Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional
jal...@cox.net
["Rich Soyack" wrote]
Actually, since the 9th Circuit's decision has been indefinitely
stayed there is no change. It is as if the decision had never been
written.
[M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster in reply to the above]
I disagree. The stay is temporary, pending the decision as to whether or
not there will be a review of the decision. If they decide not to have
a review (which is, admittedly, unlikely), the decision will stand (until
likely USSC appeal). -- M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster.
in the reply above
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
It is noted that you once more had nothing of substance to say with
regards to the pledge item or the historical information. That is par for
the course.
["Rich Soyack" wrote]
So, tell me where anything has changed with respect to this stayed
decision. All you are able to do is talk about probabilities and wave your
hands.
["Nemesis" wrote:]
He seems to have magical thinking that the "decision" is in a different
place than it is. The place it is at legally is what under Robert's Rules
of Order could best describe as a motion that has been "tabled." If the
whole court doesn't act before the end of its current session the thing
dies with no further action. It's dead. While there is a chance it will be
yanked off the table, the word around the courthouse has been that they
have no real stomach to have this one hit the fast track before the
Supremes and get another tongue lashing from Washington. Newdow isn't
bright enough to realize that the present SCOTUS is unlikely to see the
issues in his dogmatic view. Can't blame him for wishing though.
[M. Newdow 9-6-02 in email reply to this poster in reply to the above]
The idea that they're going to simply let this languish is absurd. Courts
are not legislatures ... they don't "table" cases. Cases have to be
decided. There certainly are a number of procedures that are available to
the Ninth Circuit, and I clearly may end up losing. But it won't be
because the Court simply decided not to act.
And, meanwhile, my side is still winning. The decision has been stayed, but
it's still the decision.--M. Newdow 9-6-02 in email reply to this poster in
reply to the above
==========================================================
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|> >:|Actually, since the 9th Circuit's decision has been indefinitely stayed
>:|> >:|there is no change. It is as if the decision had never been written.
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
>:|> Now for another viewpoint, by a person probably far more qualified than
>:|the above is (since the person in question is a lawyer, and is intimately
>:|>involved in this case and has one victory already, i.e.
>:|> "Plaintive is litigating other Establishment Clause claims in the federal
>:|> courts, and has prevailed (to date) in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
>:|> Newdow v. United States Congress, 292 F.3rd. 597 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002)"
>:|> SOURCE: Brief filed in the U S District Court for the District of
>:|> Columbia. Newdow v. Eagen, [Congressional Chaplains] section J. INJURY
>:|IN FACT TO PLAINTIFF - PERSONAL REPROACH page 16
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|So, tell me, in what jurisdiction is the 9th Ciruits Stayed decision in
>:|effect?
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
Ho hum, seems we are stuck in a rut.
Your point, that you think means something, is meaningless, but it appeals
to you, it appears. It is also noted that you have not refuted anything
offered but instead elected to try and plant a strawman in the corn field
to distract.
-------- ------- -------
Stay, n. A stopping; the act of arresting a judicial proceeding by the
order of a court. Also that which holds, restrains, or supports.
A stay is a suspension of the case or some designated proceedings within
it. It is a kind of injunction with which a court freezes its proceedings
at a particular point. It can be used to stop the prosecution of the action
altogether, or to hold up only some phase of it, such as an execution about
to be levied on a judgment.
Stay of proceedings. The temporary suspension of the regular order of
proceedings in a cause, by direction or order of the court, usually to
await the action of one of the parties in regard to some omitted step or
some act which the court has required him to perform as incidental to the
suit; as where a nonresident plaintiff has been ruled to give security for
costs. It is similar to an injunction with which a court freezes its
proceedings at a particular point. It can be used to stop the prosecution
of the action altogether, or to hold up only some phase of it, such as an
execution about to be levied on a judgment. See also Automatic stay.
[NOTE:]
A "stay" does not reverse, annul, undo or suspend what already had been
done or what is not specifically stayed nor pass on the merits of orders of
the trial court, but merely suspends the time required for performance of
the particular mandates stayed, to preserve a status quo pending appeal.
See Fed.R.Civil P. 62, "Stay of Proceedings to Enforce Judgment". See also
Injunction; Restraining order.
Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, Centennial Edition
(1891-1991) West Publishing Company, (1991) pp. 983-84
==================================================
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|> >:|Why should I? The courts do a good job at that.
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
>:|> (1). The courts aren't posting here, you are.
>:|> (2). Since you did mention courts, a court has ruled that "under God" in
>:|> the Pledge violates the Establishment clause, remember that?
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|Really, where is this decision in effect?
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
Ahhh, the usual game playing.
Does a court ruling have to be in effect to exist?
Does the stay cancel the ruling? (hint, no it doesn't)
Thus a federal court has ruled that "under God in the Pledge violates the
Establishment clause and no other higher court has overturned that ruling.
Now you an play word games or any other game you might like to play to try
and downplay that but the fact remains that a court did make that ruling
and that ruling has not been reversed, overturned, etc.
That ruling exists.
************************************************************
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
> >:|Actually, since the 9th Circuit's decision has been indefinitely stayed
> >:|there is no change. It is as if the decision had never been written.
[M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster in reply to the above]
I disagree. The stay is temporary, pending the decision as to whether or
not there will be a review of the decision. If they decide not to have a
review (which is, admittedly, unlikely), the decision will stand (until a
likely USSC appeal). -- M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster.
***************************************************************
========================================================
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|> >:|> >:|No, not facts, just your slanted view. That is so much bullshit.
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
>:|> >:|> That is your opinion, I haven't seen you capable of refuting that
>:|which I have posted over and over again. You just delete it. That is called
>:|> >:|> defaulting.
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|> >:|Why should I? The courts do a good job at that.
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
>:|> (1). The courts aren't posting here, you are.
>:|> (2). Since you did mention courts, a court has ruled that "under God" in
>:|> the Pledge violates the Establishment clause, remember that?
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|And then immediately Stayed the decision, so it is as if it never happened.
>:|Unless
>:|you happen to know a jurisdiciton in which that decision is in effect.
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
I recall, once upon a time a Federal judge in Cleveland, Ohio issuing a
ruling. A short time later he issued a stay on that ruling.
Can you say Zelman v. Simmons-Harris?
Does that help you understand the probable process here?
************************************************************
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
> >:|Actually, since the 9th Circuit's decision has been indefinitely stayed
> >:|there is no change. It is as if the decision had never been written.
[M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster in reply to the above]
I disagree. The stay is temporary, pending the decision as to whether or
not there will be a review of the decision. If they decide not to have a
review (which is, admittedly, unlikely), the decision will stand (until a
likely USSC appeal). -- M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster.
***************************************************************
=========================================================
jal...@cox.net
>:|jalison, as usual, provides lots of words on an issue in which nothing
>:|has changed. The Stayed decision has had no effect of the way
>:|people go about their lives and the way the Pledge is recited in schools.
>:|
>:|Rich Soyack
>:|
Strawman!
The sound bite expert continues displying his lack of understanding:
ONE MORE WEIGHS IN:
================================================
To Rich Soyack and Nemesis
[Neal J. Blanchett, Attorney at Law. replying to comments by Soyack and
Nemesis 9-6-02 in a email to this poster jalison]
This is just like desegregation - the rednecks are again saying "The courts
issued the ruling, let them try to enforce it." Which redneck politico
will try to block the schoolhouse door this time?
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 41 seems to support Newdow and
contradict the others. Rule 41 creates the "mandate" which is the court's
final decision, consisting of the judgment, the opinion, and any decision
about costs. The mandate is effective when issued. The mandate "must
issue" 7 days after a motion for rehearing is denied (which could, but
probably won't, happen here.) Assuming the enbanc circuit takes the case,
their judgment, opinion, and costs decision becomes the mandate. If the
Supreme Court later takes the case, their judgment, opinion, and costs
decision becomes the mandate. Either the motion to rehear en banc is
granted, or is denied. In either case, a mandate exists, and release of
the mandate is, as the name implies, mandatory. I don't see any provision
for the mandate to simply expire. Fed.R.App.Proc. 41(b); (c)(1), and
(c)(2) (West, 2002). The Advisory Committee Notes to the rule state that
"Because the filing of a petition for rehearing en banc will stay the
mandate, a court of appeals will need to take final action on the
petition[.]" I take "will need to take action on the petition" to mean
that the petition does not simply expire if not heard this session.
Those who think otherwise should do some research and correct me - please
cite your sources.
The commentors may want to read the entire first amendment, which
guarantees the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
I don't think it would comply with that amendment if you could petition,
get a favorable decision, yet have the government "pocket veto" the
decision. If the decision has been somehow "tabled" then Newdow can make a
motion to ask the court to issue it. Despite the desire of the ignorant to
have the issue just go away, that doesn't happen to federal court
decisions. And anyone who thinks the SCOTUS is a shoo-in should read Lee
v. Weisman and Santa Fe v. Doe, in which the Kennedy and O'Connor (and of
course the four "liberals") found violations of the establishment clause in
optional, but state-sponsored, non-denominational prayer recitations at
graduations and football games. They should also pay attention to the thin
legal reasoning of the 9th Circuit dissent. Judge Fernandez avoided the
legal issues because they don't cut his way.
[Neal J. Blanchett, Attorney at Law. replying to comments by Soyack and
Nemesis 9-6-02 in a email to this poster jalison]
****************************************************
Rich Soyack
news:8jthnu0uigg6pkepm...@4ax.com...
> "Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >:|jalison, as usual, provides lots of words on an issue in which nothing
> >:|has changed. The Stayed decision has had no effect of the way
> >:|people go about their lives and the way the Pledge is recited in
schools.
> >:|
> >:|Rich Soyack
> >:|
>
> Strawman!
> The sound bite expert continues displying his lack of understanding:
> ONE MORE WEIGHS IN:
> ================================================
> To Rich Soyack and Nemesis
>
> [Neal J. Blanchett, Attorney at Law. replying to comments by Soyack and
> Nemesis 9-6-02 in a email to this poster jalison]
> This is just like desegregation - the rednecks are again saying "The
courts
> issued the ruling, let them try to enforce it." Which redneck politico
> will try to block the schoolhouse door this time?
Nope, the courts did not issue a ruling. Please, don't try to fend off
phony emails.
If this person is, in fact, for real let them post for themselves.
Rich Soyack
jal...@cox.net
>:|<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
Phony emails? You are a trip. Let me assure you, they are not phony
emails.
But, I guess you have to try something.
BTW readers, do note that neither of these two (Rich Soyack and Nemesis)
provide anything beyond they say.
This is the proper response to They say:
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Readers can decide who is providing the "BEEF" and who is providing straw:
================================================
To Rich Soyack and Nemesis:
-----------------------------------------------
[Neal J. Blanchett, Attorney at Law. replying to comments by Soyack and
Nemesis 9-6-02 in a email to this poster jalison]
This is just like desegregation - the rednecks are again saying "The courts
issued the ruling, let them try to enforce it." Which redneck politico
will try to block the schoolhouse door this time?
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 41 seems to support Newdow and
[Neal J. Blanchett, Attorney at Law. replying to comments by Soyack and
Nemesis 9-6-02 in a email to this poster jalison]
****************************************************
["Rich Soyack" wrote]
Actually, since the 9th Circuit's decision has been indefinitely
stayed there is no change. It is as if the decision had never been
written.
----------------------------------
[M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster in reply to the above]
I disagree. The stay is temporary, pending the decision as to whether or
not there will be a review of the decision. If they decide not to have
a review (which is, admittedly, unlikely), the decision will stand (until
likely USSC appeal). -- M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster.
in the reply above
-----------------------------------------
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
It is noted that you once more had nothing of substance to say with
regards to the pledge item or the historical information. That is par for
the course.
---------------------------------------------
["Rich Soyack" wrote]
So, tell me where anything has changed with respect to this stayed
decision. All you are able to do is talk about probabilities and wave your
hands.
--------------------------------------------
["Nemesis" wrote:]
He seems to have magical thinking that the "decision" is in a different
place than it is. The place it is at legally is what under Robert's Rules
of Order could best describe as a motion that has been "tabled." If the
whole court doesn't act before the end of its current session the thing
dies with no further action. It's dead. While there is a chance it will be
yanked off the table, the word around the courthouse has been that they
have no real stomach to have this one hit the fast track before the
Supremes and get another tongue lashing from Washington. Newdow isn't
bright enough to realize that the present SCOTUS is unlikely to see the
issues in his dogmatic view. Can't blame him for wishing though.
-------------------------------------------------------------
[M. Newdow 9-6-02 in email reply to this poster in reply to the above]
The idea that they're going to simply let this languish is absurd. Courts
are not legislatures ... they don't "table" cases. Cases have to be
decided. There certainly are a number of procedures that are available to
the Ninth Circuit, and I clearly may end up losing. But it won't be
because the Court simply decided not to act.
And, meanwhile, my side is still winning. The decision has been stayed, but
it's still the decision.--M. Newdow 9-6-02 in email reply to this poster in
reply to the above
==========================================================
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|> >:|Actually, since the 9th Circuit's decision has been indefinitely stayed
>:|> >:|there is no change. It is as if the decision had never been written.
------------------------------------------------
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
>:|> Now for another viewpoint, by a person probably far more qualified than
>:|the above is (since the person in question is a lawyer, and is intimately
>:|>involved in this case and has one victory already, i.e.
>:|> "Plaintive is litigating other Establishment Clause claims in the federal
>:|> courts, and has prevailed (to date) in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
>:|> Newdow v. United States Congress, 292 F.3rd. 597 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002)"
>:|> SOURCE: Brief filed in the U S District Court for the District of
>:|> Columbia. Newdow v. Eagen, [Congressional Chaplains] section J. INJURY
>:|IN FACT TO PLAINTIFF - PERSONAL REPROACH page 16
----------------------------------------------------------------
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|So, tell me, in what jurisdiction is the 9th Ciruits Stayed decision in
>:|effect?
------------------------------------------------------------
[M. Newdow 9-6-02 in email reply to this poster in reply to the above]
It's a process, and the process isn't yet complete. Might I end up losing,
with the Pledge remaining unchanged throughout the land since 1954?
Absolutely. But - at this moment - the process portends a situation where
it will be changed in the 9th Circuit.
And the legal arguments portend a situation where it will be changed in the
United States.
[M. Newdow 9-6-02 in email reply to this poster in reply to the above]
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
>:|> (1). The courts aren't posting here, you are.
>:|> (2). Since you did mention courts, a court has ruled that "under God" in
>:|> the Pledge violates the Establishment clause, remember that?
----------------------------------------------------------
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|Really, where is this decision in effect?
--------------------------------------------------------
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
Ahhh, the usual game playing.
Does a court ruling have to be in effect to exist?
Does the stay cancel the ruling? (hint, no it doesn't)
Thus a federal court has ruled that "under God in the Pledge violates the
Establishment clause and no other higher court has overturned that ruling.
Now you an play word games or any other game you might like to play to try
and downplay that but the fact remains that a court did make that ruling
and that ruling has not been reversed, overturned, etc.
That ruling exists.
************************************************************
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
> >:|Actually, since the 9th Circuit's decision has been indefinitely stayed
> >:|there is no change. It is as if the decision had never been written.
[M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster in reply to the above]
I disagree. The stay is temporary, pending the decision as to whether or
not there will be a review of the decision. If they decide not to have a
review (which is, admittedly, unlikely), the decision will stand (until a
likely USSC appeal). -- M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster.
***************************************************************
========================================================
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|> >:|> >:|No, not facts, just your slanted view. That is so much bullshit.
-------------------------------------------------------
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
>:|> >:|> That is your opinion, I haven't seen you capable of refuting that
>:|which I have posted over and over again. You just delete it. That is called
>:|> >:|> defaulting.
---------------------------------------------------------
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|> >:|Why should I? The courts do a good job at that.
--------------------------------------------------------
[jal...@cox.net> wrote]
>:|> (1). The courts aren't posting here, you are.
>:|> (2). Since you did mention courts, a court has ruled that "under God" in
>:|> the Pledge violates the Establishment clause, remember that?
--------------------------------------------------------
["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
>:|And then immediately Stayed the decision, so it is as if it never happened.
>:|Unless you happen to know a jurisdiciton in which that decision is in effect.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rich Soyack
<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:8ovhnukne6ucattnr...@4ax.com...
> "Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >:|<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >:|news:8jthnu0uigg6pkepm...@4ax.com...
> >:|> "Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >:|>
> >:|> >:|jalison, as usual, provides lots of words on an issue in which
nothing
> >:|> >:|has changed. The Stayed decision has had no effect of the way
> >:|> >:|people go about their lives and the way the Pledge is recited in
> >:|schools.
> >:|> >:|
> >:|> >:|Rich Soyack
> >:|> >:|
> >:|>
> >:|> Strawman!
> >:|> The sound bite expert continues displying his lack of understanding:
> >:|> ONE MORE WEIGHS IN:
> >:|> ================================================
> >:|> To Rich Soyack and Nemesis
> >:|>
> >:|> [Neal J. Blanchett, Attorney at Law.
What Bar Associations is Neal J. Blanchett a member of and where is he
located.
Rich Soyack
jal...@cox.net
>:|
>:|<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
>:|news:8ovhnukne6ucattnr...@4ax.com...
Ahhhhhhhh, the juvenile delinquent is still playing.
Now we are playing strawman.
My comments remain:
============================================
================================================
To Rich Soyack and Nemesis:
Rich Soyack
news:qisjnuolm0kmmue0q...@4ax.com...
No, you presented someone and said he was an attorney at law. My question
is normal.
You didn't answer the question that would take no more than a few seconds of
your time.
Very revealing.
Rich Soyack
<I cut your usual bullshit>
jal...@cox.net
>:|No, you presented someone and said he was an attorney at law. My question
>:|is normal.
>:|You didn't answer the question that would take no more than a few seconds of
>:|your time.
>:|Very revealing.
Your question is irrelevant to me.
I am not interested in your strawman distractions, nor your reframes, nor
any other games you might want to try and play.
I have accomplished that which I set out to accomplish:
Provide the facts to the crap you have been peddling for some time now.
Let's see, my sources have been:
Black's Law Dictionary
Two Attorneys
A replica situation demonstrating how the process works as it follows the
various steps with regards to voucher scheme from Cleveland, Ohio.
Your sources have been:
Duh, you!
========================================
Now let me assemble all that for the lurkers and readers:
FIRST, THE COMMENTS FROM YOU AND
NEMESIS
--------- --------- ---------
(1) ["Rich Soyack" wrote]
Actually, since the 9th Circuit's decision has been indefinitely
stayed there is no change. It is as if the decision had never been
written.
-----------------------------------------------
(2) ["Rich Soyack" wrote]
So, tell me where anything has changed with respect to this stayed
decision. All you are able to do is talk about probabilities and wave your
hands.
--------------------------------------------
(3) ["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
So, tell me, in what jurisdiction is the 9th Ciruits Stayed decision in
effect?
---------------------------------------------
(4) ["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
And then immediately Stayed the decision, so it is as if it never happened.
Unless you happen to know a jurisdiciton in which that decision is in
effect.
===============================================
["Nemesis" wrote:]
He seems to have magical thinking that the "decision" is in a different
place than it is. The place it is at legally is what under Robert's Rules
of Order could best describe as a motion that has been "tabled." If the
whole court doesn't act before the end of its current session the thing
dies with no further action. It's dead. While there is a chance it will be
yanked off the table, the word around the courthouse has been that they
have no real stomach to have this one hit the fast track before the
Supremes and get another tongue lashing from Washington. Newdow isn't
bright enough to realize that the present SCOTUS is unlikely to see the
issues in his dogmatic view. Can't blame him for wishing though.
===========================================
THE REPLIES:
------- ---------- ---------
(1) FROM BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY:
(2) FROM MYSELF:
(1) Does a court ruling have to be in effect to exist?
Does the stay cancel the ruling? (hint, no it doesn't)
Thus a federal court has ruled that "under God in the Pledge violates the
Establishment clause and no other higher court has overturned that ruling.
Now you an play word games or any other game you might like to play to try
and downplay that but the fact remains that a court did make that ruling
and that ruling has not been reversed, overturned, etc.
That ruling exists.
-------------------------------------
(2) I recall, once upon a time a Federal judge in Cleveland, Ohio issuing a
ruling. A short time later he issued a stay on that ruling.
CAN YOU SAY ZELMAN v. SIMMONS-HARRIS?
Does that help you understand the probable process here?
----------------------------------------
(3) "Plaintive is litigating other Establishment Clause claims in the
federal courts, and has prevailed (to date) in the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. Newdow v. United States Congress, 292 F.3rd. 597 (9th Cir. Cal.
2002)"
SOURCE: Brief filed in the U S District Court for the District of
Columbia. Newdow v. Eagen, [Congressional Chaplains] section J. INJURY
IN FACT TO PLAINTIFF - PERSONAL REPROACH page 16
============================================
(3) FROM THE FIRST ATTORNEY, M.A. Newdow, in email replies to jalison
[9/4/02-9/6/02] with regards to specific claims made by Soyack and Nemesis.
M.A. Newdow said:
(1) I disagree. The stay is temporary, pending the decision as to whether
or not there will be a review of the decision. If they decide not to have
a review (which is, admittedly, unlikely), the decision will stand (until
likely USSC appeal). -- M. Newdow 9-4-02 in email reply to this poster.
in the reply above
-----------------------------------------------
(2) The idea that they're going to simply let this languish is absurd.
Courts are not legislatures ... they don't "table" cases. Cases have to be
decided. There certainly are a number of procedures that are available to
the Ninth Circuit, and I clearly may end up losing. But it won't be
because the Court simply decided not to act.
And, meanwhile, my side is still winning. The decision has been stayed, but
it's still the decision.--M. Newdow 9-6-02 in email reply to this poster in
reply to the above
------------------------------------------------
(3) It's a process, and the process isn't yet complete. Might I end up
losing, with the Pledge remaining unchanged throughout the land since
1954?
Absolutely. But - at this moment - the process portends a situation where
it will be changed in the 9th Circuit.
And the legal arguments portend a situation where it will be changed in the
United States.
========================================================
(4) FROM THE SECOND ATTORNEY, N. J. Blanchett in email replies to jalison
[9/6/02] with regards to specific claims made by Soyack and Nemesis.
[N. J. Blanchett, Attorney at Law. replying to comments by Soyack and
Rich Soyack
news:0dgknu4d8gs9fk0u7...@4ax.com...
> "Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >:|No, you presented someone and said he was an attorney at law. My
question
> >:|is normal.
> >:|You didn't answer the question that would take no more than a few
seconds of
> >:|your time.
> >:|Very revealing.
>
> Your question is irrelevant to me.
You are the one who made a point that the guy is a lawyer. YOu do that you
should
be able to back it up. This has happened before.
> I am not interested in your strawman distractions, nor your reframes, nor
> any other games you might want to try and play.
Gee, everything that gets in your way fits into this, doesn't it. This is
why I don't take
you seriously.
>
> I have accomplished that which I set out to accomplish:
> Provide the facts to the crap you have been peddling for some time now.
>
> Let's see, my sources have been:
> Black's Law Dictionary
> Two Attorneys
> A replica situation demonstrating how the process works as it follows the
> various steps with regards to voucher scheme from Cleveland, Ohio.
>
> Your sources have been:
> Duh, you!
Nope, also law.com and the 9th Circuit's web site. None of which indicate
that
the stayed decision is having any effect in any jurisdiction in the USA.
You are
simply a troll who regurgitates slanted information from special interest
group.
Rich Soyack
jal...@cox.net
>:|"Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote:
>:|>> Now, about slanted. You aren't in any way slanted, huh? Yea, right!!!!!!
>:|>
>:|>You pretend to be giving facts. Thanks for finally admitting that you are
>:|>presented nothing more than your slanted view.
>:|
>:|My opinion:
>:|
>:|Sure jalison's postings are slanted. But they are not merely his
>:|"opinion". They are the *facts*, presented in such a way as to make
>:|his view of the facts seem reasonable. If he omitted a fact or
>:|erroneously stated a fact, then his presentation is flawed, but if his
>:|theory includes and explains *all* of the facts, then it is an
>:|acceptable theory, and one who disagrees with it is obligated to come
>:|up with a different theory which explains *all* of the facts. (This
>:|would seem to me like a sound basis for legal argument; if instead you
>:|want political argument, well that tends to be based on ideology with
>:|only facts amenable to the ideology being accepted, and tends to be
>:|effective only insofar as you can convince the other party to accept
>:|your ideological assumptions).
>:|
>:|While I'm never sure that I'm convinced of the validity of jalison's
>:|theories, I am reasonably sure that he has his facts correct; I am
>:|likewise sure that he quotes the Founders correctly. Thus an opposing
>:|argument either has to analyze all the facts and quotes to get a
>:|different answer, or it has to ideologically assume that some of the
>:|quotes or facts do not matter since they are not ideologically (i.e.
>:|politically) correct.
>:|
>:|lojbab
That which you outlined above are not the only ways.
There is another. There is a short cut way. I way that says I don't have to
mention everything, show every event, every document, every court case,
every law change, every speech, etc.
One can say, as I have often said:
(1) There is a vast amount of documented historical and legal data that
supports that founders and other Americans who came later wanted religious
freedom, as in the type of religious freedom that strict separation of
church and state can provide.
(2) There is a good deal of documented historical and legal data that
supports that founders and other Americans who came later wanted to
maintain as much as possible the status quo with regards to religion, that
is unions between church and state and support of the Protestant
Christianity.
(3) There are hosts of documented historical and legal data that supporters
and other Americans who came later didn't involve themselves a great deal
in thoughts about church and state, in short is indifferent to strict
separation and/or accommodation of religion.
There is a short cut to all of this, and that short cut is to acknowledge
certain facts:
(1) From the very beginning, first on the state level, then the national
level there were two major camps with regards to church state unions.
There were the conservatives who wished to maintain the status quo, who
felt that such unions had to be maintained. They were willing to abandon
elevating any specific sects or denomination so long as Protestant
Christianity was supported, protected and advanced
There were the "progressives" who saw that religious freedom could not
exist without strict separation.
(2) Those two groups have been fighting over this issue from 1776 and are
still fighting over this issue and will continue fighting over this issue
for a long time to come, probably.
(3) That church state separation, religious freedom for all, i.e. breaking
of unions between church and state, leveling the playing field between all
religions, and non religion as well, was going to be a process that would
take time.
What the progressive founders began, untold millions yet to be born would
have to continue on and finally complete. Those progressive founders gave
directions and pointed in the way to go.
(4) What does history show us about the outcome of this struggle so far?
It shows us that whole there have been setbacks, while they have lost some
battles, over all, the progressives have been winning the war.
(5) Want proof? You can find that proof by doing comparisons.
Read over copies of the original colonial charters for the various
colonies. Compare those with the original state Constitutions. Note changes
with regards to unions between church and state.
Next Compare the original state constitutions to state constitutions every
50 to 70 years from then to now. Note differences with regards to church
state unions.
Read the Federal Constitution, compare it to the state constitutions of
1776 1780 1790 1800 1850, etc. Note how those state constitutions became
more and more like the federal.
Next, compare court cases on the state and federal level with regards to
church state issues as those cases changed from 1790 to 2002.
I can even give you a very in depth cross section of those cases from 1790
to 1920.
What does all this mean? All those unions between church and state that
existed from 1620 to 1776, but didn't exist after 1776. All those unions
that still existed from 1776 to 1880; but didn't exist anymore after 1880.
All those unions between church and state that still existed from 1880 to
1940, but not after 1940. All those unions between church and state that
still existed from 1940 to 2000 but not today didn't happen by accident.
They happened because Americans, those in power and those not in power,
religious and non religious alike wanted it to happen.
This took place because Americans wanted those unions broken. Americans
from all walks of life, across the spectrum of the political spectrum,
religious and non religious. Oh, yes, to be sure, there were Americans that
didn't and there still are Americans that don't want those unions broken,
but the facts show that while they have made noise, won some battles they
have been on the losing side of this struggle overall.
Slanted? Not nearly as slanted as those on the other side. I can offer and
do offer things that support strict separation and things that point
strongly to accommodation. Frequently, my posts do that as does sections of
the web site. I can offer full historical documents knowing that parts are
going to support my position and other parts are going to kick my butt. I
don't have to take the supportive out of the letter and pretend the non
supportive doesn't exist.
Have you ever noticed how most of these screaming slanted, biased, etc
offer little or nothing themselves?
jal...@cox.net
>:|<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
>:|news:0dgknu4d8gs9fk0u7...@4ax.com...
>:|> "Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|No, you presented someone and said he was an attorney at law. My
>:|question
>:|> >:|is normal.
>:|> >:|You didn't answer the question that would take no more than a few
>:|seconds of
>:|> >:|your time.
>:|> >:|Very revealing.
>:|>
>:|> Your question is irrelevant to me.
>:|
>:|You are the one who made a point that the guy is a lawyer. YOu do that you
>:|should
>:|be able to back it up. This has happened before.
>:|
(Grin) You are the one who has said:
(1) ["Rich Soyack" wrote]
Actually, since the 9th Circuit's decision has been indefinitely
stayed there is no change. It is as if the decision had never been
written.
-----------------------------------------------
(2) ["Rich Soyack" wrote]
So, tell me where anything has changed with respect to this stayed
decision. All you are able to do is talk about probabilities and wave your
hands.
--------------------------------------------
(3) ["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
So, tell me, in what jurisdiction is the 9th Ciruits Stayed decision in
effect?
---------------------------------------------
(4) ["Rich Soyack" wrote:]
And then immediately Stayed the decision, so it is as if it never happened.
Unless you happen to know a jurisdiciton in which that decision is in
effect.
>:|You are the one who said the above things. You do that you
>:|should be able to back it up. This has happened before.
You should follow your own advice.
I see where you constantly side stepped and played games with Steve
Krulick as well. That seems to be the only thing you are capable of doing.
_________________________________________________
You can reply to this and have the last word. The only people you may be
impressing are those who are in your fan club to begin with. You aren't
gonna win very many points with anyone who comes along and doesn't know you
or men but reads only that presented by you and ur buddy and myself.
Those are the only ones I care about.
____________________________________________________
"Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote:
>:|No, you presented someone and said he was an attorney at law. My question
>:|is normal.
>:|You didn't answer the question that would take no more than a few seconds of
>:|your time.
>:|Very revealing.
Your question is irrelevant to me.
I am not interested in your strawman distractions, nor your reframes, nor
any other games you might want to try and play.
I have accomplished that which I set out to accomplish:
Provide the facts to the crap you have been peddling for some time now.
Let's see, my sources have been:
Black's Law Dictionary
Two Attorneys
A replica situation demonstrating how the process works as it follows the
various steps with regards to voucher scheme from Cleveland, Ohio.
Your sources have been:
Duh, you!
Nemesis
"Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Qfse9.1348$io....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
> > Your sources have been: Duh, you!
> Nope, also law.com and the 9th Circuit's web site. None of which indicate
that
> the stayed decision is having any effect in any jurisdiction in the USA.
You are
> simply a troll who regurgitates slanted information from special interest
group.
It is very simple, although you are wasting your time rich. The decision
is a "non entity" at the moment unless the 9th Circuit take some action of
some kind. The decision has not become "published." What was cited before
was a different case than the instant Newdow case. The case has been
'tabled" to allow the current session to expire with no action, in which
case the case vaporizes legally. The case sits before the full panel which
has not indicated that it will ever hear it. In fact, indications have been
that they will not, and intend to just allow it to die on the table. For the
life of me I don't know why these guys keep trying to use it to prove a
point.
Rich Soyack
the USA.
Rich Soyack
<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:pemknucs0blotovc8...@4ax.com...
Rich Soyack
news:aldo2q$1tvg$1...@news1.ij.net...
I can't, for the life of me, understand what point he is even trying to
make. THe
Stayed decision is not in effect in any jurisdiction in the USA.
Rich Soyack
Jeff Strickland
jurisdiction anywhere.
There is a minor problem with your position though, the stayed decision
might compel the full 9th to hear a case that it might have otherwise let
die. What has happened is that a minority panel has decided the case, 2 to
1, that the words, "under God," are unconstitutional. The only remedies are
either to scrap the entire pledge, or to only take out "under God." Let's
back the truck up a few feet here, if the full court had been around when
the minority panel elected to take arguments, then perhaps the court would
not have even heard the case and dismissed it. If this had happened, then we
would be waiting for a new challenge to the Pledge, but since the minority
panel elected to hear arguments, we are having this discussion today.
Any decision that the circuit courts make can be appealed, therefore there
is an automatic 45 day "cooling off" period to allow appeals to be entered
before the decision takes effect. If an appeal is filed during this period,
then the decision is held up pending a higher court ruling on the matter (we
don't want to get whiplash by enacting decisions then halting them because
of appeals, so we hold all decisions until the appeal time has passed).
Due to the immediate and high volume of public outcry, it was assumed that
an appeal would indeed be filed, so the very judge that made the majority
statement issued a stay of his own decision. If an appeal is filed, then the
high court will get the case. They (the high court) will look at among other
things, the panel that made the original decision. If there is weakness
because the panel is a minority, then this can help the high court to
overturn. If there is strength because the decision came from the full lower
court, then the high court will have strong standing to let it pass
unopposed. Given these two possibilities, I am certain that the minority
panel of the 9th Circuit decided to try and get a position of strength by
getting a favorable ruling from its own full bench before getting its
decision heard by the higher bench. Surely, there are other scenarios, but
these two seem to make the most sense to me.
My prediciton is that the full 9th Circuit will either not hear this case
and dismiss it, or they will hear arguments and decide against it. If
dismissed, the case can be appealed to the Supreme Court, and if decided
against, then I am not sure if it can be appealed or will die. If this case
passes muster with the 9th, you can be sure there will be appeals. In any
case, I can see this case going before the Supreme Court of the United
States.
I do not think this decision will stand because I do not see the breach of
the Establishment Clause, which seems to be the strength of the argument by
Mr. Newdow, so I expect the Supreme Court to dismiss and not even hear
arguments. The entire argument can, and should be, boiled down to whether or
not the Establishment Clause has been violated. There is no discussion that
I am aware of that seeks to overturn the Establishment Clause, and clearly
this argument will not do that. The argument should be that the
Establishment Clause seeks to draw a line of separation, and that the Pledge
and "under God" crosses that line. I do not think that the line has been
crossed, but I do agree that the line is needed and in fact is drawn in the
right place. I do not see the Pledge as the vehicle to move the line that
the Establishment Clause has drawn.
I am not trained in Constitutional Law, so these are my humble opinions.
They are, however, sutiable for debate.
Nemesis
> I can't, for the life of me, understand what point he is even trying to
> make. THe Stayed decision is not in effect in any jurisdiction in the
USA.
I tried to make the point that in a legal sense it is the same as if
those two judges had said nothing. I pointed out that it wasn't "law" and
didn't really exist until it hit the Federal Reporter. He then referenced an
entirely different case of Newdow's that was reported. I think he argues
like the "little brother from hell." When he runs out of rational factual
arguments, he just starts making things up.
Nemesis
"Jeff Strickland" <CRWL...@YAHOO.COM> wrote in message
news:unl8tbs...@corp.supernews.com...
First, Jeff, Thanks for an entirely rational post.
> I agree with both of you guys, the stayed decision is not in effect in any
> jurisdiction anywhere.
> There is a minor problem with your position though, the stayed decision
> might compel the full 9th to hear a case that it might have otherwise let
> die. What has happened is that a minority panel has decided the case, 2 to
> 1, that the words, "under God," are unconstitutional.
(minor correction) Two judges initially decided it of the 3. One has
changed sides. The case could be before the entire 9th Circuit, however, the
chief Judge has decided to allow the case to "die in committee" on the
table. As of the last i saw there was nothing anywhere on the docket for it
to be heard. When the present session ends and there has been no action
taken, the case evaporates legally.
> The only remedies are either to scrap the entire pledge, or to only take
out "under God." Let's
> back the truck up a few feet here, if the full court had been around when
> the minority panel elected to take arguments, then perhaps the court would
> not have even heard the case and dismissed it. If this had happened, then
we
> would be waiting for a new challenge to the Pledge, but since the minority
> panel elected to hear arguments, we are having this discussion today.
There is also the alternative to change nothing.
> Any decision that the circuit courts make can be appealed, therefore there
> is an automatic 45 day "cooling off" period to allow appeals to be entered
> before the decision takes effect. If an appeal is filed during this
period,
> then the decision is held up pending a higher court ruling on the matter
(we
> don't want to get whiplash by enacting decisions then halting them because
> of appeals, so we hold all decisions until the appeal time has passed).
Everyone has appealed, if you didn't know. The "full court" has in
essence "tabled" the decision. It is as if it never happened unless the
court takes further action. Given the political climate, that isn't likely.
Since the 9th Circuit is the most reversed circuit in American history and
the most "admonished" they are not really fired up to take on the Supremes
on this one. They have gotten enough bad press already. They just want the
issue gone.
> Due to the immediate and high volume of public outcry, it was assumed that
> an appeal would indeed be filed, so the very judge that made the majority
> statement issued a stay of his own decision. If an appeal is filed, then
the
> high court will get the case. They (the high court) will look at among
other
> things, the panel that made the original decision. If there is weakness
> because the panel is a minority, then this can help the high court to
> overturn. If there is strength because the decision came from the full
lower
> court, then the high court will have strong standing to let it pass
> unopposed. Given these two possibilities, I am certain that the minority
> panel of the 9th Circuit decided to try and get a position of strength by
> getting a favorable ruling from its own full bench before getting its
> decision heard by the higher bench. Surely, there are other scenarios, but
> these two seem to make the most sense to me.
You obviously missed that both sides appealed.
> My prediciton is that the full 9th Circuit will either not hear this case
> and dismiss it, or they will hear arguments and decide against it. If
> dismissed, the case can be appealed to the Supreme Court, and if decided
> against, then I am not sure if it can be appealed or will die. If this
case
> passes muster with the 9th, you can be sure there will be appeals. In any
> case, I can see this case going before the Supreme Court of the United
> States.
The 9th Circuit is going to continue to do its best to ignore the case
into the ether.
> I do not think this decision will stand because I do not see the breach of
> the Establishment Clause, which seems to be the strength of the argument
by
> Mr. Newdow, so I expect the Supreme Court to dismiss and not even hear
> arguments. The entire argument can, and should be, boiled down to whether
or
> not the Establishment Clause has been violated. There is no discussion
that
> I am aware of that seeks to overturn the Establishment Clause, and clearly
> this argument will not do that. The argument should be that the
> Establishment Clause seeks to draw a line of separation, and that the
Pledge
> and "under God" crosses that line. I do not think that the line has been
> crossed, but I do agree that the line is needed and in fact is drawn in
the
> right place. I do not see the Pledge as the vehicle to move the line that
> the Establishment Clause has drawn.
I think it is a distracting tempest in a teapot.
> I am not trained in Constitutional Law, so these are my humble opinions.
> They are, however, sutiable for debate.
Well Jeff you may not be a Constitutional scholar but your reasoning
powers are okay.
Rich Soyack
And when I questioned the credentials of the "attorney" he brought in he
called
my behavior "juvenile delinquent" and said I was using a strawman.
Incredible.
Rich Soyack
Thumper
wrote:
>
>"Jeff Strickland" <CRWL...@YAHOO.COM> wrote in message
>news:unl8tbs...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> First, Jeff, Thanks for an entirely rational post.
>
>> I agree with both of you guys, the stayed decision is not in effect in any
>> jurisdiction anywhere.
>
>> There is a minor problem with your position though, the stayed decision
>> might compel the full 9th to hear a case that it might have otherwise let
>> die. What has happened is that a minority panel has decided the case, 2 to
>> 1, that the words, "under God," are unconstitutional.
>
> (minor correction) Two judges initially decided it of the 3. One has
>changed sides.
Cite?
>The case could be before the entire 9th Circuit, however, the
>chief Judge has decided to allow the case to "die in committee" on the
>table.
No such thing as dying in committee.
>As of the last i saw there was nothing anywhere on the docket for it
>to be heard. When the present session ends and there has been no action
>taken, the case evaporates legally.
You are wrong. The judge can lift the stay and it takes effect. The
ruling has not been vacated.
Thumper
Rich Soyack
news:miumnuc0eomnunar6...@4ax.com...
Has the judge lifted the Stay? No.
Rich Soyack
Nemesis
> And when I questioned the credentials of the "attorney" he brought in he
called
> my behavior "juvenile delinquent" and said I was using a strawman.
Incredible.
My comment is this, he brings this alleged "attorney" into the mix who
makes statements of law that are at best "questionable" and when a
reasonable question is asked as to where they practice law not only do you
*not* get a direct answer to a simple question you got attacked. Any *real*
lawyer would not have a problem saying that "my office is in Los Angeles" or
wherever. Which only makes *me* think the "lawyer" is a phony. And I will
until shown otherwise.
Nemesis
> > First, Jeff, Thanks for an entirely rational post.
> >> I agree with both of you guys, the stayed decision is not in effect in
any
> >> jurisdiction anywhere.
> >> There is a minor problem with your position though, the stayed decision
> >> might compel the full 9th to hear a case that it might have otherwise
let
> >> die. What has happened is that a minority panel has decided the case, 2
to
> >> 1, that the words, "under God," are unconstitutional.
> >
> > (minor correction) Two judges initially decided it of the 3. One has
> >changed sides.
> Cite?
As in a legal cite? There is none, as we have in this case is press
reports about the decision and actions. There has been nothing in the
official journals I am aware of.
> >The case could be before the entire 9th Circuit, however, the
> >chief Judge has decided to allow the case to "die in committee" on the
table.
> No such thing as dying in committee.
Of course there isn't in a court process. But it has the effect of that.
Do you want technical legal terminology, and would you prefer it in Latin?
> >As of the last I saw there was nothing anywhere on the docket for it
> >to be heard. When the present session ends and there has been no action
> >taken, the case evaporates legally.
> You are wrong. The judge can lift the stay and it takes effect. The
> ruling has not been vacated.
Yes, if the chief judge changes the status and they uphold the decision
then it would "take effect." But, maybe you seem not to know that the case
is presently in a legal nomads land. There are no hearings scheduled on it.
Unless something changes one way or another, if the court takes no action
before its current session ends, the decision dies. It does not hold over
until the court reconvenes. It vaporizes.
Rich Soyack
This is the second "lawyer" on their side who considered being asked where
he
practices to be an attack.
Rich Soyack
jal...@cox.net
>:|I agree with both of you guys, the stayed decision is not in effect in any
>:|jurisdiction anywhere.
>:|
>:|There is a minor problem with your position though, the stayed decision
>:|might compel the full 9th to hear a case that it might have otherwise let
>:|die.
=========================================================
I have accomplished that which I set out to accomplish:
Provide the facts to the crap you have been peddling for some time now.
Let's see, my sources have been:
Black's Law Dictionary
Two Attorneys
A replica situation demonstrating how the process works as it follows the
various steps with regards to voucher scheme from Cleveland, Ohio.
Your sources have been:
Duh, you!
Thumper
wrote:
The chief judge does not have to lift the stay. The judge who issued
the stay can lift it. The reason it is in "nomads" land is because
the court knows that it is unconstitutional and is afraid to hear it.
The decision doesn't die. It has been made and cannot be undone
unless heard and overturned.
Thumper
>
>
Nemesis
Any *real* lawyer would have no problem answering the question. Was it
Attorney Mumford?
Nemesis
> > Yes, if the chief judge changes the status and they uphold the
decision
> >then it would "take effect." But, maybe you seem not to know that the
case
> >is presently in a legal nomads land. There are no hearings scheduled on
it.
> >Unless something changes one way or another, if the court takes no action
> >before its current session ends, the decision dies. It does not hold over
> >until the court reconvenes. It vaporizes.
> The chief judge does not have to lift the stay. The judge who issued
> the stay can lift it. The reason it is in "nomads" land is because
> the court knows that it is unconstitutional and is afraid to hear it.
> The decision doesn't die. It has been made and cannot be undone
> unless heard and overturned.
They don't let you out much, do they? The "stay" would have been
automatic anyhow. There have been motions for a rehearing from both sides.
It is 100% up to the chief judge whether to schedule hearing on it or to
allow the case to be "reported." It is NO-MAN'S land.... There is NO
decision in the case, no matter how desperately you want there to be. You
can jump up and down and scream and hold your breath and it doesn't make it
real. You are like a little boy trying to sell me that the tooth fairy is
real by holding up comic books in front of me. A court may make a verbal or
written ruling, and that is nice, but it doesn't become "law" until it is
released for publication. The case is pending review. As a legal matter,
unless the court takes further action the case is dead and it is as if it
never happened except in your desperate little mind. They printed photos of
alien autopsies in the newspapers too, however, they are as real as your
"landmark decision." It hasn't been moved because the 9th Circuit has been
so reversed in the past 10 years that their decisions account for almost
80-% of the reversals the Supreme Court hears. And they have been admonished
for straying so far from the Constitution. They aren't anxious for yet
another public rebuke from the high court. It's dead at the moment, learn to
live with it. And you think Theists believe in superstition. At least they
don't believe in the face of evidence refuting the existence of their God.
Rich Soyack
I no longer remember. This whole anti "under God" crowd is weird.
Rich Soyack
Marc Satterwhite
There is no such thing as an anti "under God" crowd. I am proud member
of the "please don't use my tax dollars to force impressionable children to
participate in religious displays they may not believe in, but won't speak
up about for fear of being ostracized and/or beaten up by the members
of the intolerant majority religion" crowd.
Best, Marc
Carol Lee Smith
> Rich Soyack wrote:
> > This whole anti "under God" crowd is weird.
> There is no such thing as an anti "under God" crowd.
You are correct. thank you for speaking to that point.
Soyack, in his paranoia, sees things that aren't there and makes claims he
cannot support. But I am sure you don't need to be told that.
> I am proud member
> of the "please don't use my tax dollars to force impressionable children to
> participate in religious displays they may not believe in, but won't speak
> up about for fear of being ostracized and/or beaten up by the members
> of the intolerant majority religion" crowd.
Where can I join up?
Thumper
wrote:
>
>"Thumper" <jayl...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>news:tp4qnu8isik6rn5ah...@4ax.com...
>
>> > Yes, if the chief judge changes the status and they uphold the
>decision
>> >then it would "take effect." But, maybe you seem not to know that the
>case
>> >is presently in a legal nomads land. There are no hearings scheduled on
>it.
>> >Unless something changes one way or another, if the court takes no action
>> >before its current session ends, the decision dies. It does not hold over
>> >until the court reconvenes. It vaporizes.
>
>> The chief judge does not have to lift the stay. The judge who issued
>> the stay can lift it. The reason it is in "nomads" land is because
>> the court knows that it is unconstitutional and is afraid to hear it.
>> The decision doesn't die. It has been made and cannot be undone
>> unless heard and overturned.
>
> They don't let you out much, do they? The "stay" would have been
>automatic anyhow. There have been motions for a rehearing from both sides.
>It is 100% up to the chief judge whether to schedule hearing on it or to
>allow the case to be "reported." It is NO-MAN'S land.... There is NO
>decision in the case, no matter how desperately you want there to be.
You are wrong you ass.
>You
>can jump up and down and scream and hold your breath and it doesn't make it
>real. You are like a little boy trying to sell me that the tooth fairy is
>real by holding up comic books in front of me. A court may make a verbal or
>written ruling, and that is nice, but it doesn't become "law" until it is
>released for publication. The case is pending review. As a legal matter,
>unless the court takes further action the case is dead and it is as if it
>never happened except in your desperate little mind. They printed photos of
>alien autopsies in the newspapers too, however, they are as real as your
>"landmark decision." It hasn't been moved because the 9th Circuit has been
>so reversed in the past 10 years that their decisions account for almost
>80-% of the reversals the Supreme Court hears. And they have been admonished
>for straying so far from the Constitution. They aren't anxious for yet
>another public rebuke from the high court. It's dead at the moment, learn to
>live with it. And you think Theists believe in superstition. At least they
>don't believe in the face of evidence refuting the existence of their God.
>
>
The judge can lift his stay at anytime and the decision will take
effect. No amount of your infantile bullshit can change that. You're
too stupid to know that you're showing your ass to the world.
Thumper
>
>
>
jal...@cox.net
>:|I no longer remember. This whole anti "under God" crowd is weird.
>:|
>:|Rich Soyack
>:|
From: Steve Krulick <s...@krulick.com>
Organization: © 2002 Kryolux, Inc.
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.politics.usa.constitution,milw.general,misc.legal
Subject: Re: The Pledge is unconstitutional!
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 23:11:46 GMT
Rich Soyack wrote:
> Of course, as we all know, the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance
> to the Flag
> is not Unconstitutional in the United State of America.
>
> Rich Soyack
GAHCK! The same blatant assertion of his unsubstantiated
opinion; back to square one!
Guffaw! According to the recent Newdow decision, the 1954 act
that ADDED "under God" to the Pledge IS, of course,
unconstitutional. But Soyack already knew that. Even if he
didn't bother to actually read the entire decision, WE put it in
front of him sufficient times to make THAT point clear, along
with the SCotUS settled case law that forms the basis of
Goodwin's ruling:
Justice Hugo Black wrote in 1947: "The 'establishment of
religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this:
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions,
or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor
influence a person to go to or to remain away from church
against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief
in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or
professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church
attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or
small, can be levied to support any religious activities or
institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they
may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the
Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the
affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.
In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of
religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation
between Church and State.'" Everson v. Board of Education
(1947).
Black continued: "We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a
State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a
person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.'
Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements
which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither
can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of
God as against those religions founded on different beliefs."
Further from the same case: "The Amendment's purpose was not to
strike merely at the official establishment of a single sect,
creed or religion, outlawing only a formal relation such as had
prevailed in England and some of the colonies. Necessarily it
was to uproot all such relationships. But the object was broader
than separating church and state in this narrow sense. It was to
create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of
religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively
forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion...
No provision of the Constitution is more closely tied to or
given content by its generating history than the religious
clause of the First Amendment... The history includes not only
Madison's authorship and the proceedings before the First
Congress, but also the long and intensive struggle for religious
freedom in America, more especially in Virginia, of which the
Amendment was the direct culmination... For Madison, as also for
Jefferson, religious freedom was the crux of the struggle for
freedom in general."
In Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), Justice Stevens, writing for a 6-3
majority, held that an Alabama statute authorizing a daily
period of silence in public schools violated the Establishment
Clause: "Just as the right to speak and the right to refrain
from speaking are complementary components of a broader concept
of individual freedom of mind, so also the individual's freedom
to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to
refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. At
one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the
preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not
require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the
atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam
or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined
in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously
concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by
the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious
faith or none at all. This conclusion derives support not only
from the interest in respecting the individual's freedom of
conscience, but also from the conviction that religious beliefs
worthy of respect are the product of free and voluntary choice
by the faithful, and from recognition of the fact that the
political interest in forestalling intolerance extends beyond
intolerance among Christian sects—or even intolerance among
"religions"—to encompass intolerance of the disbeliever and the
uncertain."
The SCOTUS rulings were strictly applied by Goodwin in Newdow:
The 9th Circ said it absolutely clearly:
"In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United
States is a nation "under God" is an endorsement of religion. It
is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in
monotheism. The recitation that ours is a nation "under God" is
not a mere acknowledgment that many Americans believe in a
deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical
significance of religion in the founding of the Republic.
Rather, the phrase "one nation under God" in the context of the
Pledge is normative. To recite the Pledge is not to describe the
United States; instead, it is to swear allegiance to the values
for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty,
justice, and — since 1954 — monotheism. The text of the official
Pledge, codified in federal law, impermissibly takes a position
with respect to the purely religious question of the existence
and identity of God. A profession that we are a nation "under
God" is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a
profession that we are a nation "under Jesus," a nation "under
Vishnu," a nation "under Zeus," or a nation "under no god,"
because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to
religion. "[T]he government must pursue a course of complete
neutrality toward religion." Wallace, 472 U.S. at 60.
Furthermore, the school district's practice of teacher-led
recitation of the Pledge aims to inculcate in students a respect
for the ideals set forth in the Pledge, and thus amounts to
state endorsement of these ideals. Although students cannot be
forced to participate in recitation of the Pledge, the school
district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement
of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to
recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the
Pledge."
When will Soyack respond to these challenges and points?
1)
The decision was written. IT was based on applying the SCotUS
precedents. That is unchanged. The same arguments will be made
in any review or in an appeal. Therefore, my question about what
parts of the settled SCotUS case law that formed the basis of
the decision you disagree with and why is still relevant and YOU
have consistently ignored the challenges.
WHAT in the settled case law that Goodwin cited do YOU
specifically DISAGREE WITH, AND WHY!
2)
How about this one:
> I don't believe that the two words "under God" in the Pledge establish a
> religion,
More straw. It doesn't HAVE to "establish a religion" to violate
the clause, but merely "respect" an establishment of religion.
Again, you clearly didn't read the decision, or can't comprehend
it, or are just ignoring it. It is an "endorsement" of religion,
and in context of the decision, and all the SCotUS precedents
mentioned, and some not, it is a violation. So again, you
opinion has nothing to do with the actual decision, much less
"disagrees" with it. It sets up a straw decision that wasn't
what Goodwin said. Try showing why you disagree with what was
ACTUALLY decided!
3)
Mind giving the clause that states that "the People can override
the U.S. Supreme Court's decision."?
4)
Have you read MY words at democracy101.org yet
5)
> Newdow first tried it in Florida.
"Tried"? Explain "tried." As Yoda says: "Do or do not. There is
no try."
You mean there was a circuit court decision reached in Florida
that we never heard about involving Newdow? Tell us more. All
that matters IS an actual decision that determines the
constitutionality of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge. Not
dicta. Not try.
6)
> Of the Circuit Courts in the United
> States, I believe 3 have disagreed, in essence, with the 9th Circuit. I
> suggest we wait for outcome.
Oh, there were three other cases in three other circuits where
the "under God" phrase in the Pledge was specifically reviewed
for its constitutionality and they disagreed with Goodwin's
interpretation, ruling that the phrase WAS constitutional and
that the 1954 law WAS constitutional and that a law stipulating
that "giving" the Pledge each morning in school to satisfy
patriotic exercise requirements WAS constitutional? Please
elaborate! I thought the Newdow case was the first to deal
specifically with all this directly, and not just have a passing
dicta with no related decision.
7)
There's more of course, such as you denying that the Const means
what the courts say it means, simply ignoring all my evidence
that argues that it is just so. But you still won't address any
of this first stuff, so why should I bother again?
I'm still waiting for his refutation of all MY evidence that
refutes his claims and straw.
MINSTREL (singing): Brave Rich Soyack ran away
Bravely ran away away
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes Brave Rich Soyack turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave Rich Soyack
Packing it in and packing it up
And sneaking away and buggering off
And chickening out and pissing off home
Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge...
--
Steven Krulick
s...@krulick.com
Ellenville NY 12428-130727
Larry Smith
LOL! And get stalked real-life by some 2nd Amendment fruitcake like
Soyack?
jal...@cox.net
>:| They don't let you out much, do they? The "stay" would have been
>:|automatic anyhow. There have been motions for a rehearing from both sides.
>:|It is 100% up to the chief judge whether to schedule hearing on it or to
>:|allow the case to be "reported." It is NO-MAN'S land.... There is NO
>:|decision in the case, no matter how desperately you want there to be. You
>:|can jump up and down and scream and hold your breath and it doesn't make it
>:|real. You are like a little boy trying to sell me that the tooth fairy is
>:|real by holding up comic books in front of me. A court may make a verbal or
>:|written ruling, and that is nice, but it doesn't become "law" until it is
>:|released for publication. The case is pending review. As a legal matter,
>:|unless the court takes further action the case is dead and it is as if it
>:|never happened except in your desperate little mind. They printed photos of
>:|alien autopsies in the newspapers too, however, they are as real as your
>:|"landmark decision." It hasn't been moved because the 9th Circuit has been
>:|so reversed in the past 10 years that their decisions account for almost
>:|80-% of the reversals the Supreme Court hears. And they have been admonished
>:|for straying so far from the Constitution. They aren't anxious for yet
>:|another public rebuke from the high court. It's dead at the moment, learn to
>:|live with it. And you think Theists believe in superstition. At least they
>:|don't believe in the face of evidence refuting the existence of their God.
*********************************************************
From: Steve Krulick <s...@krulick.com>
Organization: Š 2002 Kryolux, Inc.
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.politics.usa.constitution,uwm.general,milw.general
Subject: Re: The Pledge is not unconstitutional!
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 03:07:41 GMT
Nemesis wrote:
>
> "Steve Krulick" <s...@krulick.com> wrote in message
> news:3D4E97F7...@krulick.com...
>
> > Who cares? I write for the select group of intelligent readers
> > who understand and appreciate the issues and the presentation of
> > relevant and thoughtful evidence. YOU are just a minor
> > annoyance, a buzzing housefly, leaving little turds on the
> > buffet.
>
> > Who cares? I write for the select group of intelligent readers
> > who understand and appreciate the issues and the presentation of
> > relevant and thoughtful evidence.
>
> I am sure you think so.
You don't know what I think. I'm sure of that.
> Those who agree with you are "intelligent"
Some yes, some no. There are intelligent persons who disagree
with me; I've enjoyed debating with them. But they play by the
rules and stick to the issues. Then there's you.
> those
> that think you are a loud mouthed ass, are therefore idiots.
I didn't say that, you did. Putting words in my mouth is rude.
> What you post
> is rampant misinterpretations of often irrelevant documents.
So you blatantly assert. IF you want to be taken seriously, you
would back up those unsubstantiated claims with logic and
evidence. HOW are they misinterpretations (calling them
"rampant" doesn't make them so)? WHY are they irrelevant? If you
keep snipping away the details, only to hand-wave with your
unsupported opinions as an excuse for not dealing with my
arguments, why should anyone take you seriously?
> And you pound
> ever table, every wall, every door
Blah blah blah. More irrelevant and baseless side-stepping.
> that you can with your lengthy diatribes,
The better to inform you with, my dear.
> perceiving yourself to have the ultimate intelligence on Usenet.
Modesty forbids me. But you are obsessed with me to a point of
concern.
> Yet
> relegating yourself by your arguments and lack of understanding of "factual"
> concepts to the role of class dumbass.
Was that a sentence, dumbass? More blatant assertions.
> You still don't quite understand the
> significance of a case not being reported yet you are on your soapbox
> screaming about it.
Screaming? Did you EVER read the main point I've been making?
"Being reported" has no bearing on my question:
The decision was written. IT was based on applying the SCotUS
precedents. That is unchanged. The same arguments will be made
in any review or in an appeal. Therefore, my question about what
parts of the settled SCotUS case law that formed the basis of
the decision you disagree with and why is still relevant and YOU
have consistently ignored the challenges.
WHAT in the settled case law that Goodwin cited do YOU
specifically DISAGREE WITH, AND WHY!
> Since your understanding is so small and you won't even look it up.
Was that a sentence, dumbass?
YOU brought it up, so the burden of argument is on you to
explain it and its relevance to THIS issue. I say it has no
relevance to this issue, as I've put it.
> In
> this case the decision has not been finalized.
It WAS written. IT was based on applying the SCotUS precedents.
That is unchanged. The same arguments will be made in any review
or in an appeal. Therefore, my question about what parts of the
settled SCotUS case law that formed the basis of the decision
you disagree with and why is still relevant and YOU have
consistently ignored the challenges.
WHAT in the settled case law that Goodwin cited do YOU
specifically DISAGREE WITH, AND WHY!
> It was "withdrawn."
It was "stayed." But it WAS written. IT was based on applying
the SCotUS precedents. That is unchanged. The same arguments
will be made in any review or in an appeal. Therefore, my
question about what parts of the settled SCotUS case law that
formed the basis of the decision you disagree with and why is
still relevant and YOU have consistently ignored the challenges.
WHAT in the settled case law that Goodwin cited do YOU
specifically DISAGREE WITH, AND WHY!
> So it
> isn't law as you incorrectly assume and argue.
Where did I argue THAT? The decision was written. IT was based
on applying the SCotUS precedents. That is unchanged. The same
arguments will be made in any review or in an appeal. Therefore,
my question about what parts of the settled SCotUS case law that
formed the basis of the decision you disagree with and why is
still relevant and YOU have consistently ignored the challenges.
WHAT in the settled case law that Goodwin cited do YOU
specifically DISAGREE WITH, AND WHY!
> It is being reviewed by a
> full 7 judge panel in the 9th Circuit, and they, dear loudmouth, have thus
> far chose to "table the motion."
If so, the decision was STILL written. IT was based on applying
the SCotUS precedents. That is unchanged. The same arguments
will be made in any review or in an appeal. Therefore, my
question about what parts of the settled SCotUS case law that
formed the basis of the decision you disagree with and why is
still relevant and YOU have consistently ignored the challenges.
WHAT in the settled case law that Goodwin cited do YOU
specifically DISAGREE WITH, AND WHY!
> In short the decision as far as "case law"
> goes is dying on the vine at the moment.
I never said Newdow WAS case law; I said it was based on SCotUS
case law precedents. That is unchanged. The same arguments will
be made in any review or in an appeal. Therefore, my question
about what parts of the settled SCotUS case law that formed the
basis of the decision you disagree with and why is still
relevant and YOU have consistently ignored the challenges.
WHAT in the settled case law that Goodwin cited do YOU
specifically DISAGREE WITH, AND WHY!
> Even among the Judges on the rather
> funny 9th Circuit this is a hot potato they wish would just go away and they
> are doing their best to try to ignore it into insignificance.
Nonetheless, the decision WAS written. IT was based on applying
the SCotUS precedents. That is unchanged. The same arguments
will be made in any review or in an appeal. Therefore, my
question about what parts of the settled SCotUS case law that
formed the basis of the decision you disagree with and why is
still relevant and YOU have consistently ignored the challenges.
WHAT in the settled case law that Goodwin cited do YOU
specifically DISAGREE WITH, AND WHY!
> So, the point
> is that your "landmark case" has hit the proverbial legal shredder.
Your wishful thinking. The decision was written. IT was based on
applying the SCotUS precedents. That is unchanged. The same
arguments will be made in any review or in an appeal. Therefore,
my question about what parts of the settled SCotUS case law that
formed the basis of the decision you disagree with and why is
still relevant and YOU have consistently ignored the challenges.
WHAT in the settled case law that Goodwin cited do YOU
specifically DISAGREE WITH, AND WHY!
> A
> concept that is beyond a limited understanding and education.
Was that a sentence, dumbass? YOUR blatant assertion of your
unsubstantiated opinion is not beyond understanding; it is just
worthless, that's all, as it is not backed by logic or evidence
or authoritative substantiation.
> But should the
> full panel report it out of committee, there isn't a chance in hell it will
> make it past the SCOTUS.
YOUR blatant assertion of your unsubstantiated opinion. Since IT
was based on applying the SCotUS precedents, the SCotUS would
have to disown their own previous rulings, including the Lemon
test. That is unchanged. The same arguments will be made in any
review or in an appeal. Therefore, my question about what parts
of the settled SCotUS case law that formed the basis of the
decision you disagree with and why is still relevant and YOU
have consistently ignored the challenges.
WHAT in the settled case law that Goodwin cited do YOU
specifically DISAGREE WITH, AND WHY!
> Not the Rehnquist court! But feel free to continue
> your wild gesticulations and table pounding Steve,
Yawn. My even-tempered and measured replies speak for
themselves. Why should anybody take YOUR 100% fact-free ranting
seriously?
> You can be amusing even
> if your points are idiotic.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. YOU haven't even MADE any points, other than to
obsess about me personally. Why don't you PROVE my points are
idiotic? That would be FAR more impressive than just making MORE
blatant assertions.
> It's great watching a clown perform when he
> doesn't know why he's so funny.
Yep, that's why I'm so amused this very moment!
jal...@cox.net
>:| They don't let you out much, do they? The "stay" would have been
>:|automatic anyhow. There have been motions for a rehearing from both sides.
>:|It is 100% up to the chief judge whether to schedule hearing on it or to
>:|allow the case to be "reported." It is NO-MAN'S land.... There is NO
>:|decision in the case, no matter how desperately you want there to be. You
>:|can jump up and down and scream and hold your breath and it doesn't make it
>:|real. You are like a little boy trying to sell me that the tooth fairy is
>:|real by holding up comic books in front of me. A court may make a verbal or
>:|written ruling, and that is nice, but it doesn't become "law" until it is
>:|released for publication. The case is pending review. As a legal matter,
>:|unless the court takes further action the case is dead and it is as if it
>:|never happened except in your desperate little mind. They printed photos of
>:|alien autopsies in the newspapers too, however, they are as real as your
>:|"landmark decision." It hasn't been moved because the 9th Circuit has been
>:|so reversed in the past 10 years that their decisions account for almost
>:|80-% of the reversals the Supreme Court hears. And they have been admonished
>:|for straying so far from the Constitution. They aren't anxious for yet
>:|another public rebuke from the high court. It's dead at the moment, learn to
>:|live with it. And you think Theists believe in superstition. At least they
>:|don't believe in the face of evidence refuting the existence of their God.
HISTORY OF ZELMAN v. SIMMONS-HARRIS
WHY?
Because it was a case that was decided by a 3 judge panel of a U.S. Circuit
of Appeals. The judge writing the opinion then stayed the decision. The
process continued as it has to. Eventually the full Circuit Court refused
to hear the case, it was appealed to the USSC where it was finally heard
and decided. The exact same legal process that will, some form or
fashion, take place with Newdow v U S Congress.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Notice the time line involved:
(1) MAY 27, 1999 The Ohio Supreme Court's decision to strike down a
religious school voucher program. The state court ruled today that the
Cleveland program violates a state constitutional provision barring
legislative actions involving more than one subject. But the justices said
the scheme does not violate the church-state separation provisions of the
state or federal constitutions. Simmons-Harris v. Goff, 711 N.E.2d 203
(Ohio 1999) (striking down on procedural grounds voucher program that funds
religious schools, but holding that program did not violate Establishment
Clause) (7 judges unanimous on U.S. Establishment Clause and related Ohio
constitutional provisions; 2 dissents from procedural invalidation): This
was a challenge to a
the Ohio State Supreme Court ruled.
(2) JUNE 1999 the State legislature passed a similar bill
(3) JULY 1999 The plaintiffs then re-filed their Establishment Clause claim
in federal court.
(4) AUGUST 24, 1999, Judge Oliver issued a preliminary injunction, see 54
F. Supp. 2d 725 (N.D. Ohio 1999), finding it likely that the program would
be found to be unconstitutional, and rejecting the defendants' argument
that the plaintiffs' claim was barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion.
(5) AUGUST 27, 1999 Judge Oliver later stayed his ruling insofar as it
applied to students that were already enrolled in the program, See 1999
WL 669222 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 27, 1999) (partial stay);
(6) 528 U.S. 938 (1999) the balance of the decision was later stayed by
the U.S. Supreme Court.(full stay).
(7) FEBRUARY 2001 The Sixth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc
(8) MAY 2001 the defendants petitioned the Supreme Court to grant review of
the case
(9) JUNE 23, 2002 The USSC issued its ruling.
It took from August 1999 to June 2002 for this case to fully work its way
through the courts system. In August 1999 the opinion of the 3 judge panel
of the 6th Circuit of Appeals was stated by one of the judges issuing that
opinion and it so remained till IIRC the start of the following school year
when the USSC stayed it as well. (I will have to go to Regent U to get the
exact date) The full 6th Circuit Court of Appeals never did hear the case,
they refused to do so.
In Newdow v. U S Congress, we are only three or four months into this
process. The claims of Soyack and Nemesis are totally smoke blowing,
totally figments of their imagination given out of (1) ignorance of how the
legal system works, (2) a desire to deceive, (3) fear of the ultimate
outcome.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The decision of the 6th Circuit panel is reported as Simmons-Harris v.
Zelman, 234 F.3d 945 (6th Cir. 2000).
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/6th/00a0411p.html
Argued: June 20, 2000 Decided and Filed: December 11, 2000
Before: RYAN, SILER, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
JUNE 27, 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Supreme Court
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ZELMAN v. SIMMONS-HARRIS, No. 00-1751 (U.S.S.C. June 27, 2002)
A program giving educational choices and aid to certain students
attending both religious and non-religious public and private
schools, enacted for the valid secular purpose of providing
educational assistance to poor children, is one of true "private
choice" and does not offend the First Amendment's Establishment
Clause.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/us/000/001751.html
*********************************************
JUNE 26, 2002
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NEWDOW v. US CONGRESS (06/26/02 - No. 00-16423)
The addition of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag (via 1954 federal statute), and a school district policy of
teacher-led daily recitation of the Pledge, with the added words
included, violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:[PDF File]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0016423p.pdf
*********************************************
===============================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FINDLAW DAILY OPINION SUMMARIES
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. 6TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
December 11, 2000
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/courts/6th.html
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, EDUCATION LAW SIMMONS-HARRIS v. ZELMAN, No 00-3055,
3060, 3063 (6th Cir. December 11, 2000)
Ohio Pilot Scholarship Program school voucher program violates the
Establishment Clause because it does not permit private citizens to direct
government aid freely, but rather restricts choice to religious
institutions and spaces with only a few alternative possibilities.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/6th/00a0411p.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The decision of the federal district court judge is reported as
Simmons-Harris v. Zelman, 72 F.Supp. 2d 834 (N.D. Ohio 1999). [Scroll down
to Ohio or use your browsers "Find" feature to locate Ohio.
http://www.au.org/vcases.htm
Simmons-Harris v. Zelman, 234 F.3d 945 (6th Cir. 2000) (striking down
voucher program that funds religious schools as violative of the
Establishment Clause), petitions for cert. filed (May 2001): In June 1999,
after the Ohio Supreme Court decision described above, the Ohio legislature
re-enacted the identical program, but did so in a separate bill.
Approximately 3,800 students enrolled in the voucher program for the
1999-2000 school year. The plaintiffs then re-filed their Establishment
Clause claim in federal court in July. On August 24, 1999, Judge Oliver
issued a preliminary injunction, see 54 F. Supp. 2d 725 (N.D. Ohio 1999),
finding it likely that the program would be found to be unconstitutional,
and rejecting the defendants' argument that the plaintiffs' claim was
barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion. Judge Oliver later stayed his
ruling insofar as it applied to students that were already enrolled in the
program, and the balance of the decision was later stayed by the U.S.
Supreme Court. See 1999 WL 669222 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 27, 1999) (partial
stay); 528 U.S. 938 (1999) (full stay).
On December 20, 1999, Judge Oliver issued his permanent decision. See 72 F.
Supp.2d 834 (N.D. Ohio 1999). He found the facts to be indistinguishable
from those at issue in Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty
v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756 (1973), in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck
down a New York State program that provided tuition reimbursement grants to
low-income parents whose children attended private schools, 85% of which
were religious. In the Ohio program, 82% of the participating schools are
sectarian and enroll 85% of the participating students. The court applied
the Lemon test, concluding that the program had a secular purpose but
lacked a secular primary effect. The court also found that the ruling in
Nyquist had not been undermined by subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
Upon the consent of the parties, the court's order was stayed in its
entirety pending review by the Sixth Circuit.
The Sixth Circuit ruled in December 2000 that the voucher program was
unconstitutional. The Court based its findings of advancement and
endorsement of religion on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Nyquist,
which the Sixth Circuit found remains good law. The Circuit relied heavily
on the fact that the program favors sectarian schools over public and other
nonpublic schools because they have lower overhead costs and supplemental
income from private donations, and consequently have lower tuition needs,
which enables them to comply with the $2500 limit on tuition. This fact,
together with the facts that 85% of the participating schools are sectarian
and that no public schools elected to participate in the program, yields a
"limited and restricted palette for parents which is solely caused by state
legislative structuring."
The Sixth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc in February 2001,
and the defendants petitioned the Supreme Court to grant review of the case
in May 2001.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The decision of the federal district court judge is reported as
Simmons-Harris v. Zelman, 72 F.Supp. 2d 834 (N.D. Ohio 1999). [Scroll down
to Ohio or use your browsers "Find" feature to locate Ohio.
http://www.au.org/vcases.htm
OHIO
Simmons-Harris v. Goff, 711 N.E.2d 203 (Ohio 1999) (striking down on
procedural grounds voucher program that funds religious schools, but
holding that program did not violate Establishment Clause) (7 judges
unanimous on U.S. Establishment Clause and related Ohio constitutional
provisions; 2 dissents from procedural invalidation): This was a challenge
to a program in the Cleveland City School District in which students are
chosen by lot to receive a fixed percentage of the tuition charged by the
alternative school of their choice. Recipients whose family income is below
200% of the federal poverty level receive 90% of the tuition, while those
above this threshold receive 75% of the tuition, and participating private
schools are required to cap tuition at $2500 per student. Students are
allowed to attend any private school within the geographic boundaries of
the district, including parochial schools, that registers for the program,
or public schools in districts adjacent to the Cleveland School District
that elect to register in the program.
Where a recipient has chosen to attend a private school, the state delivers
a check, payable to the recipient's parents, to the school, and the parents
then endorse the check over to the school. Where the recipient has chosen
an adjacent public school, the program calls for the state to issue a check
payable directly to the school.
During the 1996-97 school year, approximately 2,000 scholarships were
awarded, all of them to recipients with families below the poverty line.
80% of the 53 private schools registered to participate in the program were
pervasively sectarian, and no adjacent public school districts chose to
participate. The trial court found that "a majority of the scholarships
will be used by students attending sectarian schools."
In two consolidated lawsuits, plaintiff-taxpayers argued that the program
violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and various
provisions of the Ohio Constitution, and two groups of private schools
intervened. The Ohio Supreme Court rejected the Establishment Clause
challenge.
Establishment Clause: The Court applied the Lemon test. The parties had
conceded, and the court agreed, that the purpose of the program is secular,
namely, to provide low-income parents with an opportunity to have their
children educated outside the dysfunctional Cleveland School District. With
respect to the second prong of the test (whether the program has a
principal or primary effect that advances or inhibits religion), the court
found that Establishment Clause law has changed in recent years, such that
the questions to be asked are as follows:
(1) Whether the program results in governmental indoctrination. The court
found this not to be the case because whatever indoctrination takes place
is not done by government, but results from the independent parents' choice
to send their child to a sectarian school.
(2) Whether the program's recipients are defined by reference to religion
or the scheme creates a "financial incentive to undertake religious
indoctrination." The court found this to be the case only with respect to
one of the statutory priority factors that schools are to use in admitting
students, namely, "students whose parents are affiliated with any
organization that provides financial support to the school," which the
court struck down and severed from the statute as unconstitutional. The
court otherwise found that the program does not run afoul of this
requirement.
(3) Whether the program creates an excessive entanglement between
government and religion. The court found that it does not because the money
does not flow directly to the religious schools, and the registration
requirements for participating schools are not onerous.
Ohio Constitutional Provisions: The Court rejected all of the plaintiffs'
claims under the Ohio Constitution, with the exception of the claim under
the "one-subject" clause. The court found this clause to be violated
because the voucher statute was included as a rider on a bill that included
a host of unrelated matters. The court stayed its ruling until the end of
the fiscal year so as not to disrupt the nearly complete school year.
Simmons-Harris v. Zelman, 234 F.3d 945 (6th Cir. 2000) (striking down
voucher program that funds religious schools as violative of the
Establishment Clause), petitions for cert. filed (May 2001): In June 1999,
after the Ohio Supreme Court decision described above, the Ohio legislature
re-enacted the identical program, but did so in a separate bill.
Approximately 3,800 students enrolled in the voucher program for the
1999-2000 school year. The plaintiffs then re-filed their Establishment
Clause claim in federal court in July. On August 24, 1999, Judge Oliver
issued a preliminary injunction, see 54 F. Supp. 2d 725 (N.D. Ohio 1999),
finding it likely that the program would be found to be unconstitutional,
and rejecting the defendants' argument that the plaintiffs' claim was
barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion. Judge Oliver later stayed his
ruling insofar as it applied to students that were already enrolled in the
program, and the balance of the decision was later stayed by the U.S.
Supreme Court. See 1999 WL 669222 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 27, 1999) (partial
stay); 528 U.S. 938 (1999) (full stay).
On December 20, 1999, Judge Oliver issued his permanent decision. See 72 F.
Supp.2d 834 (N.D. Ohio 1999). He found the facts to be indistinguishable
from those at issue in Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty
v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756 (1973), in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck
down a New York State program that provided tuition reimbursement grants to
low-income parents whose children attended private schools, 85% of which
were religious. In the Ohio program, 82% of the participating schools are
sectarian and enroll 85% of the participating students. The court applied
the Lemon test, concluding that the program had a secular purpose but
lacked a secular primary effect. The court also found that the ruling in
Nyquist had not been undermined by subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
Upon the consent of the parties, the court's order was stayed in its
entirety pending review by the Sixth Circuit.
The Sixth Circuit ruled in December 2000 that the voucher program was
unconstitutional. The Court based its findings of advancement and
endorsement of religion on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Nyquist,
which the Sixth Circuit found remains good law. The Circuit relied heavily
on the fact that the program favors sectarian schools over public and other
nonpublic schools because they have lower overhead costs and supplemental
income from private donations, and consequently have lower tuition needs,
which enables them to comply with the $2500 limit on tuition. This fact,
together with the facts that 85% of the participating schools are sectarian
and that no public schools elected to participate in the program, yields a
"limited and restricted palette for parents which is solely caused by state
legislative structuring."
The Sixth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc in February 2001,
and the defendants petitioned the Supreme Court to grant review of the case
in May 2001.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 11, 2000
Americans United for Separation of Church and State Contact: Joseph Conn or
Rob Boston
202-466-3234 202-466-2587 fax
www.au.org
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS REJECTS SCHOOL VOUCHERS
DECISION IS AN 'EARLY CHRISTMAS PRESENT FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND
CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES,' SAYS AU
The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down Cleveland's private
religious school voucher program, holding that tax aid to religious schools
violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which helped bring the
lawsuit challenging the program, described the decision as a monumental
victory for religious freedom, public schools and church-state separation.
"This is a great early Christmas present for America's public schools and
our constitutional principles," said Barry W. Lynn, executive director of
Americans United. "This means that taxpayer money will not be diverted from
public schools to private religious schools."
A coalition of education and civil liberties groups challenged the
5-year-old Cleveland voucher program in federal court in July 1999. Last
year, U.S. District Court Judge Solomon Oliver ruled against the program,
concluding that public funding of private religious education ran afoul of
the First Amendment's separation of church and state. Today's 2-1 ruling
upholds that decision.
If voucher supporters appeal today's Simmons-Harris v. Zelman ruling, it
would give the U.S. Supreme Court an opportunity to directly address the
voucher issue for the first time.
"If the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear an appeal of this case, it would
set the stage for an historic showdown," said AU's Lynn. "This will be the
most important case about public schools and church-state separation in
decades."
Today's decision insisted that the Ohio voucher program "clearly has the
impermissible effect of promoting sectarian schools."
"To approve this program," the court majority ruled, "would approve the
actual diversion of government aid to religious institutions in endorsement
of religious education, something 'in tension' with the precedents of the
Supreme Court."
The court added, "This scheme involves the grant of state aid directly and
predominantly to the coffers of the private, religious schools, and it is
unquestioned that these institutions incorporate religious concepts,
motives, and themes into all facets of their educational planning. There is
no neutral aid when that aid principally flows to religious institutions;
nor is there truly 'private choice' when the available choices resulting
from the program design are predominantly religious."
The 6th Circuit's decision is the latest in a long line of setbacks for
voucher advocates. Last year, another federal appellate court struck down a
voucher-like program in Maine. The State Supreme Courts of Vermont, Maine
and Puerto Rico have also declared voucher programs unconstitutional.
In addition, voucher supporters have been rebuffed repeatedly by voters.
Last month, voters in Michigan and California overwhelmingly defeated
voucher ballot initiatives. Despite massive spending by voucher advocates,
both measures were defeated by better than 2-1 margins. No voucher
referendum put before voters has ever passed.
"Sooner or later, voucher proponents will have to realize that the law is
not on their side -- and neither is public opinion," said Lynn. "Americans
must never be forced to support private religious education, and the
appellate court wisely supported that principle today."
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington,
D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization represents 60,000 members and allied
houses of worship in all 50 states.
____________________________________________
Beth Corbin
National Grassroots Organizer
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
cor...@au.org
AUco...@aol.com
www.au.org
====================================================
jal...@cox.net
>:| They don't let you out much, do they? The "stay" would have been
>:|automatic anyhow. There have been motions for a rehearing from both sides.
>:|It is 100% up to the chief judge whether to schedule hearing on it or to
>:|allow the case to be "reported." It is NO-MAN'S land.... There is NO
>:|decision in the case, no matter how desperately you want there to be. You
>:|can jump up and down and scream and hold your breath and it doesn't make it
>:|real. You are like a little boy trying to sell me that the tooth fairy is
>:|real by holding up comic books in front of me. A court may make a verbal or
>:|written ruling, and that is nice, but it doesn't become "law" until it is
>:|released for publication. The case is pending review. As a legal matter,
>:|unless the court takes further action the case is dead and it is as if it
>:|never happened except in your desperate little mind. They printed photos of
>:|alien autopsies in the newspapers too, however, they are as real as your
>:|"landmark decision." It hasn't been moved because the 9th Circuit has been
>:|so reversed in the past 10 years that their decisions account for almost
>:|80-% of the reversals the Supreme Court hears. And they have been admonished
>:|for straying so far from the Constitution. They aren't anxious for yet
>:|another public rebuke from the high court. It's dead at the moment, learn to
>:|live with it. And you think Theists believe in superstition. At least they
>:|don't believe in the face of evidence refuting the existence of their God.
************************************************************
I have accomplished that which I set out to accomplish:
Provide the facts to the crap you have been peddling for some time now.
Let's see, my sources have been:
Black's Law Dictionary
Two Attorneys
A replica situation demonstrating how the process works as it follows the
various steps with regards to voucher scheme from Cleveland, Ohio.
Your sources have been:
Duh, you!
jal...@cox.net
>:|I agree with both of you guys, the stayed decision is not in effect in any
>:|jurisdiction anywhere.
>:|
>:|There is a minor problem with your position though, the stayed decision
>:|might compel the full 9th to hear a case that it might have otherwise let
>:|die.
*************************************************
*********************************************
===============================================
December 11, 2000
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/courts/6th.html
OHIO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________
Beth Corbin
National Grassroots Organizer
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
cor...@au.org
AUco...@aol.com
www.au.org
************************************************
****************************************************
>:|What has happened is that a minority panel has decided the case, 2 to
>:|1, that the words, "under God," are unconstitutional. The only remedies are
>:|either to scrap the entire pledge, or to only take out "under God." Let's
>:|back the truck up a few feet here, if the full court had been around when
>:|the minority panel elected to take arguments, then perhaps the court would
>:|not have even heard the case and dismissed it. If this had happened, then we
>:|would be waiting for a new challenge to the Pledge, but since the minority
>:|panel elected to hear arguments, we are having this discussion today.
When someone literately has to educate you as we go along your credibility
suffers drastically:
Three Judge panels hearing cases are quite common. it is, in part to reduce
the case loads in the courts. The ruling of a 3 judge panel as the same
authority as the full court. Those involved in the case have the same
rights as if the full court had heard the case. They can accept or appeal
the decision.
En bane /an ba'qk/on bogk/. L. Fr. In the bench. Full bench. Refers to a
session where the entire membership of the court will participate in the
decision rather than the regular quorum. In other countries, it is common
for a court to have more members than are usually necessary to hear an
appeal. In the United States, the Circuit Courts of Appeal usually sit in
panels of judges but for important cases may expand the bench to a larger
number, when they are said to be sitting en banc. See Fed.R.App.P. 35.
Similarly, only one of the judges of the U.S. Tax Court will typically hear
and decide on a tax controversy. However, when the issues involved are
unusually novel or of wide impact, the case will be heard and decided by
the full court sitting en banc. An appellate court in which all the judges
who are necessary for a quorum are sitting as contrasted with a session of
such court presided over by a single justice or panel of justices.
Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, Centennial Edition,
(1891-1991) West publishing Co. (1991) p. 364
>:|Any decision that the circuit courts make can be appealed, therefore there
>:|is an automatic 45 day "cooling off" period to allow appeals to be entered
>:|before the decision takes effect. If an appeal is filed during this period,
>:|then the decision is held up pending a higher court ruling on the matter (we
>:|don't want to get whiplash by enacting decisions then halting them because
>:|of appeals, so we hold all decisions until the appeal time has passed).
Who is we?
Where exactly are you getting your information?
>:|Due to the immediate and high volume of public outcry, it was assumed that
>:|an appeal would indeed be filed, so the very judge that made the majority
>:|statement issued a stay of his own decision. If an appeal is filed, then the
>:|high court will get the case. They (the high court) will look at among other
>:|things, the panel that made the original decision. If there is weakness
>:|because the panel is a minority, then this can help the high court to
>:|overturn. If there is strength because the decision came from the full lower
>:|court, then the high court will have strong standing to let it pass
>:|unopposed. Given these two possibilities, I am certain that the minority
>:|panel of the 9th Circuit decided to try and get a position of strength by
>:|getting a favorable ruling from its own full bench before getting its
>:|decision heard by the higher bench. Surely, there are other scenarios, but
>:|these two seem to make the most sense to me.
Where is the above coming from. Your personal opinion or some source you
forgot to cite?
>:|My prediciton is that the full 9th Circuit will either not hear this case
>:|and dismiss it, or they will hear arguments and decide against it. If
>:|dismissed, the case can be appealed to the Supreme Court, and if decided
>:|against, then I am not sure if it can be appealed or will die. If this case
>:|passes muster with the 9th, you can be sure there will be appeals. In any
>:|case, I can see this case going before the Supreme Court of the United
>:|States.
Exactly what legal flaws do you see in the following:
The Decision: There are numerous references to the 1954 law, including a
few quotes from the legislative history.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0016423p.pdf.
http://www.law.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/View&c=LawDeci
sion&cid=1024078906457&t=LawDecision
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What can you offer cites to that counters this: [kindly provide complete
URls and/or documentation]
One (Constitutionally Illiterate) Nation Under God
The Constitution Can't Protect Our Rights If We Don't Understand Them
Jamin B. Raskin is a professor of constitutional law at American University
and director of its Marshall Brennan Fellowship Program.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5966
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What can you offer cites to that counters this: [kindly provide complete
URls and/or documentation]
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 16:06:48 -0400
To: Billy [deleted for privacy reasons]
From: "Glen P. Goffin" <buf...@sundial.net>
Subject: One American's Opinion
Dear Billy,
Why is it that a doctor from Scotland can see what is wrong with
our current pledge and so many Americans can not? However, the real issue
is whether or not the "Government of the United States" can
constitutionally (legally) legislate "religion " into the official oaths
of our secular federal republic. Here is what James Madison, in Section 3
of his "Memorial and Remonstrance," had to say about this issue:
"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish
Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with
the same ease any particular sect of Christianity, in exclusion of all
other Sects?"
Why did the frightened members of those 1950's Congresses
suddenly decide that we needed the protection of a supernatural God?
America had fought and won two world wars and a bloody police action
without having those two words ("under God") in our Pledge of Allegiance.
Why did this same government decide that we must change our national
motto from "E Pluribus Unum" (From many one.) to "In God We Trust?" When I
took my oath as an officer, I did not swear to defend any supernatural
God. I swore to defend the Constitution and the principle of Church-State
separation embodied in the 1st Amendment. I did not swear to defend
religion or Christianity. I swore to defend America and Americans of
every manner.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_mott.htm
Here is the analysis of : [Name and location deleted for privacy
reasons] Scotland. Occupation: Physician Interests: Science in
general, neuroscience, religion Basic Beliefs: Atheist, Naturalist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The American Pledge of Allegiance, mandatory in American schools
is as follows: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag, of the United States of
America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, UNDER GOD,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
See the contradiction they created when President Eisenhauer[Eisenhower]
in 1954 added "under God."
