Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hezekiah jones · 06-26-2002, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft:
If I read correctly, the appeals court remanded, which means they sent it back to the lower court to be retried (or re-decisioned) ...

No I believe it was sent to the lower court to apply an injuction against the pledge as currently worded.

GunnerJ · 06-26-2002, 12:12 PM

Smashing, smashing news. I'm formulating my letter to the editor now.

Question- does the ruling say that the pledge can't be recited in schools? Or that it must be changed?

Philosoft · 06-26-2002, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hezekiah jones:


No I believe it was sent to the lower court to apply an injuction against the pledge as currently worded.

Well, that makes it all the more interesting. That means the decision is immediately binding.

added: I don't know. Does the remand carry injunctive power or does the lower court have to issue separately?

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]

RufusAtticus · 06-26-2002, 12:13 PM

Yeah. Go courts!

Mageth · 06-26-2002, 12:14 PM

Whether they like it or not a ruling arose that was good for the atheist/agnostic community..

Correction - good for the country as a whole; most people just don't realize/like it.

YES! Next year at school, I won't have to say the pledge every fucking morning of every fucking day of the school year!!!

The SC said in 1943 that you don't have to recite the pledge. This ruling says you can't be forced to listen to it (at least not the "under god" statement)

Does this ruling take effect immediately? I mean, will American kids be skipping "under god" tomorrow morning?

No, there's a several-month period for responses and such. Even then, if I understand correctly, it may only affect the area of the U.S. under the 9th's jurisdiction.

hezekiah jones · 06-26-2002, 12:16 PM

<a href="http://www.lucianne.com/threads2.asp?artnum=216904" target="_blank">Lucianne Goldberg's rightwing crazies go bananas online</a>

Philosoft · 06-26-2002, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hezekiah jones:
<a href="http://www.lucianne.com/threads2.asp?artnum=216904" target="_blank">Lucianne Goldberg's rightwing crazies go bananas online</a>

Talk about trumpeting one's stupidity:

Quote:

Reply 6 - Posted by: Gunner, 6/26/2002 2:45:13 PM

This is what happens when you have activist judges that are more concerned about their agenda than they are about the rule of law.

How hard is it to read the Constitution?

livius drusus · 06-26-2002, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bree:
Now - where is Mt. Aetna...

<a href="http://www.volcanolive.com/etna.html" target="_blank">Mt. Etna</a> is in Sicily, Principessa. Aetna is in Hartford, CT.

Mageth · 06-26-2002, 12:20 PM

OK, so how does this play out? Let's assume that the decision stands (SC either upholds it or refuses to hear an appeal), does this mean that the original version of the Pledge will be recited in schools (which I have no problem with) or is the Pledge in both forms entirely out the window?

Question- does the ruling say that the pledge can't be recited in schools? Or that it must be changed?

The ruling explains why the courts can't order a statute enacted by the legislature to be changed.

The ruling is directed at the constitutionality of the 1954 statute that added "under God", and does not affect the constitutionality of the rest of the pledge.

Writer@Large · 06-26-2002, 12:20 PM

I think this has won the award for "fastest-growing C/S Separation Thread Ever"!

--W@L

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-26-2002, 12:12 PM	#92
GunnerJ Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: a place where i can list whatever location i want Posts: 4,871	Smashing, smashing news. I'm formulating my letter to the editor now. Question- does the ruling say that the pledge can't be recited in schools? Or that it must be changed?

06-26-2002, 12:13 PM	#94
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Yeah. Go courts!

06-26-2002, 12:14 PM	#95
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Whether they like it or not a ruling arose that was good for the atheist/agnostic community.. Correction - good for the country as a whole; most people just don't realize/like it. YES! Next year at school, I won't have to say the pledge every fucking morning of every fucking day of the school year!!! The SC said in 1943 that you don't have to recite the pledge. This ruling says you can't be forced to listen to it (at least not the "under god" statement) Does this ruling take effect immediately? I mean, will American kids be skipping "under god" tomorrow morning? No, there's a several-month period for responses and such. Even then, if I understand correctly, it may only affect the area of the U.S. under the 9th's jurisdiction.

06-26-2002, 12:16 PM	#96
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	<a href="http://www.lucianne.com/threads2.asp?artnum=216904" target="_blank">Lucianne Goldberg's rightwing crazies go bananas online</a>

06-26-2002, 12:20 PM	#99
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	OK, so how does this play out? Let's assume that the decision stands (SC either upholds it or refuses to hear an appeal), does this mean that the original version of the Pledge will be recited in schools (which I have no problem with) or is the Pledge in both forms entirely out the window? Question- does the ruling say that the pledge can't be recited in schools? Or that it must be changed? The ruling explains why the courts can't order a statute enacted by the legislature to be changed. The ruling is directed at the constitutionality of the 1954 statute that added "under God", and does not affect the constitutionality of the rest of the pledge.

06-26-2002, 12:20 PM	#100
Writer@Large Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Posts: 7,198	I think this has won the award for "fastest-growing C/S Separation Thread Ever"! --W@L

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.