Search
Forum Home | Login
terpfan1980
terpfan1980
Join Date 08/2004
+13

Newdow loses challenge to Inaugural Prayer

January 19, 2005 2:51:49 PM from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
From AP (via Yahoo! news):

Atheist Loses Bid to Ban Inaugural Prayer


Wed Jan 19,11:24 AM ET


WASHINGTON - An atheist lost his bid Wednesday to have the Supreme Court bar the saying of a prayer at President Bush (news - web sites)'s inauguration.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist denied Michael Newdow's claim that a prayer at Thursday's ceremony would violate the Constitution by forcing him to accept unwanted religious beliefs.
In so doing, Rehnquist also rejected Newdow's request to recuse himself from the case because he is scheduled to swear in Bush. Newdow had argued that Rehnquist had become a willing fixture in a government ceremony "infused with sectarian Christian religion" and thus had a conflict of interest.
Rehnquist's order came without comment.
Two lower courts had rejected Newdow's request to ban the prayer, suggesting he couldn't show actual injury in hearing it. In his ruling last week, U.S. District Judge John Bates also said the court did not have authority to stop the president from inviting clergy to give a religious prayer at the ceremony.
Attorneys representing Bush and his inaugural committee had argued that prayers have been widely accepted at inaugurals for more than 200 years and that Bush's decision to have a minister recite the invocation was a personal choice the court had no power to prevent.
Newdow gained widespread publicity two years ago after winning his pledge case before the San-Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that public schools violated the separation of church and state by having students mention God.


Note the emphasized text.

Now, again, I really wish we had loser pays so that this loser could pay a huge amount of court costs for this stupid frivilous lawsuit.

Props to the judges in the lower courts that were smart enough to raise the question of "what harm?" and consider that in their rejections of this case.
politics
Locked Post
Search this post
Advanced Search
Subscription Options
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
terpfan1980
Gideon MacLeish
Join Date 06/2004
+1
Reply #1 January 19, 2005 2:53:40 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
Would it be smug of me to say "Thank God"?
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
terpfan1980
whoman69
Join Date 10/2004
0
Reply #2 January 19, 2005 3:10:30 PM
from PoliticalMachine ForumsPoliticalMachine Forums
Would it be smug of me to say "Thank God"?


No, but it would be ironic.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
terpfan1980
Zoomba
Join Date 11/2002
+114
Reply #3 January 19, 2005 3:16:20 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
I'm so glad this moron got rebuked. I am sick and tired of everything that shows individuality in thought/belief/background being surpressed/ignored/forbidden out of fear of offending anyone. We're not all the same... let everyone be who they want to... let them believe in what they want to. And most importantly DON'T MAKE THEM HIDE IT
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
terpfan1980
drmiler
Join Date 09/2004
+1
Reply #4 January 19, 2005 3:29:34 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
I still wish they had done it with prejudice so we would not have to hear it again.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
terpfan1980
Moderateman
Join Date 11/2004
+37
Reply #5 January 19, 2005 3:49:53 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
This kind of idiotic action should be lumped in with tort reform..... when a lawyer brings a dumbshit suit and wastes the taxpayers money... let them get heavy fines... that would stop morons like newdow from wasting court time.. and lawyers like edwards from getting rich, putting companies out of bizness..
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
terpfan1980
drmiler
Join Date 09/2004
+1
Reply #6 January 19, 2005 4:09:45 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

Reply #5 By: Moderateman - 1/19/2005 3:49:53 PM
This kind of idiotic action should be lumped in with tort reform..... when a lawyer brings a dumbshit suit and wastes the taxpayers money... let them get heavy fines... that would stop morons like newdow from wasting court time.. and lawyers like edwards from getting rich, putting companies out of bizness..


I'll agree to that 110%!
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
terpfan1980
Moderateman
Join Date 11/2004
+37
Reply #7 January 19, 2005 4:13:21 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
Reply By: drmilerPosted: Wednesday, January 19, 2005Reply #5 By: Moderateman - 1/19/2005 3:49:53 PMThis kind of idiotic action should be lumped in with tort reform..... when a lawyer brings a dumbshit suit and wastes the taxpayers money... let them get heavy fines... that would stop morons like newdow from wasting court time.. and lawyers like edwards from getting rich, putting companies out of bizness..I'll agree to that 110%!


thanx doc.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
terpfan1980
drmiler
Join Date 09/2004
+1
Reply #8 January 19, 2005 4:16:01 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

Reply #7 By: Moderateman - 1/19/2005 4:13:21 PM
Reply By: drmilerPosted: Wednesday, January 19, 2005Reply #5 By: Moderateman - 1/19/2005 3:49:53 PMThis kind of idiotic action should be lumped in with tort reform..... when a lawyer brings a dumbshit suit and wastes the taxpayers money... let them get heavy fines... that would stop morons like newdow from wasting court time.. and lawyers like edwards from getting rich, putting companies out of bizness..I'll agree to that 110%!


thanx doc


It's either lump him in with tort reform or put him against the wall at sunrise. Your choice.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
terpfan1980
Moderateman
Join Date 11/2004
+37
Reply #9 January 19, 2005 6:08:19 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
Reply By: drmilerPosted: Wednesday, January 19, 2005


put him against the wall at sunrise. Your choice


ummmmmm 400 meters with open sights, no scope...m 40 1A sure then he is dead meat lololop
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
terpfan1980
drmiler
Join Date 09/2004
+1
Reply #10 January 19, 2005 7:47:54 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

Reply #9 By: Moderateman - 1/19/2005 6:08:19 PM
Reply By: drmilerPosted: Wednesday, January 19, 2005


put him against the wall at sunrise. Your choice


ummmmmm 400 meters with open sights, no scope...m 40 1A sure then he is dead meat lololop


I'd even spring for the ammo for that execution. Or I'll handload it. Again your choice.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
terpfan1980
Daiwa
Join Date 07/2001
+351
Reply #11 January 20, 2005 12:28:46 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
A "loser pays" system would make what we currently call "tort reform" unnecessary. Frivolous suits like that wouldn't go away completely because some nuts are rich enough that it wouldn't deter them, but 90% or more would evaporate because the claimants (and their lawyers) know they are without merit and will lose. One thing you can be absolutely sure of - hardly any lawyer throws good money after bad. The lawyers minting money off the system are spending tons of it to protect their gold mine, however. How I'd love to watch cable TV just one night without any of those "Have you or a loved one ever taken Vioxx?" commercials.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
View all recent posts
Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top
Stardock Forums v        Server Load Time:   Page Render Time:
Facebook Twitter YouTube Google+