First: If America is "under God" that implies exclusion of those
who are not under God, Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Agnostics,
polytheists (Hindus, Pagans, Wiccans).
Secondly: If those not under God are excluded, then America is
not ONE NATION. It is two nations, a Theistic/Christian Nation, and a
non-Theistic nation of second class subjects (not citizens.)
Thirdly: If those not under God are excluded, then America is not
indivisible. It is purposefully divisible into the ruling class of
Theists and the subject class of non-theists.
Fourthly: If those not under God are excluded, then America
cannot possibly give liberty and justice for all. It must give and does
already give more freedom and liberty to Theists, really to Christians
than to non-Christians. Christians can put Christmas Creches on State
lands, the Christian 10 Commandments can be posted in Schools and court
houses. In that atmosphere an Atheist cannot expect equal justice.
Solution: Either drop the "Under God" and restore the original
pledge that was not self-contradictory. Or to be fair and just, add in
place of "under God" this revision, "under one God, many Gods, or no
gods" with liberty and justice for all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The argument that the word "God" does not "establish" a
religion is, and always has been, a canard defended by a specific group
of "Christian" faith believers in this country. To help people to
understand this, merely use "under Allah" in our pledge and see if
Congress would insert it into the Pledge. The "God" referred to in our
Pledge and National Motto is the Christian God. How can anyone with
integrity attempt to deny that? If they do, then they are actually
minimizing their own supernatural deity.
These are my personal opinions and views. I love this country
because it is a multi-cultural, pluralistic, secular, federal republic
where the expression of "individual" conscience "was" protected by the
Constitution from interference or intimidation by the Government. I could
not swear an oath to defend a Christian Taliban America...and that is
exactly what many are claiming that it is...a "Christian Nation," under a
Christian supernatural god.
Sincerely,
Glen P. Goffin
PS: I loved Red Skelton; but he did not craft our Constitution.
Just think how lucky he was, and the rest of us are, that we had/have a
right to express our spiritual conscience in whatever manner we wish
without fear of Government intrusion like we see in so many other
countries throughout the world. We survived and prospered before being
unconstitutionally placed "under" the Christian God. We will once again
be a nation of moral and ethical, as well as legal, principles when
religion is separated from our government and true, not religiously
qualified, patriotism.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What can you say to this attorney, or what cites can you offer that answers
his question.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am looking for a rational critique of the 9th circuit decision striking
down :under god" in the Pledge. I've heard plenty of overheated rhetoric
and attempted character assassination, but no decent critiques of the legal
reasoning behind the opinion. I thought the opinion was relatively
well-reasoned and certainly conformed with the endorsement test line of
cases in the Supreme Court. I am interested in what legal foundation there
is for opposing it - what will the entire 9th circuit and/or Supreme Court
rely on if, as most so-called experts claim, they over-rule the panel.
Have any of the legal journals done anything? I'm a lawyer and all my
conservative friends (?) are reveling in how badly Newdow will lose on
appeal. I can see he might lose if the courts do a great deal of legal
gymnastics, but I don't see a sound basis for overturning the decision.
Let me very clear that I strongly agree with the 9th Circuit
decision, and the rabid reaction to it convinces me that religion is
one of the greatest threats to the American experiment. . .
If we degenerate into state-sponsored religion, we will have failed. . .
I'll look at Marsh v. Chambers, which is the case upholding the Nebraska
Legislature's starting each session with a prayer. I'm really looking for
why the constitutional commentators (except Erwin Chemerinsky at USC Law
School) seem to think the ruling will be overturned. This includes some
allegedly "liberal" scholars like Akhil Amar and Laurence Tribe.
I think the most likely rationale for overturning is that certain
acts just don't rise to the level of "establishment" of religion - that was
the rationale of the 9th Circuit dissent. I think that rationale is wrong
(because it forces government to engage in theological inquiry about which
religious words have "real" or "serious" religious meaning and which
don't). Even if that rationale might apply in some cases, I don't think it
can be applied with regard to >:|the Pledge. As the 9th Circuit showed,
Congress and Eisenhower were dead serious about endorsing religion, and
they thought it was vitally important to begin indoctrinating young minds.
There is absolutely nothing "de minimis" about an act of Congress. I'm
interested intellectually about what kind of legal gymnastics the courts
will do to try to uphold god in the Pledge. I believe that most of the
scholars, and the judges and people in government, have been indoctrinated
so successfully that they just can't wrap their brains around the fact that
"god" in the Pledge is unconstitutional. I wonder if the indoctrination
has been successful enough to make them suspend their legal judgment. I
suspect it has been, but before I level that charge, I want to see if there
are some sound legal arguments that would actually allow Congress to
mandate recitation of religious dogma
. . . I've looked over many of the articles. I still don't see any
legal commentary of how the decision doesn't comport with the previous
cases. If you know of any serious or semi-serious arguments claiming that
the decision is wrong, or doesn't follow Supreme Court precedent, I'd love
to hear about it. My suspicion is nobody will put a decent argument
together, because there isn't one to be made.
I also am not so sure the Supreme Court will overturn the decision.
O'Connor may be the swing vote, and she clearly favors the Endorsement Test
- she authored it and has stood by it despite criticism from Scalia and
others. Kennedy has also adopted the Endorsement Test - I believe he wrote
the opinion using it in Lee v. Weisman. Any reading of that decision
(prohibiting school-sponsored graduation prayers) bolsters the Ninth
Circuit's conclusion that "god" is an endorsement of religion. Ginsburg I
expect to agree, and it would be a change of course for Souter or Breyer to
overturn the 9th Circuit here. It is just barely possible that the Supreme
Court could actually follow their established rules and find 6-3 that the
9th Circuit made the right call. Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist will of
course ignore their duty to follow precedent, ignore their previous
opinions on federalism, and ignore true conservative principles, and will
attempt to create a federal power to compel local schools' recitation of
"god . . . God . . . God . . .god". Good trance music, maybe, but not
constitutional.
The 9th Circuit decision dissent was extraordinarily superficial.
My sense is that the opposition is all smoke and absolutely no light, but
I'm waiting for a serious counter-argument. . .
In the Pledge, both the government act adding
"god" and the motivation behind it are clearly to endorse religion, and for
no other purpose - there is no need to even reach motivation. I will let
you know if I find any legal arguments against the Pledge ruling.
Do you know of any decent critiques of the legal reasoning behind
the opinion?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>:|I do not think this decision will stand because I do not see the breach of
>:|the Establishment Clause,
Irrelevant.
>:|which seems to be the strength of the argument by
>:|Mr. Newdow, so I expect the Supreme Court to dismiss and not even hear
>:|arguments. The entire argument can, and should be, boiled down to whether or
>:|not the Establishment Clause has been violated. There is no discussion that
>:|I am aware of that seeks to overturn the Establishment Clause, and clearly
>:|this argument will not do that. The argument should be that the
>:|Establishment Clause seeks to draw a line of separation, and that the Pledge
>:|and "under God" crosses that line. I do not think that the line has been
>:|crossed, but I do agree that the line is needed and in fact is drawn in the
>:|right place. I do not see the Pledge as the vehicle to move the line that
>:|the Establishment Clause has drawn.
>:|
I suggest you try reading the following carefully:
The Decision: There are numerous references to the 1954 law, including a
few quotes from the legislative history.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0016423p.pdf.
http://www.law.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/View&c=LawDeci
sion&cid=1024078906457&t=LawDecision
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What can you offer cites to that counters this: [kindly provide complete
URls and/or documentation]
One (Constitutionally Illiterate) Nation Under God
The Constitution Can't Protect Our Rights If We Don't Understand Them
Jamin B. Raskin is a professor of constitutional law at American University
and director of its Marshall Brennan Fellowship Program.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5966
>:|I am not trained in Constitutional Law,
You said it.
>:|so these are my humble opinions.
yes thay are, and not that informed at that.
jal...@cox.net
>:|
>:|"Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote in message
It is noted absolutely no supporing evidence is offered to back up anythign
he says.
Something else you seem to do a lot of:
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nemesis" <judge...@ij.net> wrote:
>:| No, Steve, the decision was not *written.* You seem not to understand
>:|the legal process or you continually misrepresent it. It would be a "written
>:|decision" *if* and *only* if it had appeared in the Federal reporter.
Newdow v. United States Congress, 292 F.3d. 597 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002)
**************************************************************
Plaintive is litigating other Establishment Clause claims in the federal
courts, and has prevailed (to date) in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Newdow v. United States Congress, 292 F.3d. 597 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002)
SOURCE: Brief filed in the U S District Court foe the District of
Columbia. Newdow v Eagen
**********************************************
JUNE 26, 2002
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NEWDOW v. US CONGRESS (06/26/02 - No. 00-16423)
The addition of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag (via 1954 federal statute), and a school district policy of
teacher-led daily recitation of the Pledge, with the added words
included, violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:[PDF File]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0016423p.pdf
*********************************************
From: Steve Krulick <s...@krulick.com>
Organization: Š 2002 Kryolux, Inc.
Newsgroups: soc.men,milw.general,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: The Pledge is not unconstitutional
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 02:17:13 GMT
Nemesis wrote:
>
> <jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:o9o6nu0kp3b52ceof...@4ax.com...
> > "Nemesis" <judge...@ij.net> wrote:
>
> > >:| No, Steve, the decision was not *written.* You seem not to
> understand
> > >:|the legal process or you continually misrepresent it. It would be a
> "written
> > >:|decision" *if* and *only* if it had appeared in the Federal reporter.
>
> > Newdow v. United States Congress, 292 F.3d. 597 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002)
>
> > Plaintive is litigating other Establishment Clause claims in the federal
> > courts, and has prevailed (to date) in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
> > Newdow v. United States Congress, 292 F.3d. 597 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002)
> > SOURCE: Brief filed in the U S District Court foe the District of
> > Columbia. Newdow v Eagen
>
> Please note Steve that the case in point is *not* the "pledge" case.
> Nice try.
Please note that I didn't write that post. I'm not
jal...@cox.net. Nice try.
More proof of your lack of reading comprehension skills.
When did I say that Newdow was a "written decision" that was
published in a particular place? That's your misinterpretation.
I said that the Judge had written his decision, which he had,
and it was made public; but even if he'd just put it in his back
pocket and walked around with it, it WAS written... otherwise,
how could *I* have read it! THIS was my point:
1)
"The decision was written. IT was based on applying the SCotUS
precedents. That is unchanged. The same arguments will be made
in any review or in an appeal. Therefore, my question about what
parts of the settled SCotUS case law that formed the basis of
the decision you disagree with and why is still relevant and YOU
have consistently ignored the challenges.
WHAT in the settled case law that Goodwin cited do YOU
specifically DISAGREE WITH, AND WHY!"
--
Steven Krulick
Kryolux Inc
s...@krulick.com
845-647-2868
845-647-8809
Ellenville NY 12428-130727
===================================================
Nemesis
> > > This is the second "lawyer" on their side who considered being asked
where
> > > he practices to be an attack.
> > Any *real* lawyer would have no problem answering the question. Was it
> > Attorney Mumford?
> I no longer remember. This whole anti "under God" crowd is weird.
Any real lawyer would have no problem answering a silly question such as
where they practice. Unless, of course, they really are not at all what they
claim to be. Note how that crowd foams at the mouth demanding triplicate
proof of anything you say, but ask them a simple question first they cry
that it is an attack and then they run.
Nemesis
"Marc Satterwhite" <mtsa...@athena.louisville.edu> wrote in message
news:3D7E7012...@athena.louisville.edu...
> > I no longer remember. This whole anti "under God" crowd is weird.
> >
> > Rich Soyack
>
> There is no such thing as an anti "under God" crowd. I am proud member
> of the "please don't use my tax dollars to force impressionable children
to
> participate in religious displays they may not believe in, but won't speak
> up about for fear of being ostracized and/or beaten up by the members
> of the intolerant majority religion" crowd.
They been burnin crosses on yer front lawn, have they? Interesting
notion; "I can't tell the truth because I am afraid that those who disagree
with me will beat me up if I do." Does it work for you often Marc?
Nemesis
"Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1020910163559.29847C-
> You are correct. thank you for speaking to that point.
> Soyack, in his paranoia, sees things that aren't there and makes claims he
> cannot support. But I am sure you don't need to be told that.
So then you agree that the simple question of where the alleged "lawyer"
practices is something he won't answer because he is afraid? Nice dodge
Smith. Think it'll fly?
Nemesis
> > They don't let you out much, do they? The "stay" would have been
> >automatic anyhow. There have been motions for a rehearing from both
sides.
> >It is 100% up to the chief judge whether to schedule hearing on it or to
> >allow the case to be "reported." It is NO-MAN'S land.... There is NO
> >decision in the case, no matter how desperately you want there to be.
> You are wrong you ass.
About what? And please quit calling me by the name of the location of
your brains.
No, *that* judge cannot. As I said they don't let you out much. I know
how badly you need to believe these little myths of yours. You really should
become a fundie. Your mind fits in better with them. The "decision" is
before the entire panel, that is what happened when the stay went in, of
course it would have anyway. The Chief Judge has to allow it to be heard.
After there is a ruling on the motions before the court, and *if* the
decision were sustained, *then* it would take effect in the 9th Circuit
until the Supreme Court ruled, and once accepted by the Supreme Court it
most likely would be stayed again. Why don't you study up a bit on the
process and where the case sits. I know that doesn't suit your fanaticism.
Nemesis
"Larry Smith" <dbri...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:unufvvg...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > This is the second "lawyer" on their side who considered being asked
where
> > > he practices to be an attack.
> > Any *real* lawyer would have no problem answering the question. Was it
> > Attorney Mumford?
> LOL! And get stalked real-life by some 2nd Amendment fruitcake like
> Soyack?
And your *proof* sir that Soyack has "stalked" anyone.
Paul Attles
>
> "Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:_Prf9.5981$yd6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
> where
> > > > he practices to be an attack.
>
> > > Any *real* lawyer would have no problem answering the question. Was it
> > > Attorney Mumford?
>
>
> where they practice. Unless, of course, they really are not at all what they
> claim to be.
LOL--am I the only one who sees the irony in this?
Say Ken--are these good people aware that you are really Kenneth
Pangborn, a well-known spammer and crossposter, trying to masquerade
as someone else?
Oops, I guess they do now....LOL
Nemesis
"Paul Attles" <pm...@execs.com> wrote in message
news:9a0115c2.02091...@posting.google.com...
I guess they also know you are either Stacy Alexander or David Moore Paul.
Say what was it you said about crossposting exactly Mr. Stalker? No matter
how badly you want me to be Ken, I'm not.
Larry Smith
He uses search engines to net-stalk and has made veiled threats to others in
the newsgroup, including a challenge to Le Mur to meet him in person. For
a fistfight maybe? Or a gunfight? He's a hothead with a bad temper.
Plenty of evidence indicates Soyack is not stable, besides being a gun nut
with an obsession for the 2nd Amendment. Soyack wants to go RL: all
earmarks of a stalker.
Personally, I wouldn't want him stalking me because I don't have the time to
waste neutralizing him.
Rich Soyack
>
> "Nemesis" <judge...@ij.net> wrote in message
> news:alnn14$1otj$1...@news1.ij.net...
> >
> > "Larry Smith" <dbri...@charter.net> wrote in message
> > news:unufvvg...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > > > > This is the second "lawyer" on their side who considered being
asked
> > where
> > > > > he practices to be an attack.
> >
> > > > Any *real* lawyer would have no problem answering the question. Was
> it
> > > > Attorney Mumford?
> >
> > > LOL! And get stalked real-life by some 2nd Amendment fruitcake like
> > > Soyack?
> >
> >
> > And your *proof* sir that Soyack has "stalked" anyone.
>
> He uses search engines to net-stalk
Really, you have proof of that? You are a liar. I don't do that. Is this
one of your
tricks?
> and has made veiled threats to others in
> the newsgroup, including a challenge to Le Mur to meet him in person.
No threats, he made disparaging remarks about the victims and heros of 9/11
and I
challenged him to repeat it to my face. He said he would spit in my face,
that was
the only assault mentioned. He continues to hide and ack like a cowardly
piece of shit.
> For
> a fistfight maybe? Or a gunfight? He's a hothead with a bad temper.
When a coward speak of the brave people that I knew who lost their lives on
9/11, yes
I become angry. When a pissant like you pretends to be a lawyer I just
chuckle
> Plenty of evidence indicates Soyack is not stable, besides being a gun nut
> with an obsession for the 2nd Amendment.
Really, provide proof that I am a gun nut.
> Soyack wants to go RL: all
> earmarks of a stalker.
>
> Personally, I wouldn't want him stalking me because I don't have the time
to
> waste neutralizing him.
Gee, speaking of veiled threats.
Rich Soyack
jal...@cox.net
>:|
>:|"Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>:|news:_Prf9.5981$yd6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>:|
>:|> > > This is the second "lawyer" on their side who considered being asked
>:|where
>:|> > > he practices to be an attack.
>:|
>:|> > Any *real* lawyer would have no problem answering the question. Was it
>:|> > Attorney Mumford?
>:|
>:|> I no longer remember. This whole anti "under God" crowd is weird.
>:|
>:| Any real lawyer would have no problem answering a silly question such as
>:|where they practice.
They wouldn't waste their time replying to a irrelevant question.
They would recognize it for exactly what it was, an attempt to distract, to
focus attention away from the actual valid information they provided. They
would recognize it as a straw sling.
Professionals don't waste their time playing the silly games some people
like you and your buddy like to play here.
While there are sites on the WWW where you can find various scholars and
professionals in a lot of disciplines, you don't run into too many in these
types of newsgroups.
They don't have the inclination, time or patience to deal with the rowdy un
professionals, the rude and crude, the game players that frequent such
groups.
Neither attorney that I am in contact with post in these newsgroups.
They contacted me via email as a result of our web site.
Which is not unusual, we get emails from a variety of professionals from
time to time as a result of the web site.
Since one is the subject of all of these posts, I asked him his comments on
claims certain people were making. I also asked the other for his comments
on the same claims. They emailed me their comments along with permission to
use those comments.
>:|Unless, of course, they really are not at all what they
>:|claim to be. Note how that crowd foams at the mouth demanding triplicate
>:|proof of anything you say,
That is correct, proof with regards to claims dealing with data. Do note, I
have never asked you who you are, what you do, where you live, etc. I could
care less about any of those things. Same with your buddy.
>:| but ask them a simple question
Irrelevant question.
You want to prove that a person isn't what they claim they are, or more
exact I claimed they were, since they did not reply directly to you or your
buddy.
Show that the information they provided is incorrect. Note, I said show, I
didn't say, say it is incorrect.
Ultimately, a person is recognized based on what they provide.
>:|first they cry
>:|that it is an attack and then they run.
Who ran, who said it was an attack.
I have no intenetion of providing anymore information about either person
than I have provided for the reasons given:
It is
(1) a irrelevant question.
(2) an attempt to distract
(3) an attempt to reframe, focus attention away from the actual valid
information that was provided that you nor your buddy can effectively
challenge and show to be in error.
(4) a strawman.
(5) none of your business. You want to try and discredit them?you will
have to deal with the information they provided. If you can't or won't do
that, too bad.
Marc Satterwhite
Actually, I was speaking about children in school, who often do not
speak up when they are in the minority for just those reasons.
And, as I have related on this NG before, I speak from personal
experience. When I was in high school and became an atheist, I
stopped saying the words "under God" in the pledge, and while I
didn't go around waving a sign saying "I don't believe in God,"
I didn't keep it hidden either. As a result I was frequently verbally
harrased, and on one occasion physically assaulted. I'm reasonably
sure of the motive of my attackers because one of them called me
a "f***ing atheist pussy."
A Jewish friend of mine told that when she was in (public) school
many years ago, her family had her "opt out" of the official
school prayers, as they were distinctly Christian. She was
made to sit in the hallway while the class prayed, and the
teacher made snide remarks about how she "didn't believe in
God." This was, of course untrue. She did believe in God,
just not in Jesus. But even if she didn't believe in God,
so what?
It's not hard to imagine that a child or adolescent might
simply decide to keep quiet rather than risk that kind of
ostracism and/or actual physical violence.
And it's wrong to use tax dollars to put them in a position
where they even have to make such a decision.
Best, Marc
jal...@cox.net
>:|
>:|"Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>:|news:hWGe9.388$5i...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>:|
>:|> And when I questioned the credentials of the "attorney" he brought in he
>:|called
>:|> my behavior "juvenile delinquent" and said I was using a strawman.
>:|Incredible.
>:| My comment is this, he brings this alleged "attorney"
Alleged?
I don't allege I said they were both attorneys.
You want to challenge that, hey, whatever floats your boat. Have fun.
>:|into the mix who
>:|makes statements of law that are at best "questionable"
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Take them point by point and show why and how they are incorrect.
Gee, if you can't do that maybe they really are lawyers. if you can gee
maybe they aren't. How simple, who would even have thought it, huh?
>:|and when a
>:|reasonable question is asked as to where they practice law not only do you
>:|*not* get a direct answer to a simple question you got attacked. Any *real*
>:|lawyer would not have a problem saying that "my office is in Los Angeles" or
>:|wherever. Which only makes *me* think the "lawyer" is a phony. And I will
>:|until shown otherwise.
Who cares what you think
It is noted that you did not touch the information they provided:
Talk about unanswered questions:
------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT in the settled case law that Goodwin cited do YOU
specifically DISAGREE WITH, AND WHY!
WHAT in the settled case law that Goodwin cited do YOU
specifically DISAGREE WITH, AND WHY!"
--
Steven Krulick
Kryolux Inc
s...@krulick.com
845-647-2868
845-647-8809
Ellenville NY 12428-130727
====================================================
The rest:
I have accomplished that which I set out to accomplish:
Provide the facts to the crap you have been peddling for some time now.
