Sally Mason's Contract not Renewed

FreedComanche said:
Thanks for the attack.

Yes, there should be religion/faith in schools because that represents a fixed standard as to live by. Look at how horrible behavior in public schools has been since prayer was taken out. Before that happened you had hardly any drug problems and teen pregnancy did not happen much at all. The young, in general, had respect for authority.

Now, well.............I don't need to tell you how bad things are behavior wise and with academics in public school.

I answered your question. Please don't respond to me if you are gonna attack or call names.

FreedComanche
Click to expand...

Poe's Law confirmed.
 
Billso said:
Sigh. Well, this sucks. Not because I doubt you, or because because bad behavior shouldn't be held to account.

It sucks because this is the last thing our beloved University needs. It's been one leadership trainwreck after another since Skorton left. Which will make recruiting the next president even harder.
Click to expand...

I'm not actively trying to take down Mason or anyone else. I don't operate that way and I don't have the time or energy to engage in such Quixotic foolishness. I'm just following the evidence in one specific case, and it's one eye-popping revelation after another. The situation is substantially worse at The U than what you're reading in the news. I'll leave it at that.
 
ThunderHawk said:
I'm not actively trying to take down Mason or anyone else. I don't operate that way and I don't have the time or energy to engage in such Quixotic foolishness. I'm just following the evidence in one specific case, and it's one eye-popping revelation after another. The situation is substantially worse at The U than what you're reading in the news. I'll leave it at that.
Click to expand...

It was confirmed in the first amendment, reiterated by the writer (Thomas Jefferson - who actually USED those words... i think HE'D know), and upheld in numerous supreme court cases through the years.

Yes, there are always cases coming about challenging it, and there will always be debate. That's why America is great.

But there is and SHOULD be this separation. If you are Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, etc... how would you feel having this shoved down your throat? This country was FOUNDED BY PEOPLE FLEEING religious persecution and wanting religious freedom. Shouldn't they have it? Forcing Christianity into schools contradicts this concept 100%.

It's the same reason people say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas... I say both, but there is a REASON people say it. Not everyone is a CHRISTIAN and that's not a bad thing.
 
ThunderHawk said:
I'm not actively trying to take down Mason or anyone else. I don't operate that way and I don't have the time or energy to engage in such Quixotic foolishness. I'm just following the evidence in one specific case, and it's one eye-popping revelation after another. The situation is substantially worse at The U than what you're reading in the news. I'll leave it at that.
Click to expand...

Can you confirm or deny the case in question involves the Gray issue?
 
ThunderHawk said:
Engel v. Vitale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The constitution "says" what 5 justices of the United States Supreme Court decide it says.

I wouldn't expect a teagagger like yourself to understand that basic fact.
Click to expand...

No where in the US Constitution does it ever state there exists or should be separation between church and state. No where.

So if at least 5 justices say that slavery should be legal, that's ok as well? The supreme court ruled that way in the 1800's. The Supreme court was designed to be the weakest of the three branches of government. The legislature always has the authority to thank the court for its opinion, then over rule it with a vote of their own. No court can make law, only the legislature can.

Also I am not affiliated with the tea party. They are strictly fiscal in their platform. So, basically they are libertarians, of which, I am definitely not.

FreedComanche
 
FreedComanche said:
No where in the US Constitution does it ever state there exists or should be separation between church and state. No where.

So if at least 5 justices say that slavery should be legal, that's ok as well? The supreme court ruled that way in the 1800's. The Supreme court was designed to be the weakest of the three branches of government. The legislature always has the authority to thank the court for its opinion, then over rule it with a vote of their own. No court can make law, only the legislature can.

Also I am not affiliated with the tea party. They are strictly fiscal in their platform. So, basically they are libertarians, of which, I am definitely not.

FreedComanche
Click to expand...

You really think the teabaggers are primarily fiscal (keep the guvmint's hands off my Medicare! George W who?) and libertarian (legitimate rape, y'all!!)???

Really? You still think that? Dick Armey salutes you.

Also, my statement on the constitution is totally accurate and beyond debate. Ask any lawyer. You can try to persuade 5 SCOTUS justices to change what 5 justices determine the constitution says, but the math remains the same.
 
