Bold decision: Lets see how powerful our courts can still be

[Bill Blake]

web page (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/pledge.of.allegiance.reut/index.html)

[mhd]

great post!
i would argue that the courts have already shown tremendous courage, the 9th circuit at least, in defying the administration. We already know how the Supremes will rule, hell i'm sure the opinion is already written.

i did not realize "under God" was added in 1954, that was a busy year

[Bill Blake]

I honestly don’t see how the supreme court, given the fact that it is even the conservative side that are the more strict, literal interpreters are going to be able to overrule on the verdict.

It discriminates against atheists, which is a clear violation of the first amendment.

The original was secular in nature so there is historical precedence.

As a side not the ‘In God We Trust’ was a late bloomer on the dollar bill as well (I believe the 1800’s).

It goes to show you time and time again how the original creators of the constitution were deists, of the age of reason and not anything like so many of these dogmatic fools we find in their place today.

But this ruling will be VERY important because if the supreme court upholds the ruling that it can be a positive indicator that the judicial branch does still have some form of independence and can check the executive branch, which neither congress or the judiciary has been doing a good job of for….at least a good 70 years?

Lets hope they send a big **** you to Bush and Ashcroft and that constitution still rules the land in the end, that there is a SEPERATION between church and state, and there are some reasonable people still in power that know that.

[Bold Soul]

Incredibly insightful Jamie and MHD. Thank you for that.

I especially appreciate your comment about the founding fathers being deists. Very insightful indeed.

[gabriel]

i'm sorry but i don't see this as an issue of sending a big **** you to anyone. supreme court ruling has little to do with this administration and them sending a big **** you to another branch of the government.

but were they to take up the case it will be a very interesting opinion to read, especially depending on the author.

[ngeso]

reminds me of a run-in i had with my homeroom-teacher when i was 15 years old for refusing to recite the pledge. the woman, a language arts teacher no less, was an absolute moron - i had to actually drag out the principal in front of the whole class to explain to her that "this student" is not required to do so. 20 years later it is still worth a smile every now and then. ignorant cow.....

[mhd]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
I honestly don’t see how the supreme court, given the fact that it is even the conservative side that are the more strict, literal interpreters are going to be able to overrule on the verdict.

It discriminates against atheists, which is a clear violation of the first amendment.

The original was secular in nature so there is historical precedence.

As a side not the ‘In God We Trust’ was a late bloomer on the dollar bill as well (I believe the 1800’s).

It goes to show you time and time again how the original creators of the constitution were deists, of the age of reason and not anything like so many of these dogmatic fools we find in their place today.

But this ruling will be VERY important because if the supreme court upholds the ruling that it can be a positive indicator that the judicial branch does still have some form of independence and can check the executive branch, which neither congress or the judiciary has been doing a good job of for….at least a good 70 years?

Lets hope they send a big **** you to Bush and Ashcroft and that constitution still rules the land in the end, that there is a SEPERATION between church and state, and there are some reasonable people still in power that know that.your optimisn is heartwarming

[Querck]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
[QB]

It goes to show you time and time again how the original creators of the constitution were deists, of the age of reason and not anything like so many of these dogmatic fools we find in their place today.

QB]Yeah, they sure were "reasonable" enough to be slave-owners--talk about dogma...

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by gabrielloveshouse:
i'm sorry but i don't see this as an issue of sending a big **** you to anyone. supreme court ruling has little to do with this administration and them sending a big **** you to another branch of the government.

but were they to take up the case it will be a very interesting opinion to read, especially depending on the author.Well the fear is always that America will have a similar fate like that of Rome. Whether or not it does has serious implications about historical progress and the real possibility to establish and maintain restrictions on government power.

The Roman republic fell when the senate was essentially a puppet show with no authority to restrict the executive and became a dictatorship.

This fate may seem all too ominous but the constitution and its restrictions on government are the most unprecedented attempt in the history of mankind to keep government in check.

It has a far more sophisticated approach than anything Rome had. The founders were well aware of mans/governments inclination for power and were not naïve.

