tvc184

I write Bill Maher's scripts but that is not an issue. 

  Maybe it was in the form of political humor. 

  A perfectly acceptable portmanteau.    (...and no footballer06, I didn't have to google it, didn't read it off of wikipedia, didn't call bullets13 for some grammar lessons or otherwise plagiarize it from any other source)

  Again, I didn't get it off of anything. In fact I doubt that you can find anything I said on wikipedia other than a quote of the First Amendment and you can find that in a lot of places. 

If it is a school sponsored webpage, I can see where it is likely a problem.   As far as the group, as long as it is not a class or a school sponsored group per se, simply being a teacher does not stop someone from practicing religion as that person sees fit. 

  It is according to what you call the "same" SCOTUS. There are four different justices on Obamacare than there were on SFISD v. Doe. Basically half the court changed and with that, likely so does opinions.    As far as Christians and abortion, if people had to put down a religion or lack thereof when getting one, I'll bet that way over 50% are Christians.    The "freedom from religion" argument doesn't hold water. The only thing that matters in this and similar cases is a government entity injecting itself into the mix. They cannot stop the free expression of religion but neither can they assist in it. That is what they have been ruled to do in SFISD v. Doe where it was a school field, a school student, a school PA system at a school sponsored event. A public school district is just as much a government as the US Congress.    The First Amendment is often (and I think in this thread) misquoted or interpreted as saying the federal government can not endorse or mandate a specific religion. That is not what the FA says.    It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". It does not say that is cannot establish law of "a" religion. It only says "religion" as in any or no religion collectively. I hear so many times when people will say that the FA only says that the government cannot establish a religion or a specific religion and it says nothing of the sort. 

  I do not need to use google to know history. What is amazing is how little of it so many people know.    I repent every day and it isn't with a borrowed Bible.    ... and you want to talk about someone else trying to sound educated. Feel free to go proselytize elsewhere. 

  I started to move it on the first page but thought there might be too much whining. 

A satire?

    It is not a violation of criminal law. As I said on page two of this thread (post #21), if anyone ever contests it, Vidor would stand to lose severe civil penalties. It is called contempt of court for violating a court's order.    I also said in the same post that I applaud what they did. It is just like loud music. It is against state law and in many places, city ordinance. If no one complains then it is no big deal. If there is a complaint however, there is a good chance of a citation or an arrest. It is the same here. If no one ever complains, it will not be heard from. If it is like in Kountze where someone did complain, get ready.    Not liking the law does not negate the law.   

  Partly true. Actually the very conservative Fifth Circuit (federal jurisdiction over Texas) said that it was unconstitutional. Had the case not even been granted review by the SCOTUS, it was still ruled unconstitutional in TX, LA and MS. The SCOTUS only reaffirmed the lower court ruling. 

I think its asistents butt I dont won't to play spellin nazi. 

  It's a pygmy of your imagination. 

Yeah but it was from an unreliable source, that well known conservative website of ABC News. 

  "One nation under God"..... as in the Pledge of Allegiance? .... that had that phrase added (actually only "under God" was added)...... in 1954?    I don't think any of the "founding fathers" were alive at that moment in history. 

Pretty funny punch line. 

  You're welcome. 

  You just argued against yourself.    Yes, they get away with it but I assume that you do agree that they are breaking the law (to the point of placing you in fear for your life) and that speeding law is not unconstitutional. Merely getting away with it doesn't make it right.    Better go back for another analogy.  :)

  Yes, it was answered.    What are you looking for, what the individual judges had in their minds when they voted? I can read their decisions and I can show you where it is constitutional for them to do so but I have yet to figure out how to read their minds or maybe you need to rephrase you question. 

Oh yeah, I bowed my head during the prayer in Vidor and also clapped. I applaud their decision however if someone ever contests it in a lawsuit, under the current case law I believe that Vidor would lose and suffer heavy civil penalties if they continued. 

  Because our constitutional republic was laid out for the very reason that a majority cannot take away rights of an individual. Can the still majority of whites in this country vote out minorities? Sorry Black, Asian, Hispanics..... we vote that you no longer have indisputable rights. We have voted them out.    Like the saying goes (usually wrongfully attributed to Benjamin Franklin), "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for dinner". That is the difference between democracy and freedom. Freedom is the rights of the individual over the majority.    Do you really want to give up any rights on a simply majority vote? I do not. 

  Geez.   Article III Section 1 of the US Constitution says "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court".    Section 2 goes on to say: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution".    So the SCOTUS has the judicial power of the USA. That power shall extend to "all" cases arising under the Constitution.    Cases have come before the SCOTUS regarding your question and under the Constitution, they have rendered verdicts which they have the constitutional authority to make (See Article III, Sections 1, 2).      I can understand when people say they do not like or agree with a ruling. I can say that about Obamacare but the case was presented and a verdict was rendered. If you don't like some decisions, great. When you ask "why deem" if something is "constitutionally correct", read the aforementioned sections.    It is like people only want to read the parts of the Constitution that they like and ignore the sticky parts. 

  Too easy.   The Constitution was around when there was slavery. The Constitution was around when women could not vote. The Constitution was around when the police got confessions without allowing the Fifth or Sixth Amendments and before Miranda came out in 1966 (almost 200 years as a country). The Constitution was around when the police could arrest for "suspicion" and did not have probable cause. The Constitution was around .........   So where do you want me to stop?   Under your premise, there is no longer a need for the Supreme Court because all constitutional issues have been rendered. 

    I hate to weigh in on this again but that argument is invalid and the very reason for our constitution. The majority does not rule if it violates the constitutional rights of another. If the majority votes that the police can search your house without cause or without a warrant, would that simple majority vote invalidate the Fourth Amendment?    I could go on with almost endless examples but the majority does not rule if it is in conflict with the Constitution. 

  As me in 6 weeks.