News-Record.com

The court system has generally represented the Constitution much better than Congress in the United States (and the ungrateful people too). Why? Terms-for-life means that unfavorable decisions will not affect a judges/justices ruling because he doesn't need to run for reelection. As such, they have been free to make sure the rights of ALL citizens are protected, even when the tyranny of the majority is nearly overwhelming (such as segregation).

"(which removed prayer and the Ten Commandments from our schools)"

False, prayer has not been removed from schools. A student is free to pray as he wishes, and the school's staff must make accommodations for a student that may require special areas or ways, such as wearing a ceremonial dagger or needing to face Mecca 3 times during a school day. They only removed the school's ability to force all students, regardless of creed, religion or philosophy to partake in their own version of religion. This protects YOU from having to pray in 'progressive' ways to an 'all-loving' god as much as it protects muslims, hindus and atheists.

The ten commandments have no place being in a school. Half of the commandments are common sense but the other half are commands to worship yahweh only. If the principal, teachers, even the janitors all placed the Quran on their walls, wouldn't you feel obligated to at least not speak badly about Islam so that you wouldn't be punished for your speech? The same reasoning goes here. This creates a hostile atmosphere to all students not of the dominant religious creed of the school, whether they are progressive Unitarians, Islamic or even ultra-conservative southern baptists. The only way to make sure all student's feel equal in the eyes of the school is not to deal with religion at all. That is the province of the church and parents.

'Pledge of Allegiance'

Blame McCarthy and his Knights for this one.

"Why should nine people decide the rights of millions of citizens on issues such as abortion, marriage, acknowledgment of God, etc?"

It is the court's job to interpret these laws. I am thankful that so far they seem to be doing a pretty good job!

Typical uninformed drivel that I feel compelled to correct.

First, although LTE writer is correct that Congress is empowered to shape the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, it is still an open question as to how much jurisdiction stripping it can do with respect to the Supreme Court. As the law stands right now, Congress has plenary power to create exceptions to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction, but it is unclear whether these exceptions can be so broad as to swallow the rule. See Ex Parte McCradle, 74 U.S. 506 (1868). I must also note that Congress has no power to change the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction.

As for appellate jurisdiction, the limits of Congressional power are unclear. There is a strong support for the concept of "independent unconstitutionality" which basically means that Congressional attempt to abrogate Supreme Court's ability to review Congressional action is de juro unconstitutional as an attempt to circumvent the due process and equal protections guarantees of the Constitution. As the Supreme Court once said in Carolene Products, the court must be especially vigilant in reviewing Congressional actions "directed at particular religious ... or national... or racial minorities... [because] prejudice against discrete and insular minorities... tends seriously to curtail the operations of these political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect them." See U.S. v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144 (1938).

Congress, wisely, never really tried to force the issue, and rightly so. As the only court whose jurisdiction is moored directly in the Constitution, it is likely that the Supreme Court, as a final arbiter of the limits of its own jurisdiction, would be hesitant to narrow its jurisdictional reach. In U.S. v. Klein, 80 U.S. 128 (1871), for example, the Supreme Court noted that a statute may be unconstitutional if Congress is trying to remove an entire class of constitutional issues from the Court's purview.

I also would like to point out that regardless of the ideological composition of the Supreme Court, the court has been very protective of its power to decide what "the law is" See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). For a more recent example, see the recent decision in Bourmediane v. Bush,553 U.S. ___ (2008), where the Supreme Court stated that Congressional statute purporting to deny Guantanamo detainees the right of habeas corpus was unconstitutional. Although most lay people view this case in terms of the ideological differences in approach to the "War on Terror" it is likely that this case will be another historic affirmation of the fact that the Supreme Court is very unlikely to allow Congress to limit its jurisdiction.

Bottom line: don't count on the Supreme Court taking itself out of the picture any time soon.

Typical uninformed drivel that I feel compelled to correct.

First, although LTE writer is correct that Congress is empowered to shape the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, it is still an open question as to how much jurisdiction stripping it can do with respect to the Supreme Court. As the law stands right now, Congress has plenary power to create exceptions to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction, but it is unclear whether these exceptions can be so broad as to swallow the rule. See Ex Parte McCradle, 74 U.S. 506 (1868). I must also note that Congress has no power to change the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction.

As for appellate jurisdiction, the limits of Congressional power are unclear. There is a strong support for the concept of "independent unconstitutionality" which basically means that Congressional attempt to abrogate Supreme Court's ability to review Congressional action is de juro unconstitutional as an attempt to circumvent the due process and equal protections guarantees of the Constitution. As the Supreme Court once said in Carolene Products, the court must be especially vigilant in reviewing Congressional actions "directed at particular religious ... or national... or racial minorities... [because] prejudice against discrete and insular minorities... tends seriously to curtail the operations of these political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect them." See U.S. v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144 (1938).