One of these mechanisms is of course the establishment of the three branches of government and most importantly the powers given to each to check one another.

Usually one branch will exercise its power more than the other branches for some time (like the judicial branch did in the early 1900’s) but then another branch will pop up and check and then exercise its power and so on. But it appears that the executive branch for various reasons has been overtly allowed to exercise its power with virtually little or no checks by the other two branches for some time now.

If this continues it could be an indicator that the checks and balance mechanism has broken down and that leaves the executive open for possibility of dictatorships.

We have had arrogant, bullheaded presidents before but not so far removed from the inherent political principles that guide America political philosophy as much as Bush and without the fear of being unchecked.

It is this unchecked power that has been in place in the executive that further enforces his will to be so imposing on the rest of the world.

Any check and balance from the courts on a fundamental issue in classical liberalism is a reminder that no matter how much power he thinks he has, he is still subject to the law and that is a good thing. It reminds him and his cronies that their will is not the will of America and that type of lesson needs to imposed.

Also as mhd can elaborate on, one of the biggest ongoing debates in American political and legal philosophy is whether or not or to what extent the judiciary is in reality as independent from the grasp of the other two branches and the will of the people as it was intended to be so it could make legal constitution decisions without influence from unreasonable bias. These types of decision indicate a great deal for that debate.

[ March 05, 2003, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: Jamie Lennox ]

[Querck]

Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:

Also as mhd can elaborate on, one of the biggest ongoing debates in American political and legal philosophy is whether or not or to what extent the judiciary is in reality as independent from the grasp of the other two branches and the will of the people as it was intended to be so it could make legal constitution decisions without influence from unreasonable bias. These types of decision indicate a great deal for that debate.[/QB]The Judiciary has at times been independent, and at times, not so independent. A good example of this was when Brown v. Board of Education came up (segregation case), Pres. Eisenhower appointed Justice Warren, believeing that Warren would get the court to uphold segregation, but Warren went the other way against the President that appointed him. More recently, the Supreme Court has been very political. In a way, this is unavoidable as the judges are unable to remove their personal beliefs from their job. The Bush v. Gore fiasco exposed just how political the Supreme court really is.

[mhd]

Originally posted by dannyboy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:

Also as mhd can elaborate on, one of the biggest ongoing debates in American political and legal philosophy is whether or not or to what extent the judiciary is in reality as independent from the grasp of the other two branches and the will of the people as it was intended to be so it could make legal constitution decisions without influence from unreasonable bias. These types of decision indicate a great deal for that debate.The Judiciary has at times been independent, and at times, not so independent. A good example of this was when Brown v. Board of Education came up (segregation case), Pres. Eisenhower appointed Justice Warren, believeing that Warren would get the court to uphold segregation, but Warren went the other way against the President that appointed him. More recently, the Supreme Court has been very political. In a way, this is unavoidable as the judges are unable to remove their personal beliefs from their job. The Bush v. Gore fiasco exposed just how political the Supreme court really is.[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]exactly, great point. the warren court is legendary for the expansion of rights and its independence, a good book and easy read is The Brethren. Today's political climate, beginning with the monumental battle against conservative Robert Bork and culminating in Clarence Thomas' nomination insures that every justice will be subject to a litmus test, in other words, a prediction as to how they will rule.

in fact, many blacks supported thomas with the view that race would eventually trump ideology and thomas would be a "sleeper" like earl warren, the opposite has actually happened. thomas is one of if not the most conservative justices.

to truly have an independent judiciary takes men and women of courage principle and integrity who are able to see beyond their own self-interest. these qualities are in short supply throuhout society, no reason to think they exist in at least 5 of the nine. i'm not optimistic

[Bill Blake]

I was referring more to the incentives that constitution created like lifetime appointment to help independence versus the extent to which appointment by the executive even with congress involved may hinder independence. Meaning do the mechanisms that are in place really create an independent branch? What are the ways that the process is set up that allows politics to hinder independance?

But yes you are both right in that ultimately it boils down the integrity of the judge.