Modern Liberalism at Work: Pledge of Allegiance Deemed Unconstitutional
- Thread starter PittsburghAfterDark
- Start date
[quote name='sgs89']Well, I guess we are at an end point -- your view that the Bill of Rights prevents any legislation on what you deem to be "private" issues is unique and, I would say, not supported by the language of the amendments.
That being said, I think I now understand the point you are attempting to make. I, the Framers, the Courts, legal scholars, and the Congress simply disagree with you, that's all.[/QUOTE]
again, I don't see any evidence that the "Framers", the courts, the legal scholars or congress agrees with you.
you keep trying to act like you've got a bunch of people on your side, like I said, I don't need that, but apparently everyone else thinks you're a chump.
oops, I didn't mean to take your stance and support claims the way you do.
That being said, I think I now understand the point you are attempting to make. I, the Framers, the Courts, legal scholars, and the Congress simply disagree with you, that's all.[/QUOTE]
again, I don't see any evidence that the "Framers", the courts, the legal scholars or congress agrees with you.
you keep trying to act like you've got a bunch of people on your side, like I said, I don't need that, but apparently everyone else thinks you're a chump.
oops, I didn't mean to take your stance and support claims the way you do.
sgs89
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Sleepkyng']again, I don't see any evidence that the "Framers", the courts, the legal scholars or congress agrees with you.
you keep trying to act like you've got a bunch of people on your side, like I said, I don't need that, but apparently everyone else thinks you're a chump.
oops, I didn't mean to take your stance and support claims the way you do.[/QUOTE]
This is pretty frustrating, but for the last time, there is no support for your basic proposition: that the Bill of Rights prevents any legislation on what you deem to be "private" issues.
Until you can point to that support, you are just pissing into the wind.
you keep trying to act like you've got a bunch of people on your side, like I said, I don't need that, but apparently everyone else thinks you're a chump.
oops, I didn't mean to take your stance and support claims the way you do.[/QUOTE]
This is pretty frustrating, but for the last time, there is no support for your basic proposition: that the Bill of Rights prevents any legislation on what you deem to be "private" issues.
Until you can point to that support, you are just pissing into the wind.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights are meant to define the public and private sector.
The Constitution has no mention of religious beliefs based on the fact that there is no need for such discussion in the public sector.
Here's an example:
{The Bill of Rights contains Amendments that give inalieable freedoms to individuals:
Article [I.] (See Note 13)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. }
That legislation has allowed public schools to include a statment "One nation, Under God" which was created in a time of anti-communist and anti-secular beliefs in the 1950s, which violates the basic right of non-believers who do not belive that the nation is under god, in daily use. This private matter of religion is not appropriate for a public place and because legislation has violated this basic rule, the matter should be decided on by the interpreters of the Constitution - your SCOTUS, my Supreme Court.
The Constitution has no mention of religious beliefs based on the fact that there is no need for such discussion in the public sector.
Here's an example:
{The Bill of Rights contains Amendments that give inalieable freedoms to individuals:
Article [I.] (See Note 13)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. }
That legislation has allowed public schools to include a statment "One nation, Under God" which was created in a time of anti-communist and anti-secular beliefs in the 1950s, which violates the basic right of non-believers who do not belive that the nation is under god, in daily use. This private matter of religion is not appropriate for a public place and because legislation has violated this basic rule, the matter should be decided on by the interpreters of the Constitution - your SCOTUS, my Supreme Court.
sgs89
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Sleepkyng']The Constitution and Bill of Rights are meant to define the public and private sector.
The Constitution has no mention of religious beliefs based on the fact that there is no need for such discussion in the public sector.
Here's an example:
{The Bill of Rights contains Amendments that give inalieable freedoms to individuals:
Article [I.] (See Note 13)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. }
That legislation has allowed public schools to include a statment "One nation, Under God" which was created in a time of anti-communist and anti-secular beliefs in the 1950s, which violates the basic right of non-believers who do not belive that the nation is under god, in daily use. This private matter of religion is not appropriate for a public place and because legislation has violated this basic rule, the matter should be decided on by the interpreters of the Constitution - your SCOTUS, my Supreme Court.[/QUOTE]
OK, but this is exactly my point. The First Amendment does not carry the weight you assume it does. The "matter" (or at least very similar questions) HAS been "decided on" by the SCOTUS (and the exact issue by federal appellate courts) and they have uniformly ruled against your position. See my earlier case cites. I'm sorry that they don't agree with your interpretation; maybe you are right and they are all wrong.
