So it was a field trip without the knowledge of the parents of the students...not having the parents sign a permission slip to allow their child to do so the parents of the child then can sue the principal himself for destruction of personal property dont you think?

forester814 · 08-03-2007, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by knot_e_lady

that every Supreme court decision that has made the news in the last few months have all been split 5-4?

It bothers me tremendously!!!!

Sorry I didn't see this thread until now.

Yes, Knot, it bothers me too.

The main reason it bothers me is that it means that all these major cases that are being decided (and as a result the direction of the whole country is being driven) by ONE vote.

Certainly, all of the justices are qualified, learned, and scholarly people, but I would feel better if more cases were decided by larger majorities. Even a 6-3 result gives me MUCH more confidence that a proper, just, and constitutional verdict was reached.

sgtdmski · 08-09-2007, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by intangible child

It's a long term job!

As Congress prepares to probe Supreme Court nominee John Roberts's leanings on this or that constitutional question, it should not overlook a larger concern about the Supreme Court as an institution. The court is in desperate need of reform; it has become increasingly isolated, imperious and opaque.

This is no accident. It follows largely from the assumption, nurtured by the media and embraced by the justices, that they hold "lifetime" appointments. But it is time to rethink this assumption. And there is some reason for optimism that Roberts himself might agree and make a unique personal contribution to bringing about overdue change.

The power of Supreme Court justices today is epic in scale. The cases they hear involve the most difficult and contentious questions before the nation. An alphabetical list would begin with abortion and proceed through campaign finance, church-state relations, euthanasia, pornography, presidential selection and voting rights. And once appointed and confirmed, the members of the court who engage these momentous issues are able to do so for as long as they please.
A Court Too Supreme For Our Good

Long-lived precedent: John Marshall served as chief justice from 1801 until his death in 1835, setting the pattern of lifetime tenure for Supreme Court justices. (AP)

No it was the Constitution that granted the tenure of the justices. Saying only that The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour. (Article III, Section I of the US Constitution)

dmk

sgtdmski · 08-09-2007, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tristanrobin

I heartily approve of Justice Bryer's comment today, after SCOTUS ruled (5-4) on an issue which basically rolls back Brown vs. Board of Education.

"Never before have so few destroyed so much so quickly."

Roberts and Alito both looked as if they'd been kicked in the stomach.

Or perhaps we should consider the quote from Thomas in the same case

Quote:

Preferring members of any one group for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake.

Even more poignant is the fact that Thomas points out that the very arguments that the dissent used in this case was the same arguments used in the dissent of Brown. Again Thomas hit it on its head"

Quote:

What was wrong in 1954 cannot be right today

and

Quote:

Indeed, if our history has taught us anything, it has taught us to beware of elites bearing racial theories.30 See, e.g., Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 407 (1857) ("[T]hey [members of the "negro African race"] had no rights which the white man was bound to respect"). Can we really be sure that the racial theories that motivated Dred Scott and Plessy are a relic of the past or that future theories will be nothing but beneficent and progressive? That is a gamble I am unwilling to take, and it is one the Constitution does not allow.

How do you end discrimination on the basis of race when the program you use is based upon discriminating on the basis of race?

dmk

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode