Supreme Court Justice Scalia challenges the concept of religious neutrality.....
METAIRIE, La. (AP) — Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Saturday the idea of religious neutrality is not grounded in the country's constitutional traditions and that God has been good to the U.S. exactly because Americans honor him.
Scalia was speaking at a Catholic high school in the New Orleans suburb of Metairie, Louisiana. Scalia, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986 is the court's longest serving justice. He has consistently been one of the court's more conservative members.
He told the audience at Archbishop Rummel High School that there is "no place" in the country's constitutional traditions for the idea that the state must be neutral between religion and its absence.
"To tell you the truth there is no place for that in our constitutional tradition. Where did that come from?" he said. "To be sure, you can't favor one denomination over another but can't favor religion over non-religion?"
He also said there is "nothing wrong" with the idea of presidents and others invoking God in speeches. He said God has been good to America because Americans have honored him.
http://news.yahoo.com/scalia-dismisses-concept-religious-neutrality-speech-202953789.html
We've strayed far and we're paying a heavy price.
Nature abhors a vacuum, and libtards and muslims will gladly fill that vacuum.
Quote from: kroz on January 02, 2016, 04:24:15 PM
He told the audience at Archbishop Rummel High School that there is "no place" in the country's constitutional traditions for the idea that the state must be neutral between religion and its absence."To tell you the truth there is no place for that in our constitutional tradition. Where did that come from?" he said. "To be sure, you can't favor one denomination over another but can't favor religion over non-religion?"
He also said there is "nothing wrong" with the idea of presidents and others invoking God in speeches. He said God has been good to America because Americans have honored him.
http://news.yahoo.com/scalia-dismisses-concept-religious-neutrality-speech-202953789.html
Took him long enough to get to the point; but, he did make it, and made it well.
Quote from: kroz on January 02, 2016, 04:24:15 PM
Supreme Court Justice Scalia challenges the concept of religious neutrality.....
METAIRIE, La. (AP) — Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Saturday the idea of religious neutrality is not grounded in the country's constitutional traditions and that God has been good to the U.S. exactly because Americans honor him.
Scalia was speaking at a Catholic high school in the New Orleans suburb of Metairie, Louisiana. Scalia, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986 is the court's longest serving justice. He has consistently been one of the court's more conservative members.
He told the audience at Archbishop Rummel High School that there is "no place" in the country's constitutional traditions for the idea that the state must be neutral between religion and its absence.
"To tell you the truth there is no place for that in our constitutional tradition. Where did that come from?" he said. "To be sure, you can't favor one denomination over another but can't favor religion over non-religion?"
He also said there is "nothing wrong" with the idea of presidents and others invoking God in speeches. He said God has been good to America because Americans have honored him.
http://news.yahoo.com/scalia-dismisses-concept-religious-neutrality-speech-202953789.html
He has been consistently conservative. We need about three more justices like him.
Non-religion IS a religion. Faith in the absence of a deity is still faith.
I just wish there was one protestant in the country that was smart enough to sit on the supreme court.
Quote from: supsalemgr on January 03, 2016, 05:08:57 AM
He has been consistently conservative. We need about three more justices like him.
Exactly!
Quote from: Justaguy on January 03, 2016, 05:17:29 AM
Non-religion IS a religion. Faith in the absence of a deity is still faith.
I just wish there was one protestant in the country that was smart enough to sit on the supreme court.
That would definitely be Ted Cruz!!! Brilliant evangelical.
Quote from: Justaguy on January 03, 2016, 05:17:29 AM
Non-religion IS a religion. Faith in the absence of a deity is still faith.
This is a specious argument. That is like not believing in Santa Claus is still a "belief". I have nothing against religion (unless said religion insists I either convert or die), but extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. It is incumbent upon the person who believes in the supernatural, to prove its existence. It is
not the duty of the person who does not believe in it to disprove its existence, as it is nearly impossible to prove a negative.
QuoteI just wish there was one protestant in the country that was smart enough to sit on the supreme court.