The Constitution has no mention of religious beliefs based on the fact that there is no need for such discussion in the public sector.
Here's an example:
{The Bill of Rights contains Amendments that give inalieable freedoms to individuals:
Article [I.] (See Note 13)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. }
That legislation has allowed public schools to include a statment "One nation, Under God" which was created in a time of anti-communist and anti-secular beliefs in the 1950s, which violates the basic right of non-believers who do not belive that the nation is under god, in daily use. This private matter of religion is not appropriate for a public place and because legislation has violated this basic rule, the matter should be decided on by the interpreters of the Constitution - your SCOTUS, my Supreme Court.[/QUOTE]
OK, but this is exactly my point. The First Amendment does not carry the weight you assume it does. The "matter" (or at least very similar questions) HAS been "decided on" by the SCOTUS (and the exact issue by federal appellate courts) and they have uniformly ruled against your position. See my earlier case cites. I'm sorry that they don't agree with your interpretation; maybe you are right and they are all wrong.
sgs89
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Sleepkyng']Also, yes, I think they're wrong if that's the way it has been decided.
I also disagreed with Plessy vs. Ferguson and to a lesser extent Brown v. Board of Education.[/QUOTE]
You're certainly free to think the Supreme Court is wrong. But, you must admit, they have A LITTLE more legal training than you do. (Then again, maybe sleepkyng is actually Prof. Larry Tribe in disguise.)
I also disagreed with Plessy vs. Ferguson and to a lesser extent Brown v. Board of Education.[/QUOTE]
You're certainly free to think the Supreme Court is wrong. But, you must admit, they have A LITTLE more legal training than you do. (Then again, maybe sleepkyng is actually Prof. Larry Tribe in disguise.)
Go ahead and disregard the other post I put up about how this case is going to the supreme court.
So Plessy v. Ferguson had plenty of legally trained people on the case.
So did the 2000 election.
You sure do like to say my screen name a lot. And of course, like you, I claim to be a professor, especially one in disguise.
You keep saying the books are on your side, but again, haven't shown me anywhere that you're right.
Lot's of heat coming from you, but very little light.
So Plessy v. Ferguson had plenty of legally trained people on the case.
So did the 2000 election.
You sure do like to say my screen name a lot. And of course, like you, I claim to be a professor, especially one in disguise.
You keep saying the books are on your side, but again, haven't shown me anywhere that you're right.
Lot's of heat coming from you, but very little light.
sgs89
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Sleepkyng']Go ahead and disregard the other post I put up about how this case is going to the supreme court.
So Plessy v. Ferguson had plenty of legally trained people on the case.
So did the 2000 election.
You sure do like to say my screen name a lot. And of course, like you, I claim to be a professor, especially one in disguise.
You keep saying the books are on your side, but again, haven't shown me anywhere that you're right.
Lot's of heat coming from you, but very little light.[/QUOTE]
This is getting really tedious. I don't know why I keep taking the bait of someone as irrational as you.
What case is going to the Supreme Court? "In God we trust"? "Under God"? What on earth are you talking about?
Books are on my side? Books? When did I say that? And what on earth do you mean?
You are a strange little man.
So Plessy v. Ferguson had plenty of legally trained people on the case.
So did the 2000 election.
You sure do like to say my screen name a lot. And of course, like you, I claim to be a professor, especially one in disguise.
You keep saying the books are on your side, but again, haven't shown me anywhere that you're right.
Lot's of heat coming from you, but very little light.[/QUOTE]
This is getting really tedious. I don't know why I keep taking the bait of someone as irrational as you.
What case is going to the Supreme Court? "In God we trust"? "Under God"? What on earth are you talking about?
Books are on my side? Books? When did I say that? And what on earth do you mean?
