Supreme Court tell moron to get lost.
 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ourt_pledge_dc


It's about time these asshats were given the bumb's rush.

They didn't address anything. They threw it out on a technicality, not based on the complaint.

LOL amzes me that shit flowing in the us legal system

12Clicks, are you obsessed with bringing down morons?

all justices who talked about it said they would have ruled against this dope if it was a proper complaint.

He's not qualified to present the case. no drama.

"Under God" is not original to the pledge anyway. When I was a child, they allowed us to simply not say those two words which were added by politicians if we didnt want to.

Live and let live.

Quoted for illustrative purposes only.

Communism in the USSR, and the USSR itself, is a dead issue.

Whats it about now? China? :1orglaugh
Nah, that cant be it.

Cuba, of course! :winkwink:

AH yes, those cubans and their swarthy looks and big fat cigars.. curses! :1orglaugh

hey, theres something different about your face in your sig.. more cleavage maybe? hehe

trying to fight religion when Republicans are in power just isnt gonna work

LOL... It's funny watching pornographers argue about god... :1orglaugh

:1orglaugh

As my lawyer once told a judge: The law is not a technicality.

I won.

:glugglug

"Under God" is a joke, and was never the intention of the pledge's original author.

If you care to inform yourself about the reality of the matter, read:

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

Or if you just want the pledge to support whatever you like, move along.

I'm so sick of fucking conservatives, especially pornographer conservatives, that I don't want to even participate in this thread.

Let's just say that I hope all you fucks end up living under the kind of government you think you want.

how stupid can people really get?

uhm they didn't rule against him...

I couldn't have said it better.
Unfortunately, if they live under the kind of government they think they want, then I have too also.

what does one have to do with the other?

the technicality being that he did not even have custody of the child he was filing on behalf of

Sometimes the saying that "a man that acts as his own attorney has a fool for a client" rings very true.

This guy can't even get joint custody, he really should hire a pro if he can't accomplish what is normally a given.

One Nation Under Satan

Tom_PM yep...Eisenhower wasn't particularily religious either, but he wanted any God as opposed to being godless. An interesting time in both the Cold War and American religious history.

dig420-- yeah, I often wish some conservatives, especially the ignorant trailer park / fish would receive exactly what they think they want.

gosh, ive never seen anyone so tirelessly filter every story to fit his perspective, instead of rationally and intelligently form a perspective from the facts. 12clicks, it wont hurt to take a look other than that of rush limbaugh conservative politics at an issue facing us today. fact is, the founders of this country you profess to love so deeply intentionally and deliberately sought a complete seperation between orthodoxy and the government. the motivation was to prevent the splintering, discrimination, and argumentation they had seen in England, and that which we see today- this shouldnt even be an issue to be fought about.
I guess I would ask you 12clicks, why would you want the pledge to retain the words "under God"?

B/c who really gives a fuck?

It was just a bit of hyperbole for dramatic effect. I actually wouldn't wish that on anyone. Eventually the lunatic right will be so discredited that they'll be back on the fringe and these guys will once again simply be considered 'eccentric' rather than dangerous.

Hopefully there won't be too much more damage done in the meantime :glugglug

believing in God is like believing in magic.

"Newdow, who is not a practicing attorney, made an impressive, impassioned argument, declaring his daughter would be singled out by not saying the Pledge, and would be coerced to participate. "Imagine you're a third-grader in a class of 30 kids. That's enormous pressure to put on a child" to conform, Newdow said. "Government needs to stay out of the religion business altogether."

Newdow also said, "I want my belief system to be given the same weight" as those with a particular religious faith. He said using the pledge as written amounts to having the government tell his daughter "her father is wrong" because of what he believes."

He's not an asshat. He's right.

And you know it. That makes you even more pathetic.

:1orglaugh

poor diglet and his irrational misunderstanding of the world around him.:1orglaugh

diglet, its not conservatives trying to overturn the status quo, its lunatic liberals like yourself.

it's.

Sounds like he might have a bit of a God complex himself, an ER doctor who has a law degree, is probably just a little bit egotistical. ;)

The pledge of allegiance issue seems petty and ridiculous to many folks, myself included, but the underlying issue I believe Newdow wanted decided was whether it was proper that a parent with sole custody be able to make exclusive decisions about the raising of a child.

One can change the scenario just a bit and have the Mom wanting to have the child actively practice being a heavy duty Scientologist or Moony or Hari Krishna member against the desires of the Dad and this issue suddenly doesnt seem so petty. The Supreme Court merely pushed this issue to the backburner. It will return in a different form one day.

son, the onlyissue facing us today is that some lunatic with an agenda 99% of the people disagree with wasted the supreme court's time with his bullshit.
The *issue* is the lunatic fringe being ignored by the people, the legislature, and the executive branch of the government, wasting our tax dollars with the help of the ultra liberal california court. nothing more.

only half right. next time you read a book, finish it. The first amendment was a protection from the state endorsing one religion over another because of the religious strife in england caused by the back and forth flip flopping of state religions by such manipulative rulers asEdwardVI, Henry VIII, Bloody Mary (do you know how she got her name), ElisabethI, etc. from catholic to protestant to church of England.
In spite of this prohibition, religion was a central part of almost everyone's life during the time of our founding fathers. Thus, the word "God" which favors no particular religion, was used liberally. It's only now where idiot atheists pretend atheism is a religion, that we have a problem with the pretend infringement of the constitution by "in god we trust" or under god" or "so help me god"


we see government backed "splintering, discrimination, and argumentation" ?
lets see the links, liar.


you're right. you idiot liberals should get a job.
Because at its time of inclusion into the pledge, the public was happy to have it, in all of the time its been included, no one has been hurt by it, and the vast majority of
Americans want it to stay in there today.


You see, its ok to be a dopey liberal, just don't expect intelligent people to go along with your lunatic fringe ideas.:thumbsup

I don't think you can accurately categorize this case as one done with a liberal agenda. The desire of one parent to prevent the other parent from imposing religion on their child would seem to be equally a conservative agenda as it could be a liberal one.

The courts, for reasons we don't know, felt that *SOLE* custody (a VASTLY different and more telling condition than SHARED custody) should be given to the mother. The courts felt that HER lifestyle (religion included) was what was best for the child.
And considering the lunatic actions of the father, I'm sure the courts were correct in giving the mother FULL custody.

Sole custody is often awarded to the parent who is not the most stable. In many jurisdictions the mother gets sole custody, even if the father is more stable. Here is another real life example of someone i know. He has a child with a woman who has become a jesus thumping freak. Because of the child support he gives to her, she is now funding the child's education to go to a serious bible thumping school where the child is told they are bad and going to hell regularly. The man in this situation is more closely aligned to your own beliefs 12clicks and I think your attitude on this matter would do a 180 if you were this fellow.

with all due respect, that's nonsense. He went before the court with the sole purpose of getting "under God" removed from the pledge. A very far left dopey idea. Nowhere does the argument rest on parent's rights.

idiot atheists? they're not the ones who believe in magic.

This just isn't true. shared custody is always given unless the father doesn't want it or doesn't deserve it.