"J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net> wrote:

:|
:|> Let me ask you a simple question:
:|>
:|> Mike Newdow: graduate of Law School, U of Michigan. Filed suits and

:|> in
:|> the 9th Circuit. Filed suit to have Scalia recuse himself in the USSC
:|> Pledge case and won. Filed suit to be able to argue his own case

:|> the
:|> USSC and won
:|> Wowed everyone with his performance before that court
:|>
:|> Jeffy Strickland: doesn't know a thing about law, the legal system,

:|> courts work, how to file a suit, etc
:|>
:|> Who do you think would better know how to file a suit in federal

:|>
:|
:|
:|Let me give you a simple answer,

The simple valid and accurate answer is, Newdow knows how to file a law
suit. Jeff Strickland is clueless.

:|the USSC shot down the 9th because Newdow
:|had no standing in the first place.

False

The USSC didn't rule on the merits.
The USSC took the easy way out.
The USSC jumped into state law and they were incorrect on that point as

been pointed out by a number of legal scholars

Ever hear of Federalism, something this USSC prides itself on upholding
except when they can appoint

and rule against precedence in a Pledge case.

:|HE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE TIME
:|OF DAY FROM THE 9TH.

False

:|
:|It is reasonable to point out that Newdow lost in several lower courts

:|said the Pledge was fine.

False
Several?
One court. stupid

What exactly did that court say, EXACTLY SAY?

:|He just so happened to get a 3 judge panel that
:|consisted of three of the most liberal justices on the most liberal

:|court in the land.

False

Which judges were liberal?
Not the one who wrote the opinion

Stupid f*cks up again

So far you are batting 1.000 wrong on every point

:|But, I am not arguing

I am not interested in your clueless argument.
I am interested in helping you look like the fool you are.


"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> had written:

:|> > Of the remaining 5, we don't know how they will go, but it is

safe to

:|say
:|> > that at least one of them will be inclined to go with the ceremony
:|stand.

:|"Andrew Spartz" <aspartzNOSPAM@pinenet.com> wrote in message
:|> If one of the remaining five were so inclined, why didn't that
:|> individual sign off with Renquist?
:|> ARS

"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:

:|I can't answer that. There are any number of reasons, but for me to
:|speculate is a waste of time and effort.

[buckeye]
That is all you do. Every post, every reply of yours is based on
gossip, rumor, speculation, guesses, things you make up and
unsubstantiated personal opinions

This is one thing that doesn't need a lot of speculation.

In the case of multi-judge courts, i.e. Courts of Appeals and Supreme
Courts (except NY, in NY the trial level court is called a supreme
court) judges/justices agree or disagree with regards to opinions.
If they disagree they dissent. If others dissent for the same
reasons, etc they join the one writing the dissenting opinion. If
they disagree for different reasons they write their own dissent.

Concur. To agree; accord; act together; consent. To agree with the
result reached by another, but not necessarily with the reasoning or
the logic used in reaching such a result. In the practice of appellate
courts, a "concurring opinion" is one filed by one of the judges or
justices, in which he agrees with the conclusions or the result of
another opinion filed in the case (which may be either the opinion of
the court or a dissenting opinion) though he states separately his
views of the case
Black's Law Dictionary 6th editiion, West Publishing, (1991) p 200

We ended up with a the opinion that Stevens wrote, in which four
others joined him. This became the majority opinion

We had three justices who did not agree with the position of the
majority but also did not agree among themselves.

Rehnquist's position
Chief Justice Rehnquist implausibly claims that nothing in the Pledge
is really religious.

Seven other justices did not agree with him

O'Connor's position
Justice O'Connor would hold that the Pledge is a permissible form of
`ceremonial deism,' recognizable as such because it is very brief,
recited by rote, avoids reference to any particular religion, and is
not worship or prayer.'

Seven other