You are a strange little man.
the case at the beginning of this thread, the one that started the topic, the one that everyone is discussing.
and as to the "little man" comment - I see no one defending your character or conduct in this thread.
if I am a little man in the eyes of others, what, then are you?
and as to the "little man" comment - I see no one defending your character or conduct in this thread.
if I am a little man in the eyes of others, what, then are you?
sgs89
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Sleepkyng']the case at the beginning of this thread, the one that started the topic, the one that everyone is discussing.
and as to the "little man" comment - I see no one defending your character or conduct in this thread.
if I am a little man in the eyes of others, what, then are you?[/QUOTE]
The "under God" case already went to the SCOTUS once. It was vacated on the ground that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring the case. The Court, therefore, did not rule on the merits of the case.
The new case -- featuring the same plaintiff now acting as an attorney for three unnamed parents and their children -- was just decided in the district court. The district court judge found that he was bound by the Ninth Circuit precedent finding the phrase unconstitutional in the context of the Pledge of Allegiance. The case will now be appealed to the Ninth Circuit. As for the Supreme Court, no one can say whether they will take the case again once it is decided by the Ninth Circuit. Supreme Court review is discretionary as you may know.
You didn't answer my query about the "books" being on my side. Huh?
As for "the eyes of others," who gives a shit? If it makes you feel better that a bunch of nobodies on a message board side with you with no understanding of the issue, so be it. It matters not a bit to me.
and as to the "little man" comment - I see no one defending your character or conduct in this thread.
if I am a little man in the eyes of others, what, then are you?[/QUOTE]
The "under God" case already went to the SCOTUS once. It was vacated on the ground that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring the case. The Court, therefore, did not rule on the merits of the case.
The new case -- featuring the same plaintiff now acting as an attorney for three unnamed parents and their children -- was just decided in the district court. The district court judge found that he was bound by the Ninth Circuit precedent finding the phrase unconstitutional in the context of the Pledge of Allegiance. The case will now be appealed to the Ninth Circuit. As for the Supreme Court, no one can say whether they will take the case again once it is decided by the Ninth Circuit. Supreme Court review is discretionary as you may know.
You didn't answer my query about the "books" being on my side. Huh?
As for "the eyes of others," who gives a shit? If it makes you feel better that a bunch of nobodies on a message board side with you with no understanding of the issue, so be it. It matters not a bit to me.
[quote name='sgs89']The "under God" case already went to the SCOTUS once. It was vacated on the ground that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring the case. The Court, therefore, did not rule on the merits of the case.
The new case -- featuring the same plaintiff now acting as an attorney for three unnamed parents and their children -- was just decided in the district court. The district court judge found that he was bound by the Ninth Circuit precedent finding the phrase unconstitutional in the context of the Pledge of Allegiance. The case will now be appealed to the Ninth Circuit. As for the Supreme Court, no one can say whether they will take the case again once it is decided by the Ninth Circuit. Supreme Court review is discretionary as you may know.
You didn't answer my query about the "books" being on my side. Huh?
As for "the eyes of others," who gives a shit? If it makes you feel better that a bunch of nobodies on a message board side with you with no understanding of the issue, so be it. It matters not a bit to me.[/QUOTE]
Hey pal, how does this sound: you win, good job. I don't feel like you've presented anything really palpable refuting my argument, and I doubt I will. Perhaps it's because your argument is so laced with pontificating and snobbery that I am unable to take it seriously, or maybe it is the loose collection of Constitutionalist dogma that I'm tired of hearing over and over again from Georgetown grads. Either way, YOU ARE A WINNER!
So these nobodies (who are members of the forum you belong to), obviously mean enough to you so that you feel obliged to continue this thread, think you're an asshole. Sorry about that, though I'm sure your true self would have shown through sooner or later. Judging by your disdain for others, probably sooner.
And you've had a lot of weak cheap shots, that's not my style, but I'm cool with it.
I'll just be direct.
You write like a chump, argue like a chump and act like a chump. I don't think you're an asshole, just someone who's got nothing better to do on a friday night.
You're someone with something to prove, which honestly makes you a nobody.
as for me, I'm headin out.
take care and good luck with that complex.
