Leadership 101

No, they can also INTERPRET them, as you point out at the beginning of your post in an uncommonly lucid moment. For example, they can interpret the guarantees of the 14th Amendment to apply in such a way as to strike down Jim Crow laws passed in the various states. "Rewriting" apparently means interpreting the laws in a fashion of which you don't approve. So upholding them or striking them down isn't an either/or thing. This is really Civics For Dummies here.

Also, check this out:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002356.php
Turns out warrants don't help terrorists after all.
Look, Democrats are running the Congress. Time to start obeying the law again.

 

Four paragraphs extolling the "duties" of judges, yet of all those words, I believe I saw something approaching agreement, given begrudgingly, that the AG's statement may be wrong.

Big admission there, Tony. Thanks. At least you addressed the question.

 

Say what you want, but when a court rules there is a right to privacy (I have no problem with that) and then says that said right to privacy means you can kill defenseless innocent humans, that's a court that is writing laws. And don't even get me started on the number of courts that are reading "Freedom of Religion" as a ban on religion. Allowing people to say a prayer is leap years away from "an establishment of religion" yet banning such prayers is very much closer to "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

 

Please cite these decisions.

Thanks ever so much.

 

I'm much more likely to address the questions of those I respect. You're one of them. Best regards.

 

I missed this ruling. I'd like a link to that, please. Preferably, a link in which the phrase above is used by the judge in the ruling. Hell, I'll even take a paraphrase.

 

Tony, I'm a Canadian and even I know that no one is BANNING religion or prayers.

Where on earth did you ever come up with that?

 

Zeke, you're another liberal I respect, but if you're not aware of the number of issues involving allowing a prayer to be said at a school, there's not much I can do to help you out. You know I could find hundreds, maybe thousands of such cases.

p.s. got a new iPod yesterday (thank you, Marriott points!!) and thus far have five Dr. Hook cds imported. Look for a pm from me in a few minutes with another Hook question for you.

 

No, that is, again, interpreting the 14th amendment to include a right to privacy (Griswold) and then that right covering a woman's right to choose (Roe). And the history of the drafting of the First Amendment -- and the subsequent writing of a godless Constitution -- is plain that the current jurisprudence is more in line with the Founders intent. (Read Madison's Remonstrance some time. It would scare Jerry Falwell to death.) Nobody ever -- EVER -- has banned prayer. Public prayer under the color of state law or money, however, is unconstitutional.

 

JR, "the free exercise thereof" has been banned in thousands of cases. If you're not aware of it just based on court cases that have been in the news the last 20 years, you're not paying attention. But you addressed me without insulting me, so at least I appreciate that. Cheers.

 

Tony, you are free to pray in your church and in your home. On the street and on the subway. In your car.

Not in your schools which is where it doesn't and never has belonged.

 

Shhhh. He's on a roll.