ThunderHawk said:
You really think the teabaggers are primarily fiscal (keep the guvmint's hands off my Medicare! George W who?) and libertarian (legitimate rape, y'all!!)???

Really? You still think that? Dick Armey salutes you.

Also, my statement on the constitution is totally accurate and beyond debate. Ask any lawyer. You can try to persuade 5 SCOTUS justices to change what 5 justices determine the constitution says, but the math remains the same.
Click to expand...

Just so you know, I have no desire to attack you at all. I never will, and I hope you are doing well. However, I will respond to you when you state something that is false concerning the US Constitution. No where in the US Constitution is separation of church and state written or implied. Can 5 supreme court justices try to make it say something that it does not? Of course.

On the tea party front, look at their platform if you don't believe me. None of the social issues are indicated. True libertarians would never want a welfare state, so I would think they'd be against social security, medicare etc.........

Also, I think you said you are a libertarian, I'd think Ron Paul is a hero of yours. Did you read is farewell speech in congress? He basically said it's over for this country. And he's not a social conservative at all.

FreedComanche
 
FreedComanche said:
No where in the US Constitution does it ever state there exists or should be separation between church and state. No where.
Click to expand...

The word "separation" doesn't appear, but the Establishment Clause has been interpreted that way for 200+ years. Which makes it a little hard to argue that some hippie activist judges have recently been stompin' on the Founders' intent.

So if at least 5 justices say that slavery should be legal, that's ok as well? The supreme court ruled that way in the 1800's.
Click to expand...

Yes, purely as a matter of law. It wasn't "ok" morally and really can't be defended Constitutionally either (which the Founders knew at the time, by the way, they set the institution up for eventual failure - sneaky and brilliant bastards that they were), and thankfully it was overturned subsequently.

The Supreme court was designed to be the weakest of the three branches of government. The legislature always has the authority to thank the court for its opinion, then over rule it with a vote of their own. No court can make law, only the legislature can.
Click to expand...

Quite so, but the Court can overturn a law it deems unconstitutional. Judicial review, Marbury vs. Madison etc. Nothing you just said contradicts Thunder.

I'm as conservative as anyone, but the Tea Party "it's not in the Constitution!" meme really grows tiresome. Know what else isn't in the Constitution?
* The Air Force
* Congressional Districts
* Public Pensions
* Unions
* Executive Orders
* Executive Privilege
* God
* "Immigration"
* "Electoral College"
* Innocent until proven guilty
* Jury of Peers
* Marriage
* Number of Justices in the Supreme Court
* Paper Money
* Political Parties
* Primary Elections
* Qualifications for Judges
* The right to privacy
* The right to travel freely
* Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
* The FCC, FTC, FDA, FDIC or SEC
* The United Nations
* TV, radio, movies, music or the Internet
* Marijuana
* Bacon (hat tip to NCHawker)

Outrageous!!! Death to the activist judges!
 
Last edited:
Billso said:
The word "separation" doesn't appear, but the Establishment Clause has been interpreted that way for 200+ years. Which makes it a little hard to argue that some hippie activist judges have recently been stompin' on the Founders' intent.



Yes, purely as a matter of law. It wasn't "ok" morally and really can't be defended Constitutionally either (which the Founders knew at the time, by the way, they set the institution up for eventual failure - sneaky and brilliant bastards that they were), and thankfully it was overturned subsequently.



Quite so, but the Court can overturn a law it deems unconstitutional. Judicial review, Marbury vs. Madison etc. Nothing you just said contradicts Thunder.

I'm as conservative as anyone, but the Tea Party "it's not in the Constitution!" meme really grows tiresome. Know what else isn't in the Constitution?
* The Air Force
* Congressional Districts
* Public Pensions
* Unions
* Executive Orders
* Executive Privilege
* God
* "Immigration"
* "Electoral College"
* Innocent until proven guilty
* Jury of Peers
* Marriage
* Number of Justices in the Supreme Court
* Paper Money
* Political Parties
* Primary Elections
* Qualifications for Judges
* The right to privacy
* The right to travel freely
* Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
* The FCC, FTC, FDA, FDIC or SEC
* The United Nations
* TV, radio, movies, music or the Internet

Outrageous!!! Death to the activist judges!
Click to expand...