The new case -- featuring the same plaintiff now acting as an attorney for three unnamed parents and their children -- was just decided in the district court. The district court judge found that he was bound by the Ninth Circuit precedent finding the phrase unconstitutional in the context of the Pledge of Allegiance. The case will now be appealed to the Ninth Circuit. As for the Supreme Court, no one can say whether they will take the case again once it is decided by the Ninth Circuit. Supreme Court review is discretionary as you may know.
You didn't answer my query about the "books" being on my side. Huh?
As for "the eyes of others," who gives a shit? If it makes you feel better that a bunch of nobodies on a message board side with you with no understanding of the issue, so be it. It matters not a bit to me.[/QUOTE]
Hey pal, how does this sound: you win, good job. I don't feel like you've presented anything really palpable refuting my argument, and I doubt I will. Perhaps it's because your argument is so laced with pontificating and snobbery that I am unable to take it seriously, or maybe it is the loose collection of Constitutionalist dogma that I'm tired of hearing over and over again from Georgetown grads. Either way, YOU ARE A WINNER!
So these nobodies (who are members of the forum you belong to), obviously mean enough to you so that you feel obliged to continue this thread, think you're an asshole. Sorry about that, though I'm sure your true self would have shown through sooner or later. Judging by your disdain for others, probably sooner.
And you've had a lot of weak cheap shots, that's not my style, but I'm cool with it.
I'll just be direct.
You write like a chump, argue like a chump and act like a chump. I don't think you're an asshole, just someone who's got nothing better to do on a friday night.
You're someone with something to prove, which honestly makes you a nobody.
as for me, I'm headin out.
take care and good luck with that complex.
sgs89
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Sleepkyng']Hey pal, how does this sound: you win, good job. I don't feel like you've presented anything really palpable refuting my argument, and I doubt I will. Perhaps it's because your argument is so laced with pontificating and snobbery that I am unable to take it seriously, or maybe it is the loose collection of Constitutionalist dogma that I'm tired of hearing over and over again from Georgetown grads. Either way, YOU ARE A WINNER!
So these nobodies (who are members of the forum you belong to), obviously mean enough to you so that you feel obliged to continue this thread, think you're an asshole. Sorry about that, though I'm sure your true self would have shown through sooner or later. Judging by your disdain for others, probably sooner.
And you've had a lot of weak cheap shots, that's not my style, but I'm cool with it.
I'll just be direct.
You write like a chump, argue like a chump and act like a chump. I don't think you're an asshole, just someone who's got nothing better to do on a friday night.
You're someone with something to prove, which honestly makes you a nobody.
as for me, I'm headin out.
take care and good luck with that complex.[/QUOTE]
Your smugness is pathetic given your demonstrated stupidity.
Thanks for conceding defeat. I would have hated to break my perfect record.
Have fun at that anime convention tonight.
Oh, and Georgetown? Come on, I turned them down for the big-time.
So these nobodies (who are members of the forum you belong to), obviously mean enough to you so that you feel obliged to continue this thread, think you're an asshole. Sorry about that, though I'm sure your true self would have shown through sooner or later. Judging by your disdain for others, probably sooner.
And you've had a lot of weak cheap shots, that's not my style, but I'm cool with it.
I'll just be direct.
You write like a chump, argue like a chump and act like a chump. I don't think you're an asshole, just someone who's got nothing better to do on a friday night.
You're someone with something to prove, which honestly makes you a nobody.
as for me, I'm headin out.
take care and good luck with that complex.[/QUOTE]
Your smugness is pathetic given your demonstrated stupidity.
Thanks for conceding defeat. I would have hated to break my perfect record.
Have fun at that anime convention tonight.
Oh, and Georgetown? Come on, I turned them down for the big-time.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='sgs89']Your smugness is pathetic given your demonstrated stupidity.
Thanks for conceding defeat. I would have hated to break my perfect record.
Have fun at that anime convention tonight.
Oh, and Georgetown? Come on, I turned them down for the big-time.[/QUOTE]
so, tell us about yourself, then, sweetheart.
I'm knee deep in Jameson, and have been enjoying this thread all
in' day. So, captain fancy-pants, who are you and what credentials do you bring to the table? Dispose of the ambiguities, if it please you.