Let's see, my sources have been:
Black's Law Dictionary
Two Attorneys
A replica situation demonstrating how the process works as it follows the
various steps with regards to voucher scheme from Cleveland, Ohio.
Your sources have been:
Duh, you!
(3) "Plaintive is litigating other Establishment Clause claims in the
federal courts, and has prevailed (to date) in the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. Newdow v. United States Congress, 292 F.3rd. 597 (9th Cir. Cal.
2002)"
SOURCE: Brief filed in the U S District Court for the District of
Columbia. Newdow v. Eagen, [Congressional Chaplains] section J. INJURY
IN FACT TO PLAINTIFF - PERSONAL REPROACH page 16
============================================
jal...@cox.net
>:|
>:|"Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>:|news:x%ue9.5944$aG2....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>:|
>:|> I can't, for the life of me, understand what point he is even trying to
>:|> make. THe Stayed decision is not in effect in any jurisdiction in the
>:|USA.
>:|
>:|
>:| I tried to make the point that in a legal sense it is the same as if
>:|those two judges had said nothing. I pointed out that it wasn't "law" and
>:|didn't really exist until it hit the Federal Reporter. He then referenced an
>:|entirely different case of Newdow's that was reported. I think he argues
>:|like the "little brother from hell." When he runs out of rational factual
>:|arguments, he just starts making things up.
It is noted absolutely no supporing evidence is offered to back up anythign
he says.
Something else you seem to do a lot of:
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nemesis" <judge...@ij.net> wrote:
>:| No, Steve, the decision was not *written.* You seem not to understand
>:|the legal process or you continually misrepresent it. It would be a "written
>:|decision" *if* and *only* if it had appeared in the Federal reporter.
Newdow v. United States Congress, 292 F.3d. 597 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002)
**************************************************************
Plaintive is litigating other Establishment Clause claims in the federal
courts, and has prevailed (to date) in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
**********************************************
> > Newdow v. United States Congress, 292 F.3d. 597 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002)
>
> > Plaintive is litigating other Establishment Clause claims in the federal
> > courts, and has prevailed (to date) in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
> > Newdow v. United States Congress, 292 F.3d. 597 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002)
> > SOURCE: Brief filed in the U S District Court foe the District of
> > Columbia. Newdow v Eagen
>
> Please note Steve that the case in point is *not* the "pledge" case.
> Nice try.
Please note that I didn't write that post. I'm not
jal...@cox.net. Nice try.
More proof of your lack of reading comprehension skills.
When did I say that Newdow was a "written decision" that was
published in a particular place? That's your misinterpretation.
I said that the Judge had written his decision, which he had,
and it was made public; but even if he'd just put it in his back
pocket and walked around with it, it WAS written... otherwise,
how could *I* have read it! THIS was my point:
1)
"The decision was written. IT was based on applying the SCotUS
precedents. That is unchanged. The same arguments will be made
in any review or in an appeal. Therefore, my question about what
parts of the settled SCotUS case law that formed the basis of
the decision you disagree with and why is still relevant and YOU
have consistently ignored the challenges.
WHAT in the settled case law that Goodwin cited do YOU
Rich Soyack
news:15vunu0g1vlett7sl...@4ax.com...
> "Nemesis" <judge...@ij.net> wrote:
>
> >:|
> >:|"Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >:|news:_Prf9.5981$yd6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> >:|
> >:|> > > This is the second "lawyer" on their side who considered being
asked
> >:|where
> >:|> > > he practices to be an attack.
> >:|
> >:|> > Any *real* lawyer would have no problem answering the question.
Was it
> >:|> > Attorney Mumford?
> >:|
> >:|> I no longer remember. This whole anti "under God" crowd is weird.
> >:|
> >:| Any real lawyer would have no problem answering a silly question
such as
> >:|where they practice.
>
> They wouldn't waste their time replying to a irrelevant question.
>
> They would recognize it for exactly what it was, an attempt to distract,
to
> focus attention away from the actual valid information they provided. They
> would recognize it as a straw sling.
Nope, when you refer to someone's credentials to add weight to your argument
you have to provide proof of those credentials. Its really very simple
You idiotic attempts to wave your hands have been clipped.
Rich Soyack
jal...@cox.net
>:| No, *that* judge cannot. As I said they don't let you out much. I know
>:|how badly you need to believe these little myths of yours. You really should
>:|become a fundie. Your mind fits in better with them. The "decision" is
>:|before the entire panel, that is what happened when the stay went in, of
>:|course it would have anyway. The Chief Judge has to allow it to be heard.
>:|After there is a ruling on the motions before the court, and *if* the
>:|decision were sustained, *then* it would take effect in the 9th Circuit
>:|until the Supreme Court ruled, and once accepted by the Supreme Court it
>:|most likely would be stayed again. Why don't you study up a bit on the
>:|process and where the case sits. I know that doesn't suit your fanaticism.
SO YOU SAY:
HERE IS WHAT OTHERS SAY. PEOPLE CAN CHOOSE WHICH THEY
THINK DOES THE BEST JOB OF PROVIDING THE FACTS:
(3) "Plaintive is litigating other Establishment Clause claims in the
federal courts, and has prevailed (to date) in the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. Newdow v. United States Congress, 292 F.3rd. 597 (9th Cir. Cal.
2002)"
SOURCE: Brief filed in the U S District Court for the District of
Columbia. Newdow v. Eagen, [Congressional Chaplains] section J. INJURY
IN FACT TO PLAINTIFF - PERSONAL REPROACH page 16
choice" and does not offend the First Amendment's Establishment
Clause.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/us/000/001751.html
*********************************************
JUNE 26, 2002
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NEWDOW v. US CONGRESS (06/26/02 - No. 00-16423)
The addition of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag (via 1954 federal statute), and a school district policy of
teacher-led daily recitation of the Pledge, with the added words
included, violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:[PDF File]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0016423p.pdf
*********************************************
===============================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FINDLAW DAILY OPINION SUMMARIES
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. 6TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
December 11, 2000
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/courts/6th.html
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, EDUCATION LAW SIMMONS-HARRIS v. ZELMAN, No 00-3055,
3060, 3063 (6th Cir. December 11, 2000)
Ohio Pilot Scholarship Program school voucher program violates the
Establishment Clause because it does not permit private citizens to direct
government aid freely, but rather restricts choice to religious
institutions and spaces with only a few alternative possibilities.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/6th/00a0411p.html
OHIO
(3) FROM THE FIRST ATTORNEY, M.A. Newdow, in email replies to jalison
****************************************************
[Jeff Strickland had written ]
>:|What has happened is that a minority panel has decided the case, 2 to
>:|1, that the words, "under God," are unconstitutional. The only remedies are
>:|either to scrap the entire pledge, or to only take out "under God." Let's
>:|back the truck up a few feet here, if the full court had been around when
>:|the minority panel elected to take arguments, then perhaps the court would
>:|not have even heard the case and dismissed it. If this had happened, then we
>:|would be waiting for a new challenge to the Pledge, but since the minority
>:|panel elected to hear arguments, we are having this discussion today.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
En bane /an ba'qk/on bogk/. L. Fr. In the bench. Full bench. Refers to a
session where the entire membership of the court will participate in the
decision rather than the regular quorum. In other countries, it is common
for a court to have more members than are usually necessary to hear an
appeal. In the United States, the Circuit Courts of Appeal usually sit in
panels of judges but for important cases may expand the bench to a larger
number, when they are said to be sitting en banc. See Fed.R.App.P. 35.
Similarly, only one of the judges of the U.S. Tax Court will typically hear
and decide on a tax controversy. However, when the issues involved are
unusually novel or of wide impact, the case will be heard and decided by
the full court sitting en banc. An appellate court in which all the judges
who are necessary for a quorum are sitting as contrasted with a session of
such court presided over by a single justice or panel of justices.
Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, Centennial Edition,
(1891-1991) West publishing Co. (1991) p. 364
================================================
jal...@cox.net
>:|
>:|"Jeff Strickland" <CRWL...@YAHOO.COM> wrote in message
>:|news:unl8tbs...@corp.supernews.com...
>:|
>:| First, Jeff, Thanks for an entirely rational post.
>:|
>:|> I agree with both of you guys, the stayed decision is not in effect in any
>:|> jurisdiction anywhere.
>:|
>:|> There is a minor problem with your position though, the stayed decision
>:|> might compel the full 9th to hear a case that it might have otherwise let
>:|> die. What has happened is that a minority panel has decided the case, 2 to
>:|> 1, that the words, "under God," are unconstitutional.
>:|
>:| (minor correction) Two judges initially decided it of the 3. One has
>:|changed sides.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|The case could be before the entire 9th Circuit, however, the
>:|chief Judge has decided to allow the case to "die in committee" on the
>:|table. As of the last i saw there was nothing anywhere on the docket for it
>:|to be heard. When the present session ends and there has been no action
>:|taken, the case evaporates legally
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Another says to the above point:
*********************************************************
["Nemesis" wrote:]
He seems to have magical thinking that the "decision" is in a different
place than it is. The place it is at legally is what under Robert's Rules
of Order could best describe as a motion that has been "tabled." If the
whole court doesn't act before the end of its current session the thing
dies with no further action. It's dead. While there is a chance it will be
yanked off the table, the word around the courthouse has been that they
have no real stomach to have this one hit the fast track before the
Supremes and get another tongue lashing from Washington. Newdow isn't
bright enough to realize that the present SCOTUS is unlikely to see the
issues in his dogmatic view. Can't blame him for wishing though.
===========================================
****************************************************
>:| Everyone has appealed, if you didn't know. The "full court" has in
>:|essence "tabled" the decision. It is as if it never happened unless the
>:|court takes further action. Given the political climate, that isn't likely.
>:|Since the 9th Circuit is the most reversed circuit in American history and
>:|the most "admonished" they are not really fired up to take on the Supremes
>:|on this one. They have gotten enough bad press already. They just want the
>:|issue gone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is an interesdting comment thyat is relevant to this:
=======================================================
From: "Fester" <n...@home.com>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: The Pledge
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 17:30:33 -0700
The reaction to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to Mr. Neudow's case
regarding the pledge of allegiance has been nothing short of violent.
Politicians have been brutalizing each other in their attempts to demagogue
their objections more strenuously than their peers. Reasoning has been the
first casualty of this political hot-button. Given several months' passage
since this decision, I would like to now offer a perspective on this issue
which I have not heard expressed.
The genius behind our government is that it's form was drafted by men with
a profound distrust of power. The framers of our Constitution instituted a
system of checks and balances for the expressed purpose of restraint on our
leaders. Thus we have a division of the Executive, Legislative and
Judicial powers into separate branches of government. The Executive and
Legislative branches are popularly elected. Their mission is to institute
the will of the majority, in accordance with the conditions set forth in
the Constitution. The Judiciary is charged with interpretting the
Constitution and, when necessary, blocking the actions of the other two
branches. Our founding fathers defined what they considered to be the
basic rights that all citizens should enjoy in a free society. Codified in
our Bill of rights, our founders placed constraints on the powers of the
popularly-elected branches of government.
Judicial decisions are often unpopular because it is their job to be
unpopular! They are charged with preventing the majority from carrying out
their desires, when those desires conflict with Constitutional restraints,
designed to protect he rights of all citizens. Politicians have
notoriously taken up the chant when their (and the wills of the majority
their constituents) are thwarted, but our system is designed to prevent
them from overstepping their bounds. The ratification of our Constitution
was an acceptance of a social contract. We as a nation agreed to the
acceptance of governemt by the will of the majority, subject to certain
limitations. The nature of this contract was described early on, and
restated in numerous forms throughout the series of pamphlets (known
collectively as the Federalist Papers) written during the ratification
process. The very first of these states early on that:
"And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have
already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former
cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant
passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite
parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince
the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their
converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their
invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government
will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and
hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger
to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head
than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the
stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be
forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love,
and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a
spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be
equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security
of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed
judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous
ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights
of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness
and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has
been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than
the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of
republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an
obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants."
The mistrust that our founders showed towards popular opinion is rivaled in
their words only by the inevitable outcome of such uncontested rule ...
tyrany! The conflict between allowing the popular will to rule and the
necessity of preserving individual liberties was resolved by the formation
of our Judicial branch. The significance of it's independence from the
Executive and Legislative powers of government cannot be overstated. The
Federalist #78 returns to this theme with these words:
"The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential
in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one
which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority;
such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no
ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved
in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice,
whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of
the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular
rights or privileges would amount to nothing."
I do not doubt the good intentions of the majority who would like school
children to recite daliy the pledge in it's current form. As had been
foreseen in the excerpt from the 1st Federalist Paper, however, we have as
much to fear from "good" intentions as we do from malignant designs. The
pledge decision has been characterized as "An over-scrupulous jealosy of
danger to the rights of the people." Nevertheless, the authors of the
Federalist papers admonish us about history's teachings. We have much more
to fear from unrestrained demagogues than overly officious courts.
Having established the authority of the court to judge the most popular of
governmental activities unconstitutional, we can now turn our attention to
the question of whether they reached the correct decision. The question
centers around whether the daily recitation of the pledge violates the
establishment clause of the 1st ammendment to our Constitution. The text
of that ammendment states that:
"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."
These are the very first words in our Bill of Rights. Our founding fathers
recognized these rights as the most basic and necessary to any civilization
which calls itself free. Paramount among the enumerated rights of citizens
in this nation is the right to be free from government-imposed religion and
the right to worship as one wishes. It is true that the courts have upheld
certain, limited exceptions to the absolute meaning to our enumerated
rights. Among these are the celebrated restriction that one may not
falsely cry, "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Such limits, placed upon these
freedoms are rare, and can only be upheld when they are found to be
directly and provably contrary to the general welfare. So what is the
lesson that we teach school-aged children when their first introduction to
government includes the words, "under God?" How do we reconcile the most
fundamental of civics lessons, adherence to our Constitution and Bill of
Rights, with such disregard for the primary right granted to us as
citizens?
Many have argued that our acceptance into mainstream, political life of
religious thought in some way justifies this intrusion on our liberties.
But is there not a greater danger when children are the subject of
governmental endorsement of religious belief? We all know that the
recitation of the Pledge is a (nominally) voluntary act, but are there not
overwhelming forms of coercion which negate the voluntary nature of the
exercise? One must consider the circumstances with which young children
are faced. Children, lacking in self-confidence and self-reliance are
naturally concerned with fitting in with their peers. They are also known
to lack empathy for others who do not fit in, or are in some way different.
These are undoubtedly natural parts of human psychological development. It
is also the case, that responsible parents instill in their children a
healthy respect for authority. Among these authority figures are teachers.
When a teacher conducts a recitation, and invites the participation of the
entire class, is it reasonable to expect a 7 year old child to refuse? Is
it reasonable to expect a child to refuse the request of a figure in
authority? Is it reasonable to expect a child to demonstrate the maturity
and self-confidence to act differently from his or her peers? The 9th
Circuit has ruled that it is not a reasonable expectation for child.
In this author's opinion, the recitation of a Pledge of Allegience which
does not include those 3 controversial syllables is a useful and productive
activity which is in full accordance with both the letter and the spirit
of our Bill of Rights. The pledge in it's original form was a statement of
patriotism and unity which were important to establishing regard in our
children for the principles of this nation. The founders of our nation
emphasized as strongly as they could that God and country are 2 different
subjects. In recent times we as a nation have chosen to blur the
distinction between them. I urge all who read this to petition their
government representative as I have, to give us back our pledge the way it
was before political forces interjected religious sentiments into it.
I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United State of America, and to the
Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
Fester,
The Not-So-Bad-Assed Atheist #369
jal...@cox.net
>:|Thanks to "jalison" for this poetic update:
Actually you need to thank Steven Krulick. he is the one who posted it.
That was clearly shown in my repost of his post.
From: Steve Krulick <s...@krulick.com>
Organization: Š 2002 Kryolux, Inc.
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.politics.usa.constitution,milw.general,misc.legal
Subject: Re: The Pledge is unconstitutional!
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 23:11:46 GMT
[snip]
MINSTREL (singing): Brave Rich Soyack ran away
Bravely ran away away
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes Brave Rich Soyack turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave Rich Soyack
Packing it in and packing it up
And sneaking away and buggering off
And chickening out and pissing off home
Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge...
--
Steven Krulick
s...@krulick.com
Ellenville NY 12428-130727
------------------------------------------------------
>:|
>:|Brave Rich Soyack ran away
Steve Krulick
>
> Mr. F. Le Mur <lemu...@attxbi.com> wrote:
>
> >:|Thanks to "jalison" for this poetic update:
>
> Actually you need to thank Steven Krulick. he is the one who posted it.
> That was clearly shown in my repost of his post.
And, to give credit where due, this was "adapted" from the
minstrel's song to "Brave Sir Robin" in "Monty Python and the
Holy Grail." The other analogy I used for Soyboy was the Black
Knight scene from the same film, in which the knight, despite
losing both arms and legs to King Arthur, claims to have won the
fight against Arthur, and still threatens to bite his legs off!
Or, as the King asks him, "What are you going to do, bleed on
me?"
[From Monty Python and the Holy Grail!:
BLACK KNIGHT: Come on then.
ARTHUR: What?
BLACK KNIGHT: Have at you!
ARTHUR: You are indeed brave, Sir knight, but the fight is mine.
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, had enough, eh?
ARTHUR: Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left.
BLACK KNIGHT: Yes I have.
ARTHUR: Look!
BLACK KNIGHT: Just a flesh wound.
[Headbutts Arthur in the chest]
ARTHUR: Look, stop that.
BLACK KNIGHT: Chicken! Chicken!
ARTHUR: Look, I'll have your leg. Right! [whop]
BLACK KNIGHT: Right, I'll do you for that!
ARTHUR: You'll what?
BLACK KNIGHT: Come 'ere!
ARTHUR: What are you going to do, bleed on me?
BLACK KNIGHT: I'm invincible!
ARTHUR: You're a loony.
BLACK KNIGHT: The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you!
Come on then.
[whop]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's other leg off]
BLACK KNIGHT: All right; we'll call it a draw.
ARTHUR: Come, Patsy.
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, oh, I see, running away, 'eh? ... You yellow
bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you.... I'll
bite your legs off!
When pinned down in a battle of wits, all Soybean can do is
repeat "LOL" and side-step. He STILL has not answered the direct
questions and challenges put to him.
Nemesis
"Mr. F. Le Mur" <lemu...@attxbi.com> wrote in message
news:vmpunukmrpjkok444...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 11:16:13 -0400, "Nemesis" <judge...@ij.net> wrote:
>
> ->
> ->
> ->"Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> ->news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1020910163559.29847C-
> ->
> ->> You are correct. thank you for speaking to that point.
> ->> Soyack, in his paranoia, sees things that aren't there and makes
claims he
> ->> cannot support. But I am sure you don't need to be told that.
> ->
> -> So then you agree that the simple question of where the alleged
"lawyer"
> ->practices is something he won't answer because he is afraid? Nice dodge
> ->Smith. Think it'll fly?
> ->
>
> There's no reason why he should say where he practices because it's
totally irrelevant.
Of course you'd say that. You have no other choice. Of course those of
us who have some legal knowledge and question whether he is this high priced
"Constitutional" lawyer might like to check him out to see if he is real
since some of the things he said make it seem otherwise. No legit *lawyer*
would have a problem saying "I practice in Philadelphia" or wherever. It's
at least as "relevant" and the proof you always demand.
Nemesis
> > And your *proof* sir that Soyack has "stalked" anyone.
> He uses search engines to net-stalk and has made veiled threats to others
in
> the newsgroup, including a challenge to Le Mur to meet him in person.
For
> a fistfight maybe? Or a gunfight? He's a hothead with a bad temper.
> Plenty of evidence indicates Soyack is not stable, besides being a gun nut
> with an obsession for the 2nd Amendment. Soyack wants to go RL: all
> earmarks of a stalker.
> Personally, I wouldn't want him stalking me because I don't have the time
to
> waste neutralizing him.
I have never seen Rich do that. I have seen him do a google search on
the crap some people have said, but lots of people do that. There is nothing
sinister in it. It's like anything else, you face somebody in a debate, you
look up their history to learn what you can about them. He did that to Ms.
Smith. He found out her style. As to Rich being a "hothead," he's lesser
than some others in here. I think you see what you want to see in him. I
have suggested "say that to my face" to people, but not really meaning
anything about beating anybody up, but more hinting to them that they'd
never say the things that they are saying in person. A hint is that if you
wouldn't say that to my face, you shouldn't say it.
Nemesis
> > >:|> > Any *real* lawyer would have no problem answering the question.
Was it
> > >:|> > Attorney Mumford?
> > >:|> I no longer remember. This whole anti "under God" crowd is weird.
> > >:| Any real lawyer would have no problem answering a silly question
such as
> > >:|where they practice.
> > They wouldn't waste their time replying to a irrelevant question.
> > They would recognize it for exactly what it was, an attempt to distract,
to
> > focus attention away from the actual valid information they provided.
They
> > would recognize it as a straw sling.
> Nope, when you refer to someone's credentials to add weight to your
argument
> you have to provide proof of those credentials. Its really very simple
But the information was at best "questionable" hence the question of
where they practiced. The attempts to hide the credentials of the person
only serve to underscore that in all probability they are frauds, perhaps
the guy is a janitor in a courthouse. A *real* lawyer would not have had a
problem answering. It is no more changing the subject than their constant
red herrings demanding proof on everything. I think that "lawyer" wears a
straw jockstrap.He's right on that because he wasn't right on the law.
Nemesis
> And, as I have related on this NG before, I speak from personal
> experience. When I was in high school and became an atheist, I
> stopped saying the words "under God" in the pledge, and while I
> didn't go around waving a sign saying "I don't believe in God,"
> I didn't keep it hidden either. As a result I was frequently verbally
> harrased, and on one occasion physically assaulted. I'm reasonably
> sure of the motive of my attackers because one of them called me
> a "f***ing atheist pussy."
Well that kind of stuff happens in school to kids all the time. And it
happened 50 years ago and 100 years ago for all sorts of reasons. It's
something you go through as a kid. I was teased as a kid. I don't allow it
to dictate my behavior as an adult, much less in adult conversations.
