TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Activist judges
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Activist judges

post #1 of 18
10/25/09 at 7:46pm
Thread Starter 
Now this is the face of an activist judge. Once who makes a statement that quite plainly reveals that he holds his personal beliefs in higher regard than the bill of rights, and that his beliefs and symbolism can simply stand in the place of others. It would appear that he can't comprehend why Jews, Muslims, Deists, Wiccans, etc shouldn't just feel so honored that they are supposedly represented by the symbol of his faith

Quote:
Scalia shot back: "I don't think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that the cross honors are the Christian war dead. I think that's an outrageous conclusion."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...tory?track=rss
Reply
post #2 of 18
10/25/09 at 8:06pm
how ridiculous ...
Quote:
"It signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins," Peter Eliasberg told the justices. But because of its special religious significance, he said, it should not stand alone as a prominent symbol in a national park.

Justice Antonin Scalia sharply disagreed. "It's erected as a war memorial. I assume it is erected in honor of all the war dead."
How can he possibly reject the religious significance of the cross??? It seems like that is his argument, that the cross is a universal symbol that is put on war memorials and it has nothing to do with religion.
Reply
post #3 of 18
10/25/09 at 9:36pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ut0pia View Post
how ridiculous ...


How can he possibly reject the religious significance of the cross??? It seems like that is his argument, that the cross is a universal symbol that is put on war memorials and it has nothing to do with religion.
He seems to have the ability to change it's significance to whatever he needs it to be at the time. I understand that activists of his ilk can do that with all sorts of things.
Reply
post #4 of 18
10/26/09 at 4:32am
Some Christians simply cannot get it through their heads that Christianity is NOT the state religion of the US and that they do not have a monopoly on God. How sad that even a Supreme Court judge doesn't get it. Then again, Scalia was appointed by Reagan, so what would you expect?
Reply
post #5 of 18
10/26/09 at 4:56am
Activist judges have no place on the bench at any level.
Reply
post #6 of 18
10/27/09 at 9:40pm
Ok, one question. It was explained to me last year (I think it was Skippymj) that the separation of church and state is that there shouldn't be a "national" church that is predominant. So, is there anything saying other religions couldn't put up their own religious symbol? If not, then that is their fault and it's up to them to make it right.

It's on private ground now, and Obama wants it to stay there....good for him!

I agree that a justice shouldn't put his own personal opinions in his decision...that's why I never ran for Judge. Was that a good move? Hell no! Yeah, with those comments he probably won't be judge for long, but I can see some of his points.
Reply
post #7 of 18
10/27/09 at 9:49pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by calico2222 View Post
Ok, one question. It was explained to me last year (I think it was Skippymj) that the separation of church and state is that there shouldn't be a "national" church that is predominant. So, is there anything saying other religions couldn't put up their own religious symbol? If not, then that is their fault and it's up to them to make it right.

It's on private ground now, and Obama wants it to stay there....good for him!

I agree that a justice shouldn't put his own personal opinions in his decision...that's why I never ran for Judge. Was that a good move? Hell no! Yeah, with those comments he probably won't be judge for long, but I can see some of his points.
Numerous other religious organizations requested to put up similar monuments, but were refused by the park service. The question now is, was the land transfer constitutional, as it was done with the government stipulating that the cross would remain, clearly endorsing it's presence, and supporting the exclusion of all others.

edit: Sorry, read back and it's not exactly "numerous". . A request for a Jewish monument and a Buddhist monument were turned down.
Reply
post #8 of 18
10/27/09 at 10:12pm
Ok I so see where a buddist monument was turned down, and that was a decade ago...now who was supposed to foot the bill? The US government or the church itself? I'm guessing that was a matter of cost, and not religious in nature. This cross was originally put up in 1930's so it is a landmark to those families who's loved ones are buried there. And, please point out where it said that Jewish monuments were denied?

"He agreed that crosses in a national cemetery would not pose a constitutional problem because other religious symbols, such as a Star of David for Jewish soldiers, are included as well." That is the only place I can find mention of Jewish symbols.

The bottom line is this. It isn't about what is considered unconstitutional when it comes to what is displayed in the actual cemetery as religious (that will come back up once we get closer to Christmas), but whether or not the judge was wrong bringing into the mix his own personal feeling and beliefs. And, I agree he shouldn't have.
Reply
post #9 of 18
10/27/09 at 10:24pm
But it's a monument for dead soldiers, who are not all Christians. I know if I had a dead veteran grandfather whose name was under a monument with a star of david, I wouldn't be very happy considering that he was a Christian.
Reply
post #10 of 18
10/27/09 at 10:51pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by calico2222 View Post
Ok I so see where a buddist monument was turned down, and that was a decade ago...now who was supposed to foot the bill? The US government or the church itself? I'm guessing that was a matter of cost, and not religious in nature. This cross was originally put up in 1930's so it is a landmark to those families who's loved ones are buried there. And, please point out where it said that Jewish monuments were denied?
Cost would be a not quite reasonable excuse to some, I would guess. But uh, buried...where...exactly? It's not a cemetary. It's not even close to one.

The Jewish part was my misreading a statement by one of the lawyers, who said his grandfathers legacy was denied (Jewish) by others insisting he be represented by a cross.

Quote:
"He agreed that crosses in a national cemetery would not pose a constitutional problem because other religious symbols, such as a Star of David for Jewish soldiers, are included as well." That is the only place I can find mention of Jewish symbols.

The bottom line is this. It isn't about what is considered unconstitutional when it comes to what is displayed in the actual cemetery as religious (that will come back up once we get closer to Christmas), but whether or not the judge was wrong bringing into the mix his own personal feeling and beliefs. And, I agree he shouldn't have
It still isn't a cemetary The rest of it was merely background into the case, so that other posters would have some idea what the issue was about instead of trying to find something factual in the tens of thousands of blog entries about it.
Reply
post #11 of 18
10/28/09 at 5:58am
I think if a monument such as that cross has been there for this long, leave it alone. Other things get "grandfathered" why shouldn't monuments and such? Leave the stuff that is already in place alone, and satisfy the ACLU and all those other organizations being ridiculous about such things by not allowing any more.
Reply
post #12 of 18
10/28/09 at 6:42am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by krazy kat2 View Post
I think if a monument such as that cross has been there for this long, leave it alone. Other things get "grandfathered" why shouldn't monuments and such? Leave the stuff that is already in place alone, and satisfy the ACLU and all those other organizations being ridiculous about such things by not allowing any more.
I really think the final result will be that it can stay. All that really needs to be done is for the government to drop the "we get the land back if it's not a monument" stipulation from the land transfer, and all gov't ties will be severed. Or, if the court finds that merely being offended by religious symbols is not incurring injury. But then, that would be just fine too, because then no one could complain about or decline the symbols of other faiths being displayed.

edit: To rephrase, they could still complain about it, it just that legally, it would be an "oh well".
Reply
post #13 of 18
10/28/09 at 6:43am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
I really think the final result will be that it can stay. All that really needs to be done is for the government to drop the "we get the land back if it's not a monument" stipulation from the land transfer, and all gov't ties will be severed. Or, if the court finds that merely being offended by religious symbols is not incurring injury. But then, that would be just fine too, because then no one could complain about or decline the symbols of other faiths being displayed.
Oh, FYI, the current cross is a replacement, it's only been there since 1998.
Reply
post #14 of 18
10/28/09 at 7:23am
Thread Starter 
It would appear that outrage at this judge's extreme activism is spreading, and growing...and becoming quite spirited in some instances.


Judaism is all about the affirmation of a life that is. Christianity focuses much more on life hereafter. We are about redemption, they are about resurrection. The two faiths are simply different, as are our most sacred symbols.

As a disabled Jewish Vietnam combat veteran, I insist on my right to call myself patriotic, and the further right to call Justice Scalia, the VFW, and their cronies, unpatriotic, two-faced, bigoted liars.
Reply
post #15 of 18
10/28/09 at 11:41pm
Maybe I'm stupid, but why not include religious/philosophical symbols pertaining to everyone for whom the monument is memorializing? A cross, a star of David, a walking fish, whatever, what's it hurt?
Reply
post #16 of 18
10/28/09 at 11:59pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebrillblaiddes View Post
Maybe I'm stupid, but why not include religious/philosophical symbols pertaining to everyone for whom the monument is memorializing? A cross, a star of David, a walking fish, whatever, what's it hurt?
That would be the ideal way to handle it, but Scalia, the activist judge, deems it unnecessary.
Reply
post #17 of 18
10/29/09 at 12:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
That would be the ideal way to handle it, but Scalia, the activist judge, deems it unnecessary.
You'd think he could at least put up with a star of David, on account of Jesus was, by all historically-based accounts, Jewish.
Reply
post #18 of 18
10/29/09 at 12:42am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebrillblaiddes View Post
You'd think he could at least put up with a star of David, on account of Jesus was, by all historically-based accounts, Jewish.
Oh, he addressed that subject alright. He mentioned it in his blatant, bigoted statement thusly;

Quote:
"What would you have them erect?...Some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David, and you know, a Muslim half moon and star?"
You would think such a "learned" man would know that "Muslim" isn't a religion. "A" Muslim is a follower of the religion of Islam. But then again, one can't expect an activist to dedicate any study to a religion they despise.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Activist judges