Thanks for conceding defeat. I would have hated to break my perfect record.
Have fun at that anime convention tonight.
Oh, and Georgetown? Come on, I turned them down for the big-time.[/QUOTE]
so, tell us about yourself, then, sweetheart.
I'm knee deep in Jameson, and have been enjoying this thread all
in' day. So, captain fancy-pants, who are you and what credentials do you bring to the table? Dispose of the ambiguities, if it please you.
Kayden
Banned
Man, atleast PAD quits after you verbally kick the shit out of his limp minded arguements.
"Ah hah! You provide only 'proof' that cannot be proven or disproven by me! You're cheating and that makes you a sissy lefty!"
"Well, atleast we provided tangible proof instead of blanket statements and extreme right 'news' sources with no real credibility."
".... ... Oh my God, Look over there, its a tree hugging party!" *runs like a little girl*
Now, SuperGaySimpleton, take a que from your predecessor and start running after your lingual bitchslapping.
"Ah hah! You provide only 'proof' that cannot be proven or disproven by me! You're cheating and that makes you a sissy lefty!"
"Well, atleast we provided tangible proof instead of blanket statements and extreme right 'news' sources with no real credibility."
".... ... Oh my God, Look over there, its a tree hugging party!" *runs like a little girl*
Now, SuperGaySimpleton, take a que from your predecessor and start running after your lingual bitchslapping.
sgs89
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Kayden']Man, atleast PAD quits after you verbally kick the shit out of his limp minded arguements.
"Ah hah! You provide only 'proof' that cannot be proven or disproven by me! You're cheating and that makes you a sissy lefty!"
"Well, atleast we provided tangible proof instead of blanket statements and extreme right 'news' sources with no real credibility."
".... ... Oh my God, Look over there, its a tree hugging party!" *runs like a little girl*
Now, SuperGaySimpleton, take a que from your predecessor and start running after your lingual bitchslapping.[/QUOTE]
If any of that applied to anything that I've said in this thread, you might have a point. It does not so you just made a complete ass out of yourself. Good work.
I am not a republican. I am not a Bush supporter. I am not a "liberal basher." I understand you see the world in very simple terms. That is all you are capable of. But please don't clutter up this thread with dense and ill-informed accusations that prove you haven't even read the arguments.
Now go back to watching your anime cartoons and leave the real discussion to the grown-ups.
"Ah hah! You provide only 'proof' that cannot be proven or disproven by me! You're cheating and that makes you a sissy lefty!"
"Well, atleast we provided tangible proof instead of blanket statements and extreme right 'news' sources with no real credibility."
".... ... Oh my God, Look over there, its a tree hugging party!" *runs like a little girl*
Now, SuperGaySimpleton, take a que from your predecessor and start running after your lingual bitchslapping.[/QUOTE]
If any of that applied to anything that I've said in this thread, you might have a point. It does not so you just made a complete ass out of yourself. Good work.
I am not a republican. I am not a Bush supporter. I am not a "liberal basher." I understand you see the world in very simple terms. That is all you are capable of. But please don't clutter up this thread with dense and ill-informed accusations that prove you haven't even read the arguments.
Now go back to watching your anime cartoons and leave the real discussion to the grown-ups.
sgs89
CAGiversary!
[quote name='mykevermin']so, tell us about yourself, then, sweetheart.
I'm knee deep in Jameson, and have been enjoying this thread allin' day. So, captain fancy-pants, who are you and what credentials do you bring to the table? Dispose of the ambiguities, if it please you.[/QUOTE]
I feel no need to trumpet my credentials on a video game message board. If you think I am an uneducated rube, so be it. If you think I am a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School, so be it. That is your choice.
I'm knee deep in Jameson, and have been enjoying this thread all
in' day. So, captain fancy-pants, who are you and what credentials do you bring to the table? Dispose of the ambiguities, if it please you.[/QUOTE]I feel no need to trumpet my credentials on a video game message board. If you think I am an uneducated rube, so be it. If you think I am a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School, so be it. That is your choice.
sgs89
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Sleepkyng']The case is Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, case no. 02-1624.
please read the final ruling. please explain to me the the ruling and the outcome.[/QUOTE]
I have already explained that to you. Man, you continually amaze me with your pig-headishness. You just don't get it, do you? Can you not read english? Is that the problem?
