Supreme Court rules Christian prayer at public meetings okay

[Cyrano]

The court ruled in favor of the town of Greece, N.Y., a Rochester suburb that has opened its monthly public meetings with a Christian prayer since 1999. Two residents, one Jewish and the other atheist, claimed that because the prayers were almost always Christian, the practice amounted to government endorsement of a single faith.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-upholds-prayer-public-meetings-n97221

Today's vote was, of course, five to four with the liberal four voting against it and the crazy five voting for it.

If one of the crazy five seats becomes vacant while Obama is still prez, we're going to see a virtual civil war over who he appoints to fill it.

[Boomerproud]

1. SCOTUS is out of control.

n/t

[IronGate]

3. The Obama Admin. supported this also,

does that mean that Pres. Obama is out of control?

[randys1]

5. Man oh man, you sure are invested in this decision, you are posting like mad about how

Obama is for it too, what is your angle?

do you hate Obama or are you a religious person ( I will leave out the insult, I think anyone who believes in an invisible man in the sky is a moron and yes I know that includes a long list of smart people like Obama, so I guess they are morons only in that one area)

[IronGate]

12. Just pointing out that the Obama Admin. supported the town's position also.

[msongs]

24. you must not criticize the all powerful leader lol nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

21. What insult did you leave out?

[1000words]

22. The truth stung there, didn't it?

randy has an owie ...

[randys1]

36. what truth is that? that Obama supported this?

I have no idea what you are talking about, surely you understand this decision violates the constitution?

[rhett o rick]

33. I am invested in this decision also. My angle is that this ruling sets us back a generation.

And the fact that the Obama administration supported it is terrible but not shocking.

This is nothing more than allowing Christians to proselytize their religion at government meetings.

[randys1]

35. Yeah, the country is done, over, out. Carlin was right, we are no more.

The question is what next.

The constitution is just a piece of paper the SC CHief Justice wipes his ass with along with the other 4, and you have people who are cheering each time horrific damage is done to our nation.

Personally I think the whole ideas of countries is childish in the first place.

[Cyrano]

6. Purely political move

They don't want to give the right wing echo chamber a rallying cry of "ANTI CHRISTIAN."

Daryl Issa would immediately call an investigation and "ANTI CHRISTIAN" would become another "BENGHAZI" rallying shriek to whip up the lunatic fringe for the fall elections.

[randys1]

8. I watched "Years of Living Dangerously" last night and I was on fire mad

Almost the entire episode (great episode, not attacking the show) was about how we need to convince a rich, famous preacher who thinks Obama stole the WH from white people, that Climate change is real

This man has no business owning a shoe shine stand let alone being so important we have to convince him

This country is so completely turned around backwards that it is insane.

[msanthrope]

9. Care to cite that? nt

[IronGate]

13. No problem.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-upholds-prayer-public-meetings-n97221

The town had the support of 23 states, 119 members of the U.S. Senate and House, and the Obama administration. They noted that the tradition of legislative prayer began with the very first session of Congress.

[Cyrano]

14. See post #6 above

[randys1]

16. why is it so important to you to see this clear violation of our constitution go forward?

or why is it so important for you to drag OBAMA in, it has to be one of two reasons

a. you hate Obama and take every chance you can to take shots at him (i am new here and dont know you, have no clue who you are or what you believe)

or

b. you are religious and this decision makes you happy

[IronGate]

17. Dude, you need to take the tin foil hat off.

All I did was point out that the Obama Admin filed a brief supporting the town's position and when I was asked to cite it, I posted the info.


Get a grip.

[randys1]

27. that isnt what you did AT ALl

as if you were being paid to you went to every single post or thread about this and made this comment

you have a vested interest, you just wont admit what it is

[IronGate]

31. What the hell are you talking about? ALI? What the hell is that?

I won't admit anything because I have no vested interest, again, all I did was point out that the Obama Admin. filed a friend of the court brief in support of the town.

If you don't believe that, then that's your problem.

[rhett o rick]

34. Why are you concentrating on what he "did" and not the issue at hand? nm

[randys1]

37. Because he is here to support this ridiculous decision and it pisses me off anyone could

If not in support of it I guess I couldnt figure out why he looked for multiple places to make that point

Where I come from that usually means someone is in support of it.

Or is taking the opportunity to take a dig at Obama

If it is none of those, then OK, fine...

[rhett o rick]

39. I dont disagree that this decision is a giant step backward which was supported by Pres Obama. nm

[randys1]

40. God damn politicians, all of them, I want to vote for an atheist

[IronGate]

43. I'm here to support this decision?

Link to a post where I said I support this RW decision?

Get over yourself.

[randys1]

44. I said that was the only conclusion I could come to, that or you were making sure

everybody knew where Obama stood on this, I just didnt understand why you made the same post several times.

Never mind, not important, we ALL agree it is a violation if the constitution and if I was wrong about you I apologize.

Speaking of unions, I have a friend, or my wife's friend, who worked for Safeway and for years her union protected her because she is a very nasty person and was mean to customers, finally the store fired her and of course she blames the union, I told her the union is the only reason she wasnt fired 20 yrs ago but she refers to Michelle Obama as a baboon so what can you expect.