Congress, wisely, never really tried to force the issue, and rightly so. As the only court whose jurisdiction is moored directly in the Constitution, it is likely that the Supreme Court, as a final arbiter of the limits of its own jurisdiction, would be hesitant to narrow its jurisdictional reach. In U.S. v. Klein, 80 U.S. 128 (1871), for example, the Supreme Court noted that a statute may be unconstitutional if Congress is trying to remove an entire class of constitutional issues from the Court's purview.

I also would like to point out that regardless of the ideological composition of the Supreme Court, the court has been very protective of its power to decide what "the law is" See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). For a more recent example, see the recent decision in Bourmediane v. Bush,553 U.S. ___ (2008), where the Supreme Court stated that Congressional statute purporting to deny Guantanamo detainees the right of habeas corpus was unconstitutional. Although most lay people view this case in terms of the ideological differences in approach to the "War on Terror" it is likely that this case will be another historic affirmation of the fact that the Supreme Court is very unlikely to allow Congress to limit its jurisdiction.

Bottom line: don't count on the Supreme Court taking itself out of the picture any time soon.

gaytony said:
"It is the court's job to interpret these laws. I am thankful that so far they seem to be doing a pretty good job!"

I could care less about things like gay marriage. What two consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business. However, I'm not inclined to agree with the Court's decision to allow child molesters to live. IMHO, if you hurt a child in that regard, you deserve to die. They really dropped the ball on that decision.

Slaan,

Excellent rebuttal, and I agree with you whole-heartedly.

Also, it appears Bishop might fall on the side of "no ten commandments in school". Seems he's a little ambivalent on one of the top two ("Thou Shalt Not Kill"). At least that's what my scorecard reads.

Howie,

I'm not endorsing a death row free-for-all when it comes to child molesters. However, you appear to be over-simplifying the issue with the 10 commandments. The first commandment "Thou shalt not kill," simply means not to commit murder.

According to the scriptures the following crimes were punishable by death.

1. Murder (Gen 9:6, Ex 21:12, Numb 35:16-21).
2. Abuse of father or mother (Ex 21:15).
3. Adultery and fornication (Lev 20:10-12, Deut 22:22).
4. If two people have intercourse when one of them is engaged. (Deut 22:23-24).
5. The daughter of a priest practicing prostitution (Lev 21:9).
6. Rape of someone who is engaged (Deut 22:25).
7. Having intercourse with animals (Ex 22:19).
8. Incest (Lev 20:11-12, 14, 19-21).

I don't see why advocating death for child molesters would be any different.

Further, in the times that the scriptures were written, very little was known about science. Now that we know homosexuality has little to do with choice, and everything to do with brain chemistry I fail to see a crime when there are two consenting adults.

6th rather... running low on caffeine

The supreme court is like any other political bunch
in Washington. If they rule on something agree with, they are great. If they should rule against your pet cause, then they suck.

In reality, courts do make laws and force taxes to paid in support of them.

Well said, Slaan.

==

""I don't see why advocating death for child molesters would be any different."

How about because even Leviticus doesn't list them .. and if God were truly against it, He'd of said so.

Now take that with salt .. the real point being those that take the Bible so literally need to decide" If literal - the God condones sex with toddlers. If not literal - then perhaps God has temperance on other matters. This is a tough one, so folks pick and chose - just like the LIEbural Conservative rhetorical BS we are constantly exposed to

On a similar note: The first commandment is NOT "Thou shalt not kill" .. it may simply mean to not commit murder, but it is buried, baby .. way down in the text .. take your pick: Exodus or Deuteronomy - it ain't even near #1 .. it ain't even near #2 .. it ain't even near #3 .. it ain't even near #3 .. it ain't even near #6 .. it ain't even near #6 ..

this is tiresome.

BTW - if these were Gods Top Priority, why are they not at the beginning - like "In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth .... then man, and he said "Don't Murder".

Gen 9:6 you say? Sure .. after he let's Earth sour to the point he needs to clean it with a big flood .. and even then "Don't Murder" comes way after a bunch of other stuff .. like have sex (therefore isn't that the #1 commandment?) and eat your meat and veggies .. but don't eat people .. THEN "Don't Murder"

==

OK - I'm a cynic. May God strike me dead .. but He won't because he's cool with all types: Real men, Real women, True Fagots and even cynics.

==

"Further, in the times that the scriptures were written, very little was known about science ..

We don't need no science - besides all the brainiac's do is notice global warming and evolution .. we have the Bible to keep us straight on those blasphemies.

Hey Rockhead,

"On a similar note: The first commandment is NOT "Thou shalt not kill" ..

If you'd have read the correction underneath you could have saved your breath.