Are you sure that is what you want? There are plenty of smart Liberal protestants out there. I would prefer a person , who regardless of their faith, believes in and swears to defend the Constitution of the United States and not "legislate from the Bench".
Quote from: Justaguy on January 03, 2016, 05:17:29 AM
Non-religion IS a religion. Faith in the absence of a deity is still faith.
I just wish there was one protestant in the country that was smart enough to sit on the supreme court.
Sixty per cent Protestant country being ruled by One World Order Catholics through national socialism. What could go wrong?
Quote from: Justaguy on January 03, 2016, 05:17:29 AM
Non-religion IS a religion. Faith in the absence of a deity is still faith.
I just wish there was one protestant in the country that was smart enough to sit on the supreme court.
Mike Lee has come up in a Cruz Administration. There are many.
BTW, you think too much of those on the Court today. Those appointed lately are embarrassing.
Quote from: carlb on January 03, 2016, 11:07:41 AM
Mike Lee has come up in a Cruz Administration. There are many.
BTW, you think too much of those on the Court today. Those appointed lately are embarrassing.
I'll go a bit further on the last ones appointed. They're evil. :glare:
Quote from: keyboarder on January 03, 2016, 11:35:07 AM
I'll go a bit further on the last ones appointed. They're evil. :glare:
Maybe Ginsburg and Breyer recognize how Obama's appointments are so bad they are waiting until he is gone. I am still puzzled why they have not retired with a democrat in the WH.
Quote from: supsalemgr on January 03, 2016, 11:48:56 AM
Maybe Ginsburg and Breyer recognize how Obama's appointments are so bad they are waiting until he is gone. I am still puzzled why they have not retired with a democrat in the WH.
They still have time! I predict that Obama will get one more nominee.
And RINO Lindsay Graham will continue to argue that every President has a right to get their nominees approved by the Senate. :rolleyes:
Will someone please ask him WHY the Founders bothered to require the Senate confirmation????
Quote from: supsalemgr on January 03, 2016, 11:48:56 AM
Maybe Ginsburg and Breyer recognize how Obama's appointments are so bad they are waiting until he is gone. I am still puzzled why they have not retired with a democrat in the WH.
Before Stephen Breyer was on the Supreme Court,
he was a judge in Boston.
A case came before him where
Vanessa Redgrave had been scheduled to perform with the Boston Pops Orchestra.
She made some remarks advocating Palestinians over Israel.
Boston Pops didn't like what she said, so they cancelled her appearance.
She sued for breach of contract.
Stephen Breyer wrote in his official ruling (in favor of Boston Pops),
"Freedom of speech does not mean you can say what you want."
Quote from: supsalemgr on January 03, 2016, 11:48:56 AM
Maybe Ginsburg and Breyer recognize how Obama's appointments are so bad they are waiting until he is gone. I am still puzzled why they have not retired with a democrat in the WH.
They're both HORRIBLE! They don't have the sense to "wait" for a better president. I believe GOD is involved in keeping them there. Obama will get no more nominees. Solar, THIS is your number one reason to stump for Cruz. NONE of the other front runners can be trusted with this.
Quote from: kroz on January 03, 2016, 12:02:55 PM
They still have time! I predict that Obama will get one more nominee.
And RINO Lindsay Graham will continue to argue that every President has a right to get their nominees approved by the Senate. :rolleyes:
Will someone please ask him WHY the Founders bothered to require the Senate confirmation????
If McConnell had any courage he would delay any appointments by Obama this year. There is no time table for confirmation. As for Graham, someone should remind him that he is irrelevant now.
Quote from: carlb on January 03, 2016, 12:35:45 PM
They're both HORRIBLE! They don't have the sense to "wait" for a better president. I believe GOD is involved in keeping them there. Obama will get no more nominees. Solar, THIS is your number one reason to stump for Cruz. NONE of the other front runners can be trusted with this.
Excellent point!
Quote from: carlb on January 03, 2016, 12:35:45 PM
They're both HORRIBLE! They don't have the sense to "wait" for a better president. I believe GOD is involved in keeping them there. Obama will get no more nominees. Solar, THIS is your number one reason to stump for Cruz. NONE of the other front runners can be trusted with this.