[IronGate]

46. Thank you for the apology.

Unions are great, but they can only protect a member for so long if that member keeps screwing up.
The IAFF is a very strong union affliated with the AFL-CIO, however there are certain restrictions as a FF union that aren't pertinent to a traditional union, like we are barred from going on strike, work stoppages, things like that, but we usually do get what we negotiate for so it all evens out.

[randys1]

47. I cant understand how Joe and Jane doe america can hate unions, but many do

The propaganda campaign against unions has been amazingly effective.

Working people, in unions, receiving benefits, who HATE the unions.

wow

[rhett o rick]

38. Actually, yes. This is a horrible decision. Now at a meeting, if they have a Christian prayer, then

all that do not participate mark themselves as non-Christian. It's none of anyone's business. It's Christian proselytizing.

If Christians want their God to bless the meeting, they can do it silently with no demonstrative actions. I hope you arent supporting the five conservative bastards on the SCOTUS.

[IronGate]

42. To be absolutely clear,

I do not support this RW decision in the least, all I was pointing out was that the Obama Admin. filed an amicus brief in support of the town's position.

[rhett o rick]

50. Thanks for the clarification. I think Pres Obama was wrong again. nm

[randys1]

45. Next the polling places will require you identify with a sign what party you are with

so you can be harassed

like the good ole days

[L0oniX]

23. SCOTUS is illegit and invalid. It's political and moneyed and that invalidates itself.

Which drain did impartiality go down?

[Cyrano]

25. Legal and illegal have lost their meaning in this country

We are ruled by power and wealth and the five crazies on SCOTUS know it. They know they are free to anything they want to and have repeatedly done so.

[onenote]

28. If you think that the politicization of the Supreme Court is new

you need to study history.

Here's a quote for you:

"No matter whether th' Constitution follows th' flag or not, th' Supreme Court follows th' illiction returns."

That line was authored by Finley Peter Dunne, a humorist and commentator on the political scene. He wrote it in 1899.

[L0oniX]

29. WTF Where in the hell do you read that I am saying it's new???

FFS Try again!

[onenote]

32. Sorry. When you said "Which drain did impartiality go down?"

it sounded to me like you thought this was something that had happened recently as opposed to being the way it always has been.

[rhett o rick]

49. The SCOTUS power is out of balance for democracy. Their power far exceeds

what our founders intended and what the Constitution allows. The decisions of the president and Congress can be fairly easily changed via failure of the people to reelect if not otherwise. The decisions of the all powerful SCOTUS, in some instances, require a Constitutional Amendment which is very difficult.

[Atman]

2. Of course they did.

I'm so disgusted with this group.

[951-Riverside]

4. There are two things I hate about going to public meetings...

The pledge of allegiance and the prayers. The first one is an unarmerican ritual that intimidates and forces people into pledging to a piece of cloth (Sorry, but this isnt China, I should have a choice not to participate without fear of being harassed if I don't) and the other is actually anti Christian

Matthew 6:6

But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you

.

[FSogol]

7. We need 3 more terms of a Democratic President to fix this problem. n/t

[Cyrano]

10. Let's just hope they don't get the chance to appoint another prez

the way they appointed Bush Jr. in 2000.

[randys1]

11. Yeah, and replacing SC with non criminals would do it

But every day the Dem party becomes more and more Wall Street corrupted, so the long term answer is absolutely not in either of these two parties

Short term it is almost reasonable party vs the worst group of disgusting moronic criminals in history, so the choice is simple

[Orrex]

15. Sadly, I should think that anyone could have seen this coming.

There was no doubt in my mind that they'd rule this way. If the letter of the law doesn't specifically endorse Christianity or ban other (non)faiths, then the SCOTUS majority doesn't care what "the practice amounted to."

I'm not exactly disappointed because the outcome was clear all along, so I had no other expectation.

[tritsofme]

18. If they take the Senate in November, they won't let Obama fill a vacancy

Especially if it is one of their five. That's why even a 50/50 Senate is critical for the next two years.

[Cyrano]

19. If they take the Senate,

we'll be screwed beyond belief.

But even if we hold it, the new Senate rule on judges doesn't cover Supreme Court appointments. If Scalia, (or one of the other nuts), is gone, the battle over an Obama appointment will be long, loud and extremely ugly.

[tritsofme]

20. That is a mere formality

After Reid's action last year, no one believes that either party would tolerate a Supreme Court filibuster, if they control the WH and the Senate.

The only reason Reid didn't touch the button at the time because he didn't have to.

My guess is that if they take the Senate, the nuclear option will be reversed immediately, and in the unlikely event any executive appointments make it to the floor, they will be killed with 41 votes.

[Calista241]

41. They'll leave the nuclear option in.

Why reverse it? They're not going to give power back to the minority. They can do what they want, and the President will just have to deal with two chambers of crazy.

[tritsofme]

48. If they control the Senate and not the WH, and their agenda is obstruction

It would behoove them to reverse the nuclear option. Then they can block Obama's nominees with 41 votes instead of having to round up 51 to kill it. This would also discourage a couple "moderate Republicans" from working with a united Democratic minority to move uncontroversial nominees.

Reid's precedent means that future Senate majority leaders will change these rules back and forth depending on which party has the WH.

[Dawson Leery]

26. ....

"you can get away with anything in this country if you can get the word 'Reverend' put in front of your name." - Christopher Hitchens

[Bluenorthwest]

30. SCOTUS is a joke

The current bench is an insult to the institution and to the American people.