> A Jewish friend of mine told that when she was in (public) school
> many years ago, her family had her "opt out" of the official
> school prayers, as they were distinctly Christian. She was
> made to sit in the hallway while the class prayed, and the
> teacher made snide remarks about how she "didn't believe in
> God." This was, of course untrue. She did believe in God,
> just not in Jesus. But even if she didn't believe in God,
> so what?
And I have many Jewish friends who didn't opt out of things because they
felt that Christianity was mainly an offshoot of their faith. I think those
who must run screaming from a room because they "hear" a prayer of some
other faith have a serious problem, and probably more than one.
> It's not hard to imagine that a child or adolescent might
> simply decide to keep quiet rather than risk that kind of
> ostracism and/or actual physical violence.
I think most kids kept quiet because thet believed in "live and let
live."
> And it's wrong to use tax dollars to put them in a position
> where they even have to make such a decision.
Them "Tax Dollars" really got you upset? Well I don't like *my* "Tax
Dollars" $$$$$$ going for things I don't like either, I'll pass you my
crying towel and we can bawl together for an hour or two. Boo hoo!
Joni Rathbun
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Nemesis wrote:
>
> "Marc Satterwhite" <mtsa...@athena.louisville.edu> wrote in message
> news:3D7F92B5...@athena.louisville.edu...
>
> > And, as I have related on this NG before, I speak from personal
> > experience. When I was in high school and became an atheist, I
> > stopped saying the words "under God" in the pledge, and while I
> > didn't go around waving a sign saying "I don't believe in God,"
> > I didn't keep it hidden either. As a result I was frequently verbally
> > harrased, and on one occasion physically assaulted. I'm reasonably
> > sure of the motive of my attackers because one of them called me
> > a "f***ing atheist pussy."
>
> Well that kind of stuff happens in school to kids all the time. And it
> happened 50 years ago and 100 years ago for all sorts of reasons. It's
> something you go through as a kid. I was teased as a kid. I don't allow it
> to dictate my behavior as an adult, much less in adult conversations.
>
It's one thing to be teased or harassed. It's another when your own
government sets you up for that kind of treatment.
Rich Soyack
Eluding to honor is lost on them. le mur is truely a cowardly piece of shit
who will
say "fighting words" while safely hidden and then pretend that people are
running
away from him when they are tired of his cowardly rants. His is in the same
category
as pargy when it comes to honor. I find it very telling that the anti
"under God" crowd
embraces the cowardly le mur.
Rich Soyack
Thumper
wrote:
Here's asshole again trying to say that calling someone a coward and
challenging them to say something to their face isn't a threat.
Keep posting crap like this moron. Everytime you do you show the
world what a true asshole you are.
Thumper
>
>
TGO
> is the opposite of reason.
Incorrect...at least the latter part of this statement.
Rich Soyack
It may be a threat in your mind, in the real world it is a call for someone
to
have the courage to say to my face something that they will only say from
hiding. Why is that a threat? Because you say so? I say its not.
Initially,
le mur, the cowardly piece of shit, said he would gladly spit in my eye if
he were in the area. That was a threat. I then offered to come to where he
is to give him that opportunity. Why aren't you taking le mur, the cowardly
piece of shit, to task for his actual threat? Why are you inventing a
threat?
Is it because all you are interested in is le mur partisanship? I do
believe
that is the answer.
> Keep posting crap like this moron. Everytime you do you show the
> world what a true asshole you are.
> Thumper
I do believe that you have been showing that about yourself for quite a
while,
thumper.
Rich Soyack
TGO
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 23:08:27 -0400, "TGO" <gobr...@null.com> wrote:
>
> ->> You can't reason with religious nuts - they have "faith", which
> ->> is the opposite of reason.
> ->
> ->Incorrect...at least the latter part of this statement.
> ->
>
> Yeah, maybe "faith is a lack of reason" would be better.
> But I have faith that you got my drift.
>
>
>
Yeah, I got your drift...and now see how you think. You're still missing
the boat.
Marc Satterwhite
> "Marc Satterwhite" <mtsa...@athena.louisville.edu> wrote in message
> news:3D7F92B5...@athena.louisville.edu...
>
> > And, as I have related on this NG before, I speak from personal
> > experience. When I was in high school and became an atheist, I
> > stopped saying the words "under God" in the pledge, and while I
> > didn't go around waving a sign saying "I don't believe in God,"
> > I didn't keep it hidden either. As a result I was frequently verbally
> > harrased, and on one occasion physically assaulted. I'm reasonably
> > sure of the motive of my attackers because one of them called me
> > a "f***ing atheist pussy."
>
> Well that kind of stuff happens in school to kids all the time. And it
> happened 50 years ago and 100 years ago for all sorts of reasons. It's
> something you go through as a kid. I was teased as a kid. I don't allow it
> to dictate my behavior as an adult, much less in adult conversations.
Of course kids get teased and even harrassed from time to time.
But in this case it is the school which is setting up the kids to
be teased and harrassed. And in some cases (see below) actually
participating in the harrassment.
And I don't let it dictate my behavior as an adult, except to the
extent that I oppose unconstitutional mixing of church and state
in the public schools.
> > A Jewish friend of mine told that when she was in (public) school
> > many years ago, her family had her "opt out" of the official
> > school prayers, as they were distinctly Christian. She was
> > made to sit in the hallway while the class prayed, and the
> > teacher made snide remarks about how she "didn't believe in
> > God." This was, of course untrue. She did believe in God,
> > just not in Jesus. But even if she didn't believe in God,
> > so what?
>
> And I have many Jewish friends who didn't opt out of things because they
> felt that Christianity was mainly an offshoot of their faith. I think those
> who must run screaming from a room because they "hear" a prayer of some
> other faith have a serious problem, and probably more than one.
And the problen isn't that they "hear" a prayer of some other faith,
it's that they are REQUIRED to hear the prayer, and in some
cases forced to participate (look up the history of that Jewish family in
Alabama where a teacher forced a kid's head down during
prayer).
I notice you overlooked the part where the TEACHER made snide
remarks about the religion of one of her students.
And don't you think a lot of Christian parents would get upset
at a Satanist invocation their kids were REQUIRED to listen to
in a tax-supported public school where their attendance is
MANDATORY?
Do you think they would "live and let live?"
> > It's not hard to imagine that a child or adolescent might
> > simply decide to keep quiet rather than risk that kind of
> > ostracism and/or actual physical violence.
>
> I think most kids kept quiet because thet believed in "live and let
> live."
Then you don't live in the real world.
> > And it's wrong to use tax dollars to put them in a position
> > where they even have to make such a decision.
>
> Them "Tax Dollars" really got you upset? Well I don't like *my* "Tax
> Dollars" $$$$$$ going for things I don't like either, I'll pass you my
> crying towel and we can bawl together for an hour or two. Boo hoo!
As far as ordinary use of tax dollars is concerned, I have many objections
to the way they are spent, too. I vote for people whose values are similar
to mine and I contact my elected representatives to give them my opinion.
You can do the same.
However, in this case we are dealing with a Constitutional issue.
Majority opinion doesn't enter into it, unless the majority gets
so worked up about something it amends the Constitution.
Best, Marc
jal...@cox.net
>:|On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 09:08:47 -0400, "TGO" <gobr...@null.com> wrote:
>:|
>:|->
>:|->"Mr. F. Le Mur" <lemu...@attxbi.com> wrote in message
>:|->news:pqc0ouc58v4kvaif8...@4ax.com...
>:|->> On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 23:08:27 -0400, "TGO" <gobr...@null.com> wrote:
>:|->>
>:|->> ->> You can't reason with religious nuts - they have "faith", which
>:|->> ->> is the opposite of reason.
>:|->> ->
>:|->> ->Incorrect...at least the latter part of this statement.
>:|->> ->
>:|->>
>:|->> Yeah, maybe "faith is a lack of reason" would be better.
>:|->> But I have faith that you got my drift.
>:|->
>:|->Yeah, I got your drift...and now see how you think.
>:|
>:|Good. That was my purpose.
>:|
>:|->You're still missing the boat.
>:|
>:|You're being coy. How fascinating.
He does that a lot, but one has to give him credit. he is middle of the
road, or so he says. However, it's interesting that several people have
noticed that he doesn't come across as very middle of the road at all.
Larry Smith
I. E., if you were face to face with Soyack, better watch out. He'll pop a
cap on you.
>
> Eluding to honor is lost on them.
Look up the big word you just tried to use and see what you said, Soyyack.
le mur is truely a cowardly piece of shit
> who will
> say "fighting words"
Better have your head examined if you think what Le Mur said was fighting
words.
But anything which stirs up the emotions of the militia set would be
fighting words, and that's just about anything they disagree with.
What office do you hold in the local Klan, Soyack? Grand Draggin, Grand
Loon, Grand Klutz?
while safely hidden and then pretend that people are
> running
> away from him when they are tired of his cowardly rants. His is in the
same
> category
> as pargy when it comes to honor. I find it very telling that the anti
> "under God" crowd
> embraces the cowardly le mur.
Got that firearm locked and loaded have you now, Soyack? And who might you
be cuddled up with?
>
> Rich Soyack
>
>
Rich Soyack
lol, very lawyerly talk that lol.
>
> >
> > Eluding to honor is lost on them.
>
>
> Look up the big word you just tried to use and see what you said, Soyyack.
What Bar Association did you say you were a member of, lol.
>
>
>
> le mur is truely a cowardly piece of shit
> > who will
> > say "fighting words"
>
> Better have your head examined if you think what Le Mur said was fighting
> words.
Which words would you be referring to here?
>
> But anything which stirs up the emotions of the militia set would be
> fighting words, and that's just about anything they disagree with.
What militia set would that be? I was in the New York State Naval Militia
when
I was in the U. S. Naval Reserves. Is that what you are talking about?
>
> What office do you hold in the local Klan, Soyack? Grand Draggin, Grand
> Loon, Grand Klutz?
You do seem to have a need to slander those who question your credentials.
I guess
that's because you are lying about being a lawyer.
>
>
>
>
> while safely hidden and then pretend that people are
> > running
> > away from him when they are tired of his cowardly rants. His is in the
> same
> > category
> > as pargy when it comes to honor. I find it very telling that the anti
> > "under God" crowd
> > embraces the cowardly le mur.
>
> Got that firearm locked and loaded have you now, Soyack? And who might
you
> be cuddled up with?
What firearm would that be? Your fantasy world is getting the better of
you.
Rich Soyack
Nemesis
> > I have never seen Rich do that. I have seen him do a google search on
> >the crap some people have said, but lots of people do that. There is
nothing
> >sinister in it. It's like anything else, you face somebody in a debate,
you
> >look up their history to learn what you can about them. He did that to
Ms.
> >Smith. He found out her style. As to Rich being a "hothead," he's lesser
> >than some others in here. I think you see what you want to see in him. I
> >have suggested "say that to my face" to people, but not really meaning
> >anything about beating anybody up, but more hinting to them that they'd
> >never say the things that they are saying in person. A hint is that if
you
> >wouldn't say that to my face, you shouldn't say it.
> Here's asshole again trying to say that calling someone a coward and
> challenging them to say something to their face isn't a threat.
> Keep posting crap like this moron. Everytime you do you show the
> world what a true asshole you are.
You know, if anyone is threatening and abusive here, it's you!
Nemesis
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.020911...@lab.oregonvos.net...
> It's one thing to be teased or harassed. It's another when your own
> government sets you up for that kind of treatment.
Okay I will take your side's playbook. Please document that the
government has been "teasing and harassing" little children.
Nemesis
> > Well that kind of stuff happens in school to kids all the time. And
it
> > happened 50 years ago and 100 years ago for all sorts of reasons. It's
> > something you go through as a kid. I was teased as a kid. I don't allow
it
> > to dictate my behavior as an adult, much less in adult conversations.
> Of course kids get teased and even harrassed from time to time.
> But in this case it is the school which is setting up the kids to
> be teased and harrassed. And in some cases (see below) actually
> participating in the harrassment.
Not at all, for decades the Jehova's Witness kids have not had to say
the pledge. The funny thing is that _they_ have not been complaining about
it. Maybe if you didn't have a chip on your shoulder and weren't just
l;ooking to pick a fight you wouldn't have to cry to your mommy so much.
> And I don't let it dictate my behavior as an adult, except to the
> extent that I oppose unconstitutional mixing of church and state
> in the public schools.
Ah, again one who wishes to impose his beliefs on others.
> > > A Jewish friend of mine told that when she was in (public) school
> > > many years ago, her family had her "opt out" of the official
> > > school prayers, as they were distinctly Christian. She was
> > > made to sit in the hallway while the class prayed, and the
> > > teacher made snide remarks about how she "didn't believe in
> > > God." This was, of course untrue. She did believe in God,
> > > just not in Jesus. But even if she didn't believe in God,
> > > so what?
> > And I have many Jewish friends who didn't opt out of things because
they
> > felt that Christianity was mainly an offshoot of their faith. I think
those
> > who must run screaming from a room because they "hear" a prayer of some
> > other faith have a serious problem, and probably more than one.
> And the problen isn't that they "hear" a prayer of some other faith,
> it's that they are REQUIRED to hear the prayer, and in some
> cases forced to participate (look up the history of that Jewish family in
> Alabama where a teacher forced a kid's head down during
> prayer).
Some people worry about substantial things like people flying airplanes
into buildings and others trying ti blow up cities with nuclear weapons.
> I notice you overlooked the part where the TEACHER made snide
> remarks about the religion of one of her students.
Then the teacher should have her ass fired, but the NEA won't allow that
to happen.
> And don't you think a lot of Christian parents would get upset
> at a Satanist invocation their kids were REQUIRED to listen to
> in a tax-supported public school where their attendance is
> MANDATORY?
Sure and I bet they'd get upset if you launched into a lecture that
there is no God. I'll make a deal with you, when you are in the vast
majority, you can have your "there is no God" pledge. I'd not know what
harm it would do.
> Do you think they would "live and let live?"
Well the fundies wouldn't. They are the kissing cousins of Al Queda with
a desire to impose their religion on the world. But they account for a tiny
fraction of the Christian community. They aren't bright enough to see the
similarities between their own thinking and that of any other religious
extremist (Atheists included.)
> > > It's not hard to imagine that a child or adolescent might
> > > simply decide to keep quiet rather than risk that kind of
> > > ostracism and/or actual physical violence.
>
> > I think most kids kept quiet because thet believed in "live and let
> > live."
> Then you don't live in the real world.
Gee it seems real. It was raining today, the rain seemed real. I had to
pass gas today, it smelled real enough.
> > > And it's wrong to use tax dollars to put them in a position
> > > where they even have to make such a decision.
>
> > Them "Tax Dollars" really got you upset? Well I don't like *my* "Tax
> > Dollars" $$$$$$ going for things I don't like either, I'll pass you my
> > crying towel and we can bawl together for an hour or two. Boo hoo!
> As far as ordinary use of tax dollars is concerned, I have many objections
> to the way they are spent, too. I vote for people whose values are
similar
> to mine and I contact my elected representatives to give them my opinion.
> You can do the same.
I voted on Tuesday.
> However, in this case we are dealing with a Constitutional issue.
> Majority opinion doesn't enter into it, unless the majority gets
> so worked up about something it amends the Constitution.
Ah but the "majority" we are dealing with are the folks on the courts.
My bet is that your side is going to be stamping their feet for many years
to come.
Nemesis
> -> Of course you'd say that. You have no other choice. Of course those
of
> ->us who have some legal knowledge and question whether he is this high
priced
> ->"Constitutional" lawyer might like to check him out to see if he is real
> ->since some of the things he said make it seem otherwise. No legit
*lawyer*
> ->would have a problem saying "I practice in Philadelphia" or wherever.
It's
> ->at least as "relevant" and the proof you always demand.
> Whether or not he's a "legit" lawyer is irrelevant.
> Whether or not he's even a lawyer is irrelevant.
> Only the arguments and the laws are relevant.
In your world maybe. Where I live if a person **lies** about who and
what he is, his "word" is worth a load of donkey crap. His honesty *is*
relevant as to how reliable his "fact claims" are to be given credit for
being. Thanks for admitting he lied his ass off, though. Not that everyone
didn't already know that. But that's how *you* have to argue, with phony
facts, made up credentials, and general bullshit. You are so free to throw a
fit demanding people "prove" the most arcane a priori statements, but argue
that just because a guy lies and claims to be a lawyer when he is not is
irrelevant. You're a pip Le Mur. You are just incredible.
Nemesis
> > I. E., if you were face to face with Soyack, better watch out. He'll
pop a
> > cap on you.
> lol, very lawyerly talk that lol.
> What Bar Association did you say you were a member of, lol.
> > But anything which stirs up the emotions of the militia set would be
> > fighting words, and that's just about anything they disagree with.
> What militia set would that be? I was in the New York State Naval Militia
when
> I was in the U. S. Naval Reserves. Is that what you are talking about?
> > What office do you hold in the local Klan, Soyack? Grand Draggin,
Grand
> > Loon, Grand Klutz?
> You do seem to have a need to slander those who question your credentials.
> I guess that's because you are lying about being a lawyer.
What is interesting is that his buddy has now admitted he's not a lawyer
and has been lying all along. Although he claims it is "irrelevant."
Marc Satterwhite
> "Marc Satterwhite" <mtsa...@athena.louisville.edu> wrote in message
> news:3D80ABC6...@athena.louisville.edu...
>
> > > Well that kind of stuff happens in school to kids all the time. And
> it
> > > happened 50 years ago and 100 years ago for all sorts of reasons. It's
> > > something you go through as a kid. I was teased as a kid. I don't allow
> it
> > > to dictate my behavior as an adult, much less in adult conversations.
>
> > Of course kids get teased and even harrassed from time to time.
> > But in this case it is the school which is setting up the kids to
> > be teased and harrassed. And in some cases (see below) actually
> > participating in the harrassment.
>
> Not at all, for decades the Jehova's Witness kids have not had to say
> the pledge. The funny thing is that _they_ have not been complaining about
> it. Maybe if you didn't have a chip on your shoulder and weren't just
> l;ooking to pick a fight you wouldn't have to cry to your mommy so much.
And they had to go to court repeatedly to secure the right not to participate.
That counts as complaining, in my book.
And I believe it takes much more courage to speak out, and thus
court harrasment and ostracism, than it does to just accept the
status quo. Here is what the JWs went through over the
pledge issue:
Witness missionaries were chased and beaten by vigilantes in Texas. Their
literature was confiscated and even burned.
Less than a week after the court decision, a Kingdom Hall was stormed and
torched in Kennebunk, Maine. American
Legion posts harassed Witnesses nationwide. The American Civil Liberties Union
reported to the Justice Department
that nearly 1,500 Witnesses were physically attacked in more than 300
communities nationwide. One Southern sheriff
told a reporter why Witnesses were being run out of town: "They're traitors;
the Supreme Court says so. Ain't you
heard?" (From xhttp://www.adherents.com/largecom/jw_freedom.html)
I didn't face anything nearly that scary, but it wasn't fun getting
almost beaten up by religious thugs.
> > And I don't let it dictate my behavior as an adult, except to the
> > extent that I oppose unconstitutional mixing of church and state
> > in the public schools.
>
> Ah, again one who wishes to impose his beliefs on others.
I wish no such thing. If you can find a public school, anywhere,
where students are required to recite "There is no God," I'll join
you in protesting.
What I want is for public entities to stay out of the religion business.
Period. No advocacy for or against any religion in particular, or
for or against religion in general. Why is that such a hard concept?
There are churches everywhere (my local phone book has
about 10 pages of them). There is abundant religious
broadcasting on radio and TV. Why are certain religious types
so insecure they have to force others to participate in rituals
they don't believe in?
> > > > A Jewish friend of mine told that when she was in (public) school
> > > > many years ago, her family had her "opt out" of the official
> > > > school prayers, as they were distinctly Christian. She was
> > > > made to sit in the hallway while the class prayed, and the
> > > > teacher made snide remarks about how she "didn't believe in
> > > > God." This was, of course untrue. She did believe in God,
> > > > just not in Jesus. But even if she didn't believe in God,
> > > > so what?
>
> > > And I have many Jewish friends who didn't opt out of things because
> they
> > > felt that Christianity was mainly an offshoot of their faith. I think
> those
> > > who must run screaming from a room because they "hear" a prayer of some
> > > other faith have a serious problem, and probably more than one.
>
> > And the problen isn't that they "hear" a prayer of some other faith,
> > it's that they are REQUIRED to hear the prayer, and in some
> > cases forced to participate (look up the history of that Jewish family in
> > Alabama where a teacher forced a kid's head down during
> > prayer).
>
> Some people worry about substantial things like people flying airplanes
> into buildings and others trying ti blow up cities with nuclear weapons.
I'm not equating the issues. Nonetheless, when one is subjected to
an indignity, day after day, one gets tired of it, and wants to do
something about it. Even if the issue isn't one of life or death.
> > I notice you overlooked the part where the TEACHER made snide
> > remarks about the religion of one of her students.
>
> Then the teacher should have her ass fired, but the NEA won't allow that
> to happen.
Well, we can agree at least on the first part. I'm not sure the NEA
(or any other union) holds much sway in Alabama, but I could
be wrong.
> > And don't you think a lot of Christian parents would get upset
> > at a Satanist invocation their kids were REQUIRED to listen to
> > in a tax-supported public school where their attendance is
> > MANDATORY?
>
> Sure and I bet they'd get upset if you launched into a lecture that
> there is no God.
And they would have a right to be upset, if I were trying to impose
my beliefs on their kids.
> I'll make a deal with you, when you are in the vast
> majority, you can have your "there is no God" pledge. I'd not know what
> harm it would do.
Maybe it wouldn't do any great harm, but people would be
rightly disturbed if I were using tax dollars to ram my
non-religion down their kids' throats.
And, again, this issue isn't, (or shouldn't be, at least)
a majority rules issue. It's a Constitutional issue.
> > Do you think they would "live and let live?"
>
> Well the fundies wouldn't. They are the kissing cousins of Al Queda with
> a desire to impose their religion on the world. But they account for a tiny
> fraction of the Christian community. They aren't bright enough to see the
> similarities between their own thinking and that of any other religious
> extremist (Atheists included.)
