Liberal Left Wing Supreme Court Turns Agnostic!

[amicus]

Liberal Left Wing Supreme Court Turns Agnostic!

On the final day of the current term, Liberals, expecting one or more new Justices before the new term opens in October, took a parting shot at Fundamentalists and at the same time left a strong hint to the Democratic Party in general.

The Liberal Left wing of the Democratic Party has been Hollywoodish anti-religion since the 1960’s. With the religious right finally gaining strength in the last Presidential election, Liberals all over the country are finally finding ‘religion’ and using such phrases as, ‘and God Bless America’ as the closing line in political speech after speech.

I find that highly amusing and more than a little hypocritical.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1431607/posts

High Court Gives Split Decisions On Ten Commandments(Kentucky bad, Texas okay)
AP ^ | 06/27/05 | AP

Posted on 06/27/2005 8:25:49 AM PDT by Pikamax (there are some interesting comments to be found by following the link at the bottom of the page)

"...High Court Gives Split Decisions On Ten Commandments
POSTED: 9:10 am CDT June 27, 2005 UPDATED: 10:19 am CDT June 27, 2005
SUPREME COURT -- There have been two closely-watched rulings on church-state separation.

The Supreme Court said Monday that Ten Commandments displays in two Kentucky courthouses cross the line between church and state. The justices -- in a 5-4 vote -- rejected those displays, saying they promote a religious message.

But the justices declined to prohibit all displays in court buildings or on government property. They said some displays, such as the one in their own courtroom, would be permissible if they're portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation's legal history.

Writing for the majority, Justice David Souter said, "The First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and non-religion."

He was joined by other members of the court's liberal bloc, Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer, as well as Sandra Day O'Connor, who provided the swing vote.

Texas Commandments Ruling In its second ruling Monday on displays of the Ten Commandments, the Supreme Court has ruled that displays of the Commandments are allowed on government land.

The justices found that a 6 foot granite monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol does not cross the line between church and state.

Opponents challenging the monument on the Texas Capitol grounds and Ten Commandments displays in Kentucky courthouses said they are an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.

In 2003, Roy Moore was removed from office as Alabama's chief justice when he refused to obey a federal judge's order to remove a a Ten Commandments monument from the foyer of the Alabama Judicial Building.

Defenders responded that such displays, including engravings in the Supreme Court's own building, don't establish religion but merely acknowledge the nation's legal heritage.

The justices' ruling could affect thousands of Ten Commandments monuments and displays nationwide….”


Another interesting link: http://hereswhatsleft.typepad.com/home/

Personally, I would like to see all references to religion removed from all public property. I would like to see “In God We Trust” removed from money; I would like to see, “One Nation Under God…” removed from the pledge of allegiance. I would also like to see prayer in Congress abolished and no more swearing on bibles, get rid of it all it is so anti diluvium.

I know… right wing conservatives are supposed to be religious, guess I don’t fit that mold either.

Incidentally, these rulings, also made by the 'liberals' on the Court, may possibly have an effect on the confirmation of possibly two new Justices to SCOTUS. Should be an interesting next few months...



Amicus…

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Jesus was a Communist.

No, seriously, read the bible. I'm not making this shit up.

Jesus in this day and age would be so far to the left that it would break people's minds in half. Pacifism, anti-capitalism, anti-rich, anti-corrupt religion.

Oh and the supreme court is republican, 5-4, heavily conservative, as demonstrated by their history. They just aren't neocon revolutionaries. Odd how our perceived center shifts with bullshit.

 

[amicus]

It has been an activist, liberal, left wing court for nearly 40 years...even the Washington Post, a liberal rag, acknowledges that...

amicus...

 

[Couture]

Fucking Freepers. Why don't you share your porn with your new freeper buddies, Ami?

I wonder how long it would take before it was sent out to your friends and family with your name and picture?

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

It has been an activist, liberal, left wing court for nearly 40 years...even the Washington Post, a liberal rag, acknowledges that...

amicus...

i do not deny liberalism or activism in the courts of the 50s through 70s. Even though they were put in power by republicans who were expecting conservative decisions and instead got people upholding equal rights (fuckers). The Rhenquist Court on the other hand is demonstradably republican, conservative and has made many decisions overwriting the fringe of the early 50-70s courts. This SC is bona fide Republican (5-4 illegal decision Bush vs Gore), conservative, and reactionary. Except for one little flaw. Despite Scalia's protests, they refuse to betray the Constitution. What liberal assholes the SC are. Seriously, they should join the traitors in pillaging the rest of the country (oh, btw, the investigations turned up bribery of officials in Ohio and massive fraud in Florida, turns out the election was corrupted and the exit polls were right. Oopsy, don't live in a republic anymore).

Ah, fuck it. Enjoy your fantasy world, not like you have much else to enjoy with death creeping up on you like that.

 

[amicus]

"...Writing for the majority, Justice David Souter said, "The First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and non-religion."