I totally agree that Cruz is the ONLY candidate capable of appointed good justices to the court.
Most of the others just do not discern the necessary attributes for a good justice. Cruz does because he worked for the Court and argued before the Court. He understands perfectly what is required for conservative decisions from the Court!
Quote from: kroz on January 03, 2016, 02:00:41 PM
I totally agree that Cruz is the ONLY candidate capable of appointed good justices to the court.
Most of the others just do not discern the necessary attributes for a good justice. Cruz does because he worked for the Court and argued before the Court. He understands perfectly what is required for conservative decisions from the Court!
I believe that much the same was said about George W Bush. All I have to say about that is Harriet Meyers!
Even when he did appoint a "solid conservative" to the court named John Roberts, look at how that turned out!
Quote from: Voldemort on January 03, 2016, 04:05:32 PM
I believe that much the same was said about George W Bush. All I have to say about that is Harriet Meyers!
Even when he did appoint a "solid conservative" to the court named John Roberts, look at how that turned out!
Cruz is NOT GW BUSH.
Quote from: Voldemort on January 03, 2016, 04:05:32 PM
I believe that much the same was said about George W Bush. All I have to say about that is Harriet Meyers!
Even when he did appoint a "solid conservative" to the court named John Roberts, look at how that turned out!
No, I do not expect Cruz to walk in the steps of "W".
Cruz is much, much smarter and does his homework. No, Cruz will not be fooled!
Quote from: supsalemgr on January 03, 2016, 11:48:56 AM
Maybe Ginsburg and Breyer recognize how Obama's appointments are so bad they are waiting until he is gone. I am still puzzled why they have not retired with a democrat in the WH.
Now that we're in 2016, each day that passes makes it easier and less conflagratory to postpone another Dem-nominee to the Supreme Court if the situation occurs. Hopefully, Cruz will do the nominating by then.
I'm puzzled too. I can only conclude that SCOTUS's non-obama members are 'traditional' Dems who still put
duty over Party.
Quote from: Voldemort on January 03, 2016, 08:05:08 AM
This is a specious argument. That is like not believing in Santa Claus is still a "belief". I have nothing against religion (unless said religion insists I either convert or die), but extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. It is incumbent upon the person who believes in the supernatural, to prove its existence. It is not the duty of the person who does not believe in it to disprove its existence, as it is nearly impossible to prove a negative.
Bullshit. The existence of God is binary. Yes or no. Neither supposition can be proven nor disproven. It comes down to a choice. You choose to believe, or you choose not to believe, for what ever reason. You can torture the facts however you want to support your choice. In the end, it's a personal choice. I choose to believe. I have no need to provide you proof of my personal belief. Frankly, it's none of your business what I choose to believe. Believe what you want, but don't assume I, or any other Christian has any need to prove the existence of God to you.
QuoteAre you sure that is what you want? There are plenty of smart Liberal protestants out there. I would prefer a person , who regardless of their faith, believes in and swears to defend the Constitution of the United States and not "legislate from the Bench".
That is what I want. The "a smart Liberal protestant" is a red herring. Of course I don't want an oxymoron "smart Liberal" anything. That said, I do wish some president in the future could find one supreme court justice that shares the beliefs of the majority of the country. I don't think that's unreasonable.
Quote from: kit saginaw on January 03, 2016, 09:02:10 PM
Now that we're in 2016, each day that passes makes it easier and less conflagratory to postpone another Dem-nominee to the Supreme Court if the situation occurs. Hopefully, Cruz will do the nominating by then.
I'm puzzled too. I can only conclude that SCOTUS's non-obama members are 'traditional' Dems who still put duty over Party.
Do you know Ginsberg's history with the ACLU? No, she's not on our side. Not even remotely.
In the light of Justice Scalia's speech, Raphael Cruz made a speech that should strike to the core of every Christian.
http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/gop-front-runners-dad-has-urgent-message-for-christians/