You're kind of a John Stuart Mill/Edmund Burke conservative. You're not Louis Gohmert material. I'm not sure what I'd label the dominant force within the modern Republican party. I really can't adequately conceive the words to describe it. Plutocratic nihilistic theocracy perhaps.

I'm not sure how I'd categorize myself either. A rationalist? I've become pretty stridently socially libertarian as I've aged so long as criminal behavior is kept in check. Economically I've grown to accept the necessity of a fairly strong safety net, if only because it functions to ameliorate crime to some extent. I guess having kids has caused me to place a premium upon some semblance of economic stability. I used to be a lot more cavalier about it all. I do have quite a soft spot for kids though. I'm more than willing to take it out of the hides of the wealthy to help disadvantaged kids, and I'll never apologize for that. Y'all can call me a pinko commie ba$tard and I'll stick to my guns to the bitter end on that one.
 
MoseSchrute said:
As Billso pointed out, you are WAY off on this one. The Founders didn't want the state endorsing a particular religion or forcing it down anyone's throat.
Click to expand...

The quickest way to end this prayer in school BS is to have some clever subversive little 4th grader engage in Muslim prayer in some Texas or Oklahoma school. Ballgame.
 
They did mention no mulligans, and no belly putters though. It's in the commerce clause. I know all the attorneys on here will disagree, but well, what they know about the constitution could fit on the tip of a pin. Me? Constitutional golf rules expert. Invited lecturer. Been on the Golf Channel and stuff. Asked to weigh in on the OJ trial.
 
Billso said:
The word "separation" doesn't appear, but the Establishment Clause has been interpreted that way for 200+ years. Which makes it a little hard to argue that some hippie activist judges have recently been stompin' on the Founders' intent.

That is not true. The federal government was to never have any involvement in public schools of any state. It all started during Carter's admin. However the Iowa Constitution indicates that the state is to provide free education. What's at issue is the federal government and it's not to be involved. This was the Founder's intent.

Yes, purely as a matter of law. It wasn't "ok" morally and retally can't be defended Constitutionally either (which the Founders knew at the time, by the way, they set the institution up for eventual failure - sneaky and brilliant bastards that they were), and thankfully it was overturned subsequently.

So legality and morality should be separate? That's why faith has to be involved. For example, why is murder against civil law? Or why is stealing against civil law? Gee, could it be because that's what God says in the Bible? That is the origin of why both are illegal today.

Someone's faith will always be at the origin of organic law. Right now, people with an atheist world view are in charge and I think will be for the rest of the country's time.

Quite so, but the Court can overturn a law it deems unconstitutional. Judicial review, Marbury vs. Madison etc. Nothing you just said contradicts Thunder.

Of course it can, but the legislature can vote to overturn their ruling and that ends the story. The court can then no longer have any authority over that ruling.

I'm as conservative as anyone, but the Tea Party "it's not in the Constitution!" meme really grows tiresome.

The term conservative really has no definition today. I am not a conservative. Look at the so called conservatives today. They are a total joke and can't even beat a president when the economy is horrible. The so called conservatives today have no idea what they stand for. I don't think the republicans will win another presidential election. They are going the way of the Wigs back in the 1800's.

Know what else isn't in the Constitution?
* The Air Force
* Congressional Districts
* Public Pensions
* Unions
* Executive Orders
* Executive Privilege
* God
* "Immigration"
* "Electoral College"
* Innocent until proven guilty
* Jury of Peers
* Marriage
* Number of Justices in the Supreme Court
* Paper Money
* Political Parties
* Primary Elections
* Qualifications for Judges
* The right to privacy
* The right to travel freely
* Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
* The FCC, FTC, FDA, FDIC or SEC
* The United Nations
* TV, radio, movies, music or the Internet

Not all of what you just listed in unconstitutional, but most is. By the way, you say God is not in the Constitution. This is funny because you know that The Creator is.

Outrageous!!! Death to the activist judges!
Click to expand...

To believe there are no activist judges today is just plain silly.

FreedComanche
 
Serious question.. FC just what is ​an activist judge? A judge that doesn't agree with your political ideals or one that doesn't agree with mine?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top