He was joined by other members of the court's liberal bloc, Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer, as well as Sandra Day O'Connor, who provided the swing vote...."

You can find that sentiment shared across hundreds of websites, news channels and newspapers. It was a 'liberal' Court in the 70's that changed abortion from first degree, pre meditated murder to 'a woman's reproductive rights...'

It is no longer amazing, but still amusing to read the 'usual suspects' here and Literotica's authors forum as they lack the ability to present a cogent point of view and mount a nasty personal attack, amusing.

But then, if I were a democrat, a left wing one at that, looking to the leaders of my party for position papers and finding absolutely nothing, I supposed I would be frustrated also.

Liberal agendas are being defeated across the board; forty plus years of an activist left wing in politics, education and entertainment are finally coming to an end.

I only hope you suffer through the coming 40 years with as much grace as I have through the leftward years of Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton. I hated them as much as you hate Bush but at least I maintained an amount of class in my disagreements.

You do not.


amicus....

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I only hope you suffer through the coming 40 years with as much grace as I have through the leftward years of Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton. I hated them as much as you hate Bush but at least I maintained an amount of class in my disagreements.

You do not.


amicus....

BWAHAHAHAHAHA.

Thank you, amicus, I needed that laugh.

 

[Liar]

The Liberal Left wing of the Democratic Party has been Hollywoodish anti-religion since the 1960’s.

By American standards, maybe. Compared to our politicians, they're all a bunch of faithful evangelists.

#L

 

[logophile]

Jesus was a Communist.

No, seriously, read the bible. I'm not making this shit up.

Jesus in this day and age would be so far to the left that it would break people's minds in half. Pacifism, anti-capitalism, anti-rich, anti-corrupt religion.

Oh and the supreme court is republican, 5-4, heavily conservative, as demonstrated by their history. They just aren't neocon revolutionaries. Odd how our perceived center shifts with bullshit.

I think I you. But only because you're right.

 

[cloudy]

I only hope you suffer through the coming 40 years with as much grace as I have through the leftward years of Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton. I hated them as much as you hate Bush but at least I maintained an amount of class in my disagreements.

amicus....

Ami, didn't I just see you complaining about the recent decision regarding eminent domain?

If our ridiculous government continues the way it is, I'd say you have more of the same to look forward to. Less rights, less freedoms, etc. I thought that you were for individual rights and freedoms?

If this is the government you want, then welcome to it, my friend. You'll see more land stolen, more rights taken away, more instances of people treated like cattle instead of individuals.

Gee, sort of sounds like what happened to the indigenous folks here a couple hundred years ago. Welcome to my world, Ami. I hope you enjoy it more than we have.

 

[amicus]

Dear Cloudy:

I usually begin a post, most often spontaneously typing away with a subject or an object in mind and let the words fall where they may.

In this case, in response to your last, I begin with just a feeling that I wish to keep the semi friendly relationship we have developed on this forum.

The history of the entire world is a history of conflict and conquest; from the Jewish Diaspora all the way back to human migration in all directions out of Africa in pre historic times.

We begin to get actual historical accounts with the Chinese about 5000 years ago and some from the Phonicians and Egyptians a few thousand years later. Then, of course the Greek and Roman empires as they expanded, invaded, conquered and occupied neighboring peoples.

To me and most, I think, when the English, Dutch, French, German, Italian, Spanish explorers discovered the 'new lands' in the western hemisphere, they acted no differently than had others before them.

They 'discovered', invaded, occupied and colonized the lands they conquered, much as had every 'empire' before them.

I do not view Native Americans any differently than I do the English when the Romans invaded and conquered Britain. And I imagine the conquered people of the British Isles felt the same way native Americans did and do about the Romans.

And certainly much pain and suffering and a loss of cultural identity took place then as it has here and now.

And although the treatment of native Americans by the new arrivals was often harsh and brutal, it was no more so than in any other place at any other time.

I am an American because I was born here. I am also an American by choice as I would choose this nation over all others as the one closest to my concepts of what a nation should be in regards to human rights and individual liberties.

But I do not like this government. I do not appreciate the gradual decay of that bright shining torch of human freedom that was ignited nearly 250 years ago.

As we have learned through two world wars and dozens of other conflicts, freedom is a precious commodity; it must be fought for to acquire and retain.

The theme of my novel about Native Americans, is that instead of remaining basically stagnant for thousands of years, that they progressed at an even faster pace than the Europeans, built an empire coast to coast in all of North America and eventually discovered the 'new land' of Europe and Africa.

They did so even before the Roman empire and invaded and conquered the whole of Europe and the Middle East. In doing so, they eliminated Christianity and Islam, learned from the Greeks and Romans and forged a brave new world based on reason and logic, not the quagmire of faith and belief.

So that instead of the 'retarded cannibals' and vegetarian 'poor hunters', they became the repository of culture and knowledge and spread those concepts world wide.

Not bad for a 'ramble' eh?

amicus the ugly american....