Freethought & Rationalism Archive

butswana · 02-25-2002, 10:41 AM

<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,46465,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,46465,00.html</a>

scigirl · 02-25-2002, 11:26 AM

Quote:

The monument "simply reflects the Ten Commandments' role in the development of our legal system," Rehnquist wrote for the three, setting up an argument that state lawyers would pick up in the recent appeal.

cough *bullshit* cough. If they also put up the Magna Carta and Hammarabi's code, than I might buy this story.

scigirl

Toto · 02-25-2002, 11:34 AM

We discussed this idea of the 10C as legal history previously. The people claiming that the 10C are part of our legal history cite a lot of evidence from the early colonies, which were theocratic, and a lot of laws on blasphemy. The 10C are associated with a part of our legal history that we have thankfully moved away from.

ohwilleke · 02-25-2002, 11:53 AM

Good news! There is still a 6-3 majority willing to back up an anti-10C ruling. 6 out of 7 of the even vaguely sane judges agreed that this was an easy case.

butswana · 02-26-2002, 10:45 AM

Saw the Gov on TV last night. He was pissed!! Ha. Stupid fuck looks like an uncut dick with the foreskin pulled down.
They showed this monstrousity on the news. It looks like a giant fucking tombstone. Ironic, eh?
It does have the preamble to the constitution on one side, but no one is going to see the side of it.

cheetah · 02-26-2002, 11:02 AM

There was also something on this article, or maybe on another thread, where Rehnquist said that just because the composition of the court has changed doesn't mean they can overturn a previous SCOTUS decision. Does this mean, and sorry to go off on a tangent, that we are all too worried about Roe V. Wade and the rigth-wingers that W appoints won't actually make the court able to overturn Roe v. Wade? If this is complicated, I could start another thread, but if it's easy, I didn't want to start a whole thread on it!

simian · 02-26-2002, 11:06 AM

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision can be found <a href="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op3.fwx?yr=00&num=3011&Submit1=Request+Opinion" target="_blank">here</a>

If that link doesn't work, go to:
<a href="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/" target="_blank">http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/</a>
hit the "Judicial Opinions" and type O'Bannon as the last name, then hit search. Only 2 will pop up.

The Seventh Circuit seems to have made a good decision. What I find most damning about the ethics of those behind it is that they use the 1851 Indiana Preamble (presumably this is not the current one)so they get "We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our own form of government, do ordain this Constitution." They were rather blatant in trying to get "Almight God" thrown in there.

hezekiah jones · 02-26-2002, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by simian:
... they use the 1851 Indiana Preamble (presumably this is not the current one) ...

That appears to be the current one: <a href="http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/inconst.html#preamble" target="_blank">Indiana State Constitution</a>.

This is interesting too:

Quote:

Section 4. No preference shall be given, by law, to any creed, religious society, or mode of worship; and no person shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support, any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, against his consent.

I guess Hoosiers are not supposed to regard a 7-foot block of granite inscribed with numerous Bible verses as "a place of worship."

simian · 02-26-2002, 11:51 AM

hezekiahjones,

Thanks for the information. That's what I get for skimming through the decision quickly. (Bad, Bad Simian).

Toto · 02-26-2002, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cheetah:
<strong>There was also something on this article, or maybe on another thread, where Rehnquist said that just because the composition of the court has changed doesn't mean they can overturn a previous SCOTUS decision. Does this mean, and sorry to go off on a tangent, that we are all too worried about Roe V. Wade and the rigth-wingers that W appoints won't actually make the court able to overturn Roe v. Wade? If this is complicated, I could start another thread, but if it's easy, I didn't want to start a whole thread on it!</strong>

It's easy - the current Supreme Court can and does overrule previous decisions. They can always find a reason other than the composition of the court has changed, even if that is the real reason. You still have to worry about Roe v. Wade.

02-25-2002, 10:41 AM	#1
butswana Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 1,804	Supreme Court Won't Hear Ten Commandments Case <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,46465,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,46465,00.html</a>

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

02-25-2002, 11:34 AM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	We discussed this idea of the 10C as legal history previously. The people claiming that the 10C are part of our legal history cite a lot of evidence from the early colonies, which were theocratic, and a lot of laws on blasphemy. The 10C are associated with a part of our legal history that we have thankfully moved away from.

02-25-2002, 11:53 AM	#4
ohwilleke Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Denver, Colorado, USA Posts: 4,834	Good news! There is still a 6-3 majority willing to back up an anti-10C ruling. 6 out of 7 of the even vaguely sane judges agreed that this was an easy case.

02-26-2002, 10:45 AM	#5
butswana Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 1,804	Saw the Gov on TV last night. He was pissed!! Ha. Stupid fuck looks like an uncut dick with the foreskin pulled down. They showed this monstrousity on the news. It looks like a giant fucking tombstone. Ironic, eh? It does have the preamble to the constitution on one side, but no one is going to see the side of it.

02-26-2002, 11:02 AM	#6
cheetah Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 2,118	There was also something on this article, or maybe on another thread, where Rehnquist said that just because the composition of the court has changed doesn't mean they can overturn a previous SCOTUS decision. Does this mean, and sorry to go off on a tangent, that we are all too worried about Roe V. Wade and the rigth-wingers that W appoints won't actually make the court able to overturn Roe v. Wade? If this is complicated, I could start another thread, but if it's easy, I didn't want to start a whole thread on it!

02-26-2002, 11:06 AM	#7
simian Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: St. Louis, MO area Posts: 1,924	The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision can be found <a href="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op3.fwx?yr=00&num=3011&Submit1=Request+Opinion" target="_blank">here</a> If that link doesn't work, go to: <a href="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/" target="_blank">http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/</a> hit the "Judicial Opinions" and type O'Bannon as the last name, then hit search. Only 2 will pop up. The Seventh Circuit seems to have made a good decision. What I find most damning about the ethics of those behind it is that they use the 1851 Indiana Preamble (presumably this is not the current one)so they get "We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our own form of government, do ordain this Constitution." They were rather blatant in trying to get "Almight God" thrown in there.

02-26-2002, 11:51 AM	#9
simian Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: St. Louis, MO area Posts: 1,924	hezekiahjones, Thanks for the information. That's what I get for skimming through the decision quickly. (Bad, Bad Simian).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.