In an opinion by Justice Stevens, the Supreme Court REVERSED the Ninth Circuit's decision finding the Pledge unconstitutional. The Court did so on the basis that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the case (and, yes, I know that you don't understand what that means):
"In our view, it is improper for the federal courts to entertain a claim by a plaintiff whose standing to sue is founded on family law rights that are in dispute when prosecution of the lawsuit may have an adverse effect on the person who is the source of the plaintiff's claimed standing. When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law. There is a vast difference between Newdow's right to communicate with his child--which both California law and the First Amendment recognize--and his claimed right to shield his daughter from influences to which she is exposed in school despite the terms of the custody order. We conclude that, having been deprived under California law of the right to sue as next friend, Newdow lacks prudential standing to bring this suit in federal court."
Oh, and by the way, Rehnquist, O'Connor and Thomas concurred in the judgment but indicated they would have resolved the constitutional issue against the plaintiff:
"On the merits, I conclude that the Elk Grove Unified School District (School District) policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words "under God," does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment."
please read the final ruling. please explain to me the the ruling and the outcome.[/QUOTE]
I have already explained that to you. Man, you continually amaze me with your pig-headishness. You just don't get it, do you? Can you not read english? Is that the problem?
In an opinion by Justice Stevens, the Supreme Court REVERSED the Ninth Circuit's decision finding the Pledge unconstitutional. The Court did so on the basis that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the case (and, yes, I know that you don't understand what that means):
"In our view, it is improper for the federal courts to entertain a claim by a plaintiff whose standing to sue is founded on family law rights that are in dispute when prosecution of the lawsuit may have an adverse effect on the person who is the source of the plaintiff's claimed standing. When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law. There is a vast difference between Newdow's right to communicate with his child--which both California law and the First Amendment recognize--and his claimed right to shield his daughter from influences to which she is exposed in school despite the terms of the custody order. We conclude that, having been deprived under California law of the right to sue as next friend, Newdow lacks prudential standing to bring this suit in federal court."
Oh, and by the way, Rehnquist, O'Connor and Thomas concurred in the judgment but indicated they would have resolved the constitutional issue against the plaintiff:
"On the merits, I conclude that the Elk Grove Unified School District (School District) policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words "under God," does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment."
you just listed the verdict - that the plantiff's current position was not one where they could properly judge the case due to the family situation.
then, three of the supreme court justices said they could have resolved it as a constituional issue BUT DID NOT in the court and in the ruling.
Three out of nine is not a consensus or a final decision on the matter.
please contine with your blatherings.
then, three of the supreme court justices said they could have resolved it as a constituional issue BUT DID NOT in the court and in the ruling.
Three out of nine is not a consensus or a final decision on the matter.
please contine with your blatherings.
sgs89
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Sleepkyng']you just listed the verdict - that the plantiff's current position was not one where they could properly judge the case due to the family situation.
then, three of the supreme court justices said they could have resolved it as a constituional issue BUT DID NOT in the court and in the ruling.
Three out of nine is not a consensus or a final decision on the matter.
please contine with your blatherings.[/QUOTE]
First, it is not a "verdict." In fact, there was never a verdict. When the Supreme Court decides a case, it is called a "decision."
I answered your question -- to explain the ruling of the case. You then attacked me. I'm not sure what you want here, but, once again, you are acting out in a very irrational manner.
Now that you understand the holding of the case, what was the point you were trying to make? Or have you forgotten already?
then, three of the supreme court justices said they could have resolved it as a constituional issue BUT DID NOT in the court and in the ruling.
Three out of nine is not a consensus or a final decision on the matter.
please contine with your blatherings.[/QUOTE]
First, it is not a "verdict." In fact, there was never a verdict. When the Supreme Court decides a case, it is called a "decision."
I answered your question -- to explain the ruling of the case. You then attacked me. I'm not sure what you want here, but, once again, you are acting out in a very irrational manner.
Now that you understand the holding of the case, what was the point you were trying to make? Or have you forgotten already?
bread's done