The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
Joined: Fri January 04, 2013 1:46 am Posts: 2837 Location: Connecticut
BurtReynolds wrote:
It's funny watching Bill Kristol suddenly turn against overturning Roe after decades of limp-dicked writing saying it should be overturned. What a shocking surprise!
I’ve also noticed this. He’s the anti-trump republican who gets too into the identity. JD Vance is going the opposite way.
An enigma of a man shaped hole in the wall between reality and the soul of the devil.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:13 pm Posts: 39820 Location: 6000 feet beyond man and time.
Kristol in every TV appearance with democrats: "yeah I basically agree with you, but maybe we should slow down a bit. No need to rush things. Also we should give more money to Israel and invade more countries."
Kristol in every TV appearance with democrats: "yeah I basically agree with you, but maybe we should slow down a bit. No need to rush things. Also we should give more money to Israel and invade more countries."
Gorsuch is on record wanting to overturn Chevron. Apparently his mother was the head of the EPA at the time of the ruling in question. What would Freud say about this?
_________________ "I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm Posts: 6932
Sticking with my general interpretation of the Religion Clause as "government shall neither favor nor disfavor religion", I'm inclined to think that the Court got this one right.
Yeah, not a surprising result. And I'm assuming the dissent said that this is an establishment not a free-exercise issue?
_________________ "I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
Sticking with my general interpretation of the Religion Clause as "government shall neither favor nor disfavor religion", I'm inclined to think that the Court got this one right.
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm Posts: 6932
simple schoolboy wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
Sticking with my general interpretation of the Religion Clause as "government shall neither favor nor disfavor religion", I'm inclined to think that the Court got this one right.
I think the trollier one is someone starting their own religion and building their own school for it.
Yeah, not a surprising result. And I'm assuming the dissent said that this is an establishment not a free-exercise issue?
Breyer has a good challenge to my core view here, I'll have to consider this further.
The impetus for the original law was anti-catholic bias, so I don't know how this analysis holds up. Promoting religion over non-religion seems just dandy.
Sticking with my general interpretation of the Religion Clause as "government shall neither favor nor disfavor religion", I'm inclined to think that the Court got this one right.
I think the trollier one is someone starting their own religion and building their own school for it.
Several folks were talking about church of Satan schools. Good luck funding a school with like 5 students.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 64 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum