Veering into uncharted territory for me

[maloneepony]

Ok, I don't normally speak on issues of a political nature, mostly because I don't see myself as political. I don't see myself as either Democrat or Republican (the child in me almost stooped to writing Democrap and Repooplican...sheesh grow up Dave

Comments

Re: Misinformed Nonsense

[beldurin]

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Reading your comment, I'm going to guess that the answer is "no." Perhaps you should have showed up to school to fucking learn a little more often. I'm not going to bother debating the Bolton appointment, as I don't necessarily think he's the best man for the job. Roberts, however, deserves a bit of time.

First of all, by inserting the words "douche" and "fucker" into what I can only assume is supposed to be political completely invalidates your credibility from the outset. Secondly, how exactly does Judge Roberts "mock half of what we stand for?" Also, by "taking it upon himself to blah, blah, blah" in the capacity of a Supreme Court Justice he'd actually be *gasp* doing his job. The role of the SC is to interpret and rule on any questions or issues relating to Constitutional law. Roberts has taken that stance; unlike so many (mostly) left-wing activist judges who have taken it upon themselves to legislate from the bench. That is unacceptable.

The worst part is, your greatest argument is also the one with the least basis. But it's not your fault. You've fallen victim to what is probably the greatest fallacy of our ailing political education. Tell me, where in the constitution does the phrase "separation of church and state" appear? Which article? Which amendment? I'll save you the time. The answer is: nowhere. The First Amendment states that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

First of all, note that religion is mentioned first in the Bill of Rights; mentioned before speech, press, assembly, petition for redress of grievances, bearing of arms, etc. To the framers, religion was that important. Now, nowhere does it say that religion and government are to be separated. It states only that Congress cannot mandate a state religion. Why did they do this? Because they were Protestants (meaning they protested the rule of the Catholic/Anglican church back in England). Do you still think that they favored such separation? They had no intention of creating an entirely secular government. Then where did these come from?

-In God We Trust (on our money)
-One Nation Under God (Pledge of Allegiance)
- We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights (Declaration of Independence)

We’ll return to the issue of the framers’ intent later. For now, let's look at the second part of that First Amendment statement:

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Unless I've missed something (and I haven't), there can only be one interpretation of this statement; that banning prayer in school is unconstitutional. So by the standards of Constitutional accuracy, Roberts' stance is correct.

The true question is whether questions of Constitutional law should be decided based on literal interpretation of the document, the intent of the framers, or the personal political ideals of the Justices? Or for that matter those of modern society? The only real solution is a balance. We cannot base our society upon a document that is more than 200 years old, nor should we rely upon guesses what it's authors intended, especially since they could not possibly comprehend a globalized society. We also cannot permit activists with political agendas to decide based solely upon their own particular ethos. This is exactly why the position of SC Justice is a lifetime appointment, to free them from political tides and prevent undue influence.

Judge Roberts is a good, solid, moderate Republican. Yes, he is a Republican. Did you expect Bush to nominate a Libertarian? He may be a bit of a stealth nominee, but he has shown no extremist actions/views/rulings. He has, to all accounts ruled fairly and evenly throughout his career, and seems to have both an abiding respect for the Constitution, and a strong, reasonable belief structure. You're not likely to find a better candidate under the circumstances.

Now, if you're going to step into the political arena, you'd better be armed with more than profanity and hearsay. And Heaven forbid you do your fucking homework ahead of time.