Supreme Court rules to keep "under god" in the pledge

I sense that, per usual, you simply don't understand.
Coming from someone who obviously is unable to string together a chain of thought unless you are repeating someting you've been told, I am not surprised at your confusion.
I know you are terrified and threatened easily, so perhaps it is a mix of your fragile emotional state and your ability to be easily confused?

 

Right now, though, we have conservative judges. And if Kerry(hopefully with Edwards as running mate) is elected(which im hoping for) he will appoint moderate judges. No supreme court anytime in near future will rule in their favor.

 

Lottery, I would argue, and based on recent Court decisions, what we have is a libertarian Court.
We have one that puts contract and property rights above all others.
So, in an economic sense, one could say it is *conservative*.
However, on social issues, this Court is the most liberal in history.
I think its a mistake to think of these judges as Republican or Democrat.
If you don't like the term libertarian, perhaps the most elitist Court would be more apt.
This Court is going to protect, at all costs, the establishments. Whether that establishment is big business, the economy class, far-left *scholars*, i.e. university-types and Congress.
They are going to defer to the wishes and whims of those groups first, foremost and practically always.
I'm certainly no Bush fan for many reasons, but if you care about religious issues, and you think Kerry would appoint *moderates* on those issues, I think you are absolutely mistaken.
I am not as comfortable thinking Kerry is going to appoint Judges who care more for consumer rights over property and contract rights either for that matter.
I'm not endorsing either Kerry or Bush in this string, just pointing out that I think the Republican vs. Democrat label doesn't always fit, especially on this particular issue *religion* when it comes to the Supreme Court.

 

John Kerry will have to be strong on keeping those words in the pledge, primarily b/c one of his biggest voting blocs are blacks and they are historically supporters of religion.

 

Let me add this.
I don't particularly care for Rehnquist nor O'Connor, but they are the 2 judges most likely to retire within the next President's term.
If they are replaced by a Kerry appointee, I can guarantee you with 99.99% surety that this *one Nation under God* decision would be decided 5-4 in favor of the atheist.
Don't be confused by the 8-0 decision.
The Supreme Court today is an extremely political body. They did not want to make such a controversial ruling this close to an election. That's why they decided the case essentially on a *technicality* rather than actually *deciding* the issue.
Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg (obviously) and Breyer (obviously) will vote to overturn the pledge.
A Kerry appointee would definitely be the deciding vote and I have absolutely no reason to believe that a Kerry appointee would not find comfort in the bosoms of the above four.

 

Really I'm not intending to blast Kerry.
But the way the system is set up obviously, he can securely try to wrap himself in the arms of the *religion supporters*, appoint a Judge that he knows good and well would overturn the pledge and then plead *disappointment* or mock surprise.
Not saying I trust Bush's judgment on nominating a Judge on that issue either.
After all, his Daddy nominated David Souter.
But from my read on who is supporting Kerry and Kerry's record on judicial nominees and political reality, I can say with near certainty that Kerry's appointee would be the fifth vote to overturn the pledge unless he just totally screwed up.
With Bush, I think he would appoint someone who he believes would be the fifth vote keeping the pledge.
However, as you and I know, Bush isn't always the sharpest knife in the drawer.

 

I respect your opinion but i just disagree on the basis if kerry gets elected he wants 8 years. No southern black or white would forgive kerry, mistake or not, if his appointment was the deciding vote against the pledge. Many religious northerners would back away from him.

 

Fair enough, certainly I'm not telling you who or who not to vote for.
For that matter, I don't even know yet who I'm voting for.
I'd just suggest watching and listening closely.
What was once a quaint idea of *separation of church and state* and what the Founders meant as not allowing Congress to start a *Church of the United States* to replace the Church of England had now become a wink and nod buzzword amongst leftwing academics, media and judges to remove God from all public places.
If you hear Kerry emphasize that phrase, I'd keep an eye to make sure he doesn't wink and nod to his friends at PFAW.

 

stop threatening me, i am scared and confused.

 

And don't forget, oppressed.