Again I am in complete agreement with much of your paragraph.
However, I'm not sure the fundies are such a "tiny" minority.
I think a lot depends on what part of the country you're talking
about. And, because of the shameless pandering of the GOP
towards the most radical of the RRR elements, they have an
influence far out of proportion to their actual numbers.
> > > > It's not hard to imagine that a child or adolescent might
> > > > simply decide to keep quiet rather than risk that kind of
> > > > ostracism and/or actual physical violence.
> >
> > > I think most kids kept quiet because thet believed in "live and let
> > > live."
>
> > Then you don't live in the real world.
>
> Gee it seems real. It was raining today, the rain seemed real. I had to
> pass gas today, it smelled real enough.
I don't usually indulge in that type of statement. I must have
been a bit cranky when I wrote that. Sorry.
But I disagree. I think many kids keep quiet because they don't want to
be singled out for ridicule, ostracism and occasional violence. I think
they do this about a bunch of issues, when they are in the
minority and hold a distinctly unpopular opinion about something.
Schools can't control it all, of course, but they shouldn't be
promoting it, either.
> > > > And it's wrong to use tax dollars to put them in a position
> > > > where they even have to make such a decision.
> >
> > > Them "Tax Dollars" really got you upset? Well I don't like *my* "Tax
> > > Dollars" $$$$$$ going for things I don't like either, I'll pass you my
> > > crying towel and we can bawl together for an hour or two. Boo hoo!
>
> > As far as ordinary use of tax dollars is concerned, I have many objections
> > to the way they are spent, too. I vote for people whose values are
> similar
> > to mine and I contact my elected representatives to give them my opinion.
> > You can do the same.
>
> I voted on Tuesday.
>
> > However, in this case we are dealing with a Constitutional issue.
> > Majority opinion doesn't enter into it, unless the majority gets
> > so worked up about something it amends the Constitution.
>
> Ah but the "majority" we are dealing with are the folks on the courts.
> My bet is that your side is going to be stamping their feet for many years
> to come.
Depends on the jurisdiction. And sadly, even judges with life appointments
don't always rule according to the law, but take majority opinion too much
into account. And I don't deny for a moment that it's always been an uphill
battle and will continue to be so. The fight for minority rights is ever
thus.
Best, Marc
jal...@cox.net
>:| What is interesting is that his buddy has now admitted he's not a lawyer
>:|and has been lying all along. Although he claims it is "irrelevant."
Who might you be referring to here? Enquiring minds would like to know
Bob LeChevalier
>> Whether or not he's a "legit" lawyer is irrelevant.
>> Whether or not he's even a lawyer is irrelevant.
>> Only the arguments and the laws are relevant.
>
> In your world maybe. Where I live if a person **lies** about who and
>what he is, his "word" is worth a load of donkey crap. His honesty *is*
>relevant as to how reliable his "fact claims" are to be given credit for
>being. Thanks for admitting he lied his ass off, though. Not that everyone
>didn't already know that. But that's how *you* have to argue, with phony
>facts, made up credentials, and general bullshit. You are so free to throw a
>fit demanding people "prove" the most arcane a priori statements, but argue
>that just because a guy lies and claims to be a lawyer when he is not is
>irrelevant. You're a pip Le Mur. You are just incredible.
Might I point out that
1) the person who posted was jalison and NOT the lawyer, and jalison
has consistently pointed out over the years that he is NOT a lawyer,
though his site partner is.
2) jalison sought out the lawyer's opinion, and may feel he would need
permission to do anything more than quote the guy's email response,
permission that he sees no reason to get, since HE apparently knows
that they guy is a lawyer. Thus the issue is NOT the credibility of
the lawyer, but the credibility of jalison in claiming that the guy is
a lawyer.
Now, since jalison is a long time activist on church/state issues,
co-operates a website which he claims (quite believably) is used as a
reference by many lawyers doing church/state work that is near and
dear to jalison's heart, a web site whose credibility is that it
clearly separates fact from opinion even if you think the opinions are
slanted, it is simply not reasonable to assume that jalison would risk
his credibility as a provider of fact by posting phony testimonials in
order to win an argument on Usenet. He has no trouble speaking for
himself and labeling it as opinion when that is all that it is.
I have occasionally disagreed with jalison on matters of opinion over
the years, and I have more strongly disagreed with him about his
repetitive posting of the same materials such that even I can't tell
what he has posted that is new. But I have yet to catch him on the
least issue as to a matter of credibility. When he states something
and cites a source, he is almost certainly telling the truth about his
source. And he would be foolish not to do so.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>There are churches everywhere (my local phone book has
>about 10 pages of them). There is abundant religious
>broadcasting on radio and TV. Why are certain religious types
>so insecure they have to force others to participate in rituals
>they don't believe in?
That's simple. They want to force their kids to participate in
rituals that the parents believe in on a constant enough basis that
the kids unquestioningly accept the parental belief system, they don't
much care about any kids but their own (but figure that since the
Bible commands evangelism, it is a good idea to preach at other kids'
children while they are at it).
The fundamental issue here is that these people do NOT believe in the
right of children to decide for themselves what to believe, nor to be
exempt from the imposition of majoritarian religious beliefs. A lot
of people think that children are not entitled to full human rights.
lojbab
jal...@cox.net
And we continue with the diversion, the distraction, the straw
>:| Of course you'd say that. You have no other choice. Of course those of
>:|us who have some legal knowledge and question whether he is this high priced
>:|"Constitutional" lawyer might like to check him out to see if he is real
>:|since some of the things he said make it seem otherwise.
Some legal knowledge?
Hey, simple solution to your problem:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2C7324C1
>:|No legit *lawyer*
>:|would have a problem saying "I practice in Philadelphia" or wherever.
So you say.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q3D7254C1
>:|It's
>:|at least as "relevant" and the proof you always demand.
Not at all.
We demand evidence to beyond yourself, beyond your beliefs, your opinions
your spins.
I don't ask about your personal data, don't give a damn about it, it too is
irrelevant.
What you post will identify you as being knowledgable or not.
Now about these:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F6F7224C1
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L228264C1
jal...@cox.net
>:|On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:37:14 -0400, "Nemesis" <judge...@ij.net> wrote:
>:|
>:|->
>:|->"Mr. F. Le Mur" <lemu...@attxbi.com> wrote in message
>:|->news:vmpunukmrpjkok444...@4ax.com...
>:|->> On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 11:16:13 -0400, "Nemesis" <judge...@ij.net> wrote:
>:|->>
>:|->> ->
>:|->> ->
>:|->> ->"Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
>:|->> ->news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1020910163559.29847C-
>:|->> ->
>:|->> ->> You are correct. thank you for speaking to that point.
>:|->> ->> Soyack, in his paranoia, sees things that aren't there and makes
>:|->claims he
>:|->> ->> cannot support. But I am sure you don't need to be told that.
>:|->> ->
>:|->> -> So then you agree that the simple question of where the alleged
>:|->"lawyer"
>:|->> ->practices is something he won't answer because he is afraid? Nice dodge
>:|->> ->Smith. Think it'll fly?
>:|->> ->
>:|->>
>:|->> There's no reason why he should say where he practices because it's
>:|->totally irrelevant.
>:|->
>:|-> Of course you'd say that. You have no other choice. Of course those of
>:|->us who have some legal knowledge and question whether he is this high priced
>:|->"Constitutional" lawyer might like to check him out to see if he is real
>:|->since some of the things he said make it seem otherwise. No legit *lawyer*
>:|->would have a problem saying "I practice in Philadelphia" or wherever. It's
>:|->at least as "relevant" and the proof you always demand.
>:|->
>:|
>:|Whether or not he's a "legit" lawyer is irrelevant.
>:|Whether or not he's even a lawyer is irrelevant.
>:|Only the arguments and the laws are relevant.
The above is very true, however, these two people have elected to use it as
a diversion to get the heat off their empty replies.
It would be very simple for these two to take the information that comes
from Black's Law Dictionary, my self, the history of Zelman v.
Simmons-Harris, M.A. Newdow and N. J. Blanchett and show it to be flawed,
incorrect, if that truly were the case.
The fact that they have felt the need to create a diversion instead says
all that needs to be said about who really knows what they are talking
about and about the impotency of these two.
jal...@cox.net
>:|
>:|"Mr. F. Le Mur" <lemu...@attxbi.com> wrote in message
>:|news:mgb1ouo9fbpk9rivg...@4ax.com...
>:|
>:|> -> Of course you'd say that. You have no other choice. Of course those
>:|of
>:|> ->us who have some legal knowledge and question whether he is this high
>:|priced
>:|> ->"Constitutional" lawyer might like to check him out to see if he is real
>:|> ->since some of the things he said make it seem otherwise. No legit
>:|*lawyer*
>:|> ->would have a problem saying "I practice in Philadelphia" or wherever.
>:|It's
>:|> ->at least as "relevant" and the proof you always demand.
>:|
>:|> Whether or not he's a "legit" lawyer is irrelevant.
>:|> Whether or not he's even a lawyer is irrelevant.
>:|> Only the arguments and the laws are relevant.
>:|
>:| In your world maybe.
In all worlds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|Whether or not he's a "legit" lawyer is irrelevant.
>:|Whether or not he's even a lawyer is irrelevant.
>:|Only the arguments and the laws are relevant.
The above is very true, however, these two people have elected to use it as
a diversion to get the heat off their empty replies.
It would be very simple for these two to take the information that comes
from Black's Law Dictionary, my self, the history of Zelman v.
Simmons-Harris, M.A. Newdow and N. J. Blanchett and show it to be flawed,
incorrect, if that truly were the case.
The fact that they have felt the need to create a diversion instead says
all that needs to be said about who really knows what they are talking
about and about the impotency of these two.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nemesis" <judge...@ij.net> wrote:
Some legal knowledge?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2C7324C1
So you say.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q3D7254C1
Not at all.
Now about these:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F6F7224C1
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L228264C1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|Where I live if a person **lies** about who and
>:|what he is, his "word" is worth a load of donkey crap. His honesty *is*
>:|relevant as to how reliable his "fact claims" are to be given credit for
>:|being.
It would be very simple for these two to take the information that comes
from Black's Law Dictionary, my self, the history of Zelman v.
Simmons-Harris, M.A. Newdow and N. J. Blanchett and show it to be flawed,
incorrect, if that truly were the case.
Hey, simple solution to your problem:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2C7324C1
>:|Thanks for admitting he lied his ass off, though.
He didn't admit anything. Your imagination is working overtime.
>:|Not that everyone
>:|didn't already know that.
LOL, do you think anyone besides you and your clone buddy gives a damn
about diversion and spin you and your clone buddy are trying to maintain?
>:|But that's how *you* have to argue, with phony
>:|facts, made up credentials, and general bullshit.
It would be very simple for these two to take the information that comes
from Black's Law Dictionary, my self, the history of Zelman v.
Simmons-Harris, M.A. Newdow and N. J. Blanchett and show it to be flawed,
incorrect, if that truly were the case.
The fact that they have felt the need to create a diversion instead says
all that needs to be said about who really knows what they are talking
about and about the impotency of these two.
Hey, simple solution to your problem:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2C7324C1
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q3D7254C1
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F6F7224C1
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L228264C1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|You are so free to throw a
>:|fit demanding people "prove" the most arcane a priori statements,
Yep. tis true.
Not at all.
We demand evidence to beyond yourself, beyond your beliefs, your opinions
your spins.
We/I don't ask about your personal data, don't give a damn about it, it
too is irrelevant.
What you post will identify you as being knowledgable or not.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F6F7224C1
>:|but argue
>:|that just because a guy lies and claims to be a lawyer when he is not is
>:|irrelevant.
You haven't proven they aren't lawyers.
So once more you are making unsubstantiated claim
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the total that you need to know and deal with:
From Black's Law Dictionary, my self, the history of Zelman v.
Simmons-Harris, M.A. Newdow and N. J. Blanchett. Now show it to be flawed,
incorrect, if that truly is the case.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F6F7224C1
jal...@cox.net
>:| But the information was at best "questionable" hence the question of
>:|where they practiced.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here it is, now show it to be flawed, false incorrect, point by point.
jal...@cox.net
>:|Nope, when you refer to someone's credentials to add weight to your argument
>:|you have to provide proof of those credentials. Its really very simple
this answer fits you as well
Rich Soyack
news:0qn1oug2o6ojte58e...@4ax.com...
You mean like Newdow's daughter and M. M. O'Hare's son?
Rich Soyack
Rich Soyack
news:9tp1ou060l3ln4fuu...@4ax.com...
> "Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >:|Nope, when you refer to someone's credentials to add weight to your
argument
> >:|you have to provide proof of those credentials. Its really very simple
>
> this answer fits you as well
You have no reply so you denigrate. Got it. None of what you say matters
with respect to
the Newdow Case. As I have said before, when the court's reach their
decision and it is
put in place then we will have something else to discuss. Until then, we
have to wait and see
what the Courts say. And after the Courts have their say we will wait and
see what the Congress
and the States have to say. And after that we will wait until the People,
the highest authority, have
their say.
Rich Soyack
jal...@cox.net
>:|
>:|You have no reply so you denigrate. Got it. None of what you say matters
>:|with respect to
>:|the Newdow Case. As I have said before, when the court's reach their
>:|decision and it is
>:|put in place then we will have something else to discuss. Until then, we
>:|have to wait and see
>:|what the Courts say. And after the Courts have their say we will wait and
>:|see what the Congress
>:|and the States have to say. And after that we will wait until the People,
>:|the highest authority, have
>:|their say.
>:|
>:|Rich Soyack
>:|
Are you leaving now?
My reply is:
From Black's Law Dictionary, my self, the history of Zelman v.
Simmons-Harris, M.A. Newdow and N. J. Blanchett. Now show it to be flawed,
incorrect, if that truly is the case.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F6F7224C1
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L228264C1
http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2C7324C1
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q3D7254C1
Rich Soyack
news:6l02ou8a7bpj7h6fh...@4ax.com...
> "Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >:|
> >:|You have no reply so you denigrate. Got it. None of what you say
matters
> >:|with respect to
> >:|the Newdow Case. As I have said before, when the court's reach their
> >:|decision and it is
> >:|put in place then we will have something else to discuss. Until then,
we
> >:|have to wait and see
> >:|what the Courts say. And after the Courts have their say we will wait
and
> >:|see what the Congress
> >:|and the States have to say. And after that we will wait until the
People,
> >:|the highest authority, have
> >:|their say.
> >:|
> >:|Rich Soyack
> >:|
>
> Are you leaving now?
>
>
> My reply is:
<the usual stuff cut>
Leaving? Why?
Rich Soyack
jal...@cox.net
>:|<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
The usual stuff that you can't deal with
Are you leaving now?
My reply is:
From Black's Law Dictionary, my self, the history of Zelman v.
Simmons-Harris, M.A. Newdow and N. J. Blanchett. Now show it to be flawed,
incorrect, if that truly is the case.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F6F7224C1
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L228264C1
http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2C7324C1
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q3D7254C1
and just to make it more fun:
I posted this to both you and your clone buddy Nemesis in the past and both
you refused to answer then and didn't seem to notice how it began:
The person who sent me that was none other than N. J. Blanchett.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now your turn:
BTW, perhaps you can help me here. A attorney emailed me with this
question:
>:|I am looking for a rational critique of the 9th circuit decision striking
>:|down :under god" in the Pledge. I've heard plenty of overheated rhetoric
>:|and attempted character assassination, but no decent critiques of the legal
>:|reasoning behind the opinion. I thought the opinion was relatively
>:|well-reasoned and certainly conformed with the endorsement test line of
>:|cases in the Supreme Court. I am interested in what legal foundation there
>:|is for opposing it - what will the entire 9th circuit and/or Supreme Court
>:|rely on if, as most so-called experts claim, they over-rule the panel.
>:|Have any of the legal journals done anything? I'm a lawyer and all my
>:|conservative friends (?) are reveling in how badly Newdow will lose on
>:|appeal. I can see he might lose if the courts do a great deal of legal
>:|gymnastics, but I don't see a sound basis for overturning the decision.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Do you know of any decent critiques of the legal reasoning behind the
opinion?
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
Page is a member of the following web rings:
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
American History WebRing--&--Legal Research Ring
**********************************************
Rich Soyack
news:gh22oucdck1591bgs...@4ax.com...
The usual stuff you spew over and over and over and ...
>
> Are you leaving now?
No, I'll stay and laugh at you a bit more.
Rich Soyack
Thumper
wrote:
The court has reached a decision.
Thumper
Thumper
wrote:
It's called the truth numbnuts.
Thumper
Thumper
wrote:
And yet another asshole that pretends he can't tell the difference
between a threat and an invitation to "keep posting crap like this
moron. Everytime you do you show the world what a true asshole you
are."
Some threat you imbecile. It isn't even abusive to point out the
truth about Soyack's and your idiotic claims.
You are pathetic.
Thumper
Rich Soyack
LOL, what a loon you are, thumper. And what a name you choose for yourself.
LOL
Rich Soyack
Rich Soyack
Nope, loon.
Rich Soyack
Rich Soyack
Poor baby doesn't understand how a man of honor would act. You think that
when one is safely hidden behind a phony name and a terminal they can say
anything. A man of honor makes it a point to never say something about
someone
that they wouldn't say to their face. Funny that you keep side stepping
that, thumper.
Rich Soyack
>
> You are pathetic.
> Thumper
>
I stand ready to say anything I have said about you here, to your face.
What about you?
Rich Soyack
Bob LeChevalier
>Do you know of any decent critiques of the legal reasoning behind the
>opinion?
Depends on what you mean by "decent". Nothing great, but here is what
I found on a quick look.
http://www.nljonline.com/aug02/pledge_decision.htm
http://review.law.mercer.edu/old/46302.htm
is actually a more general critique of the line of rulings in recent
years that seems cogently argued, provided that you buy the
assumptions used.
http://dls.state.va.us/pubs/briefs/brief28.htm
discusses the potential impact of the decision on VA, and in so doing
raises legal questions
lojbab
Steve Krulick
Still harping on THAT? Here's from previous posts:
> > >:|You agree with the 9th Circuit. Now we have to wait
> > >:|for the outcome of this case.
> >
> > That is the outcome of the case, until and unless it gets reversed.
>
> The decision is currently stayed.
Action may be stayed, but the decision was made. The decision
was the outcome, and remains unless it gets reversed.
> > >:|And, if the courts decide the words are
> > >:|Unconstitutional, we will have to wait for the People's reaction to the
> > >:|court's decision.
> >
> > What bearing will the people's reactions have?
>
> Didn't you know that the People can override the U. S. Supreme Court's
> decision? You should read the U. S. Constitution some day.
I already asked for clarification on that:
Oh? Show how that has occurred.
In effect, Dred Scott was overturned by a Civil War fought by
"the People" and the passage of the 14th Amen, passed by
LEGISLATURES elected by "the People." And Plessey v Ferguson was
overturned by a later court in Brown v Board of Education after
"the People" changed their way of thinking to some degree.
But "the People" themselves "overturned" a SCotUS opinion? Show
where in the Const that is established. And if you DO mean by
amendment, that doesn't overturn a decision; it creates a new
standard against which new laws will be interpreted, rather than
by old standards. Was Dred Scott dredged up in the courtroom and
overturned? NO, it just became moot, as new laws were
interpreted against the post-Civil War amendments.
Further to that:
> > Mind giving the clause that states that "the People can override
> > the U.S. Supreme Court's decision."?
>
> Didn't you know that in the United States of America the people have the
> final say.
Are you now claiming that there's a clause in the Const as
follows: "The People have the final say"? Guffaw!
YOU made the claim above and I am asking for the specific
mechanism in the Const that discusses the People 'overriding' a
SCotUS decision, where it is, and how it works. YOU keep
side-stepping and straw-slinging, Soybean. Face it, you blew it,
and you can't admit it.
And all that goes back to July and August, with STILL no answer!
I'm still waiting for his refutation of all MY evidence that
refutes his claims and straw.
MINSTREL (singing): Brave Rich Soyack ran away
Bravely ran away away
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes Brave Rich Soyack turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave Rich Soyack
Packing it in and packing it up
And sneaking away and buggering off
And chickening out and pissing off home
Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge...
--
Steven Krulick
s...@krulick.com
Ellenville NY 12428-130727
Steve Krulick
(I posted the following to Soyboy on July 26th but it STILL
hasn't been addressed!)
Still missing the point. The DECISION was reached! IT exists and
the basis for it is the previous SCotUS case law; nothing since
the ruling changes WHAT it was based on, such as the Lemon test
and the other precedents. The argument on how those decisions
were applied by Goodwin is NOT changed by stays or en banc
review. I asked YOU to provide reasons WHY Goodwin's argument
based on the SCotUS precedents are not good arguments, and you
failed to do that. You still fail to do that, and that is why
you are still side-stepping...
Goodwin's decision WAS made, it exists, and the argument stands
on SETTLED SCOTUS CASE LAW! WHAT in the settled case law that
Goodwin cited do YOU specifically DISAGREE WITH, AND WHY!...
The OUTCOME, the actual decision Goodwin ALREADY wrote, won't be
changed ONE WHIT by anything that happens later, as it stands on
its own merits. What YOU won't do is face the decision and tell
us what in Goodwin's reasoning is erroneous; the en banc panel
and the SCotUS will have to do the same thing, so YOU are
getting first crack at it here!...
No, I presented issues and challenged your straw and asked you
to provide the specific points in the actual ruling related to
the previous settled case law from the SCotUS that you disagreed
with; you ignored all that and came forth with more straw and
side-stepping. There was NO discussion.
Thumper
wrote:
I side step nothing but I can see why you would think that because
that is all you do. Grown ups stand by their words. Telling someone
that they don't have the courage to say that to your face implies that
there is some danger in doing so. That is a threat and you are the
coward for not owning up to the fact that you threatened him.
Everyone reading this thread can see who the real coward is. Only the
lowest of cowards like your self runs from their own words. You
probably sleep with the light on with your thumb in your mouth and
hugging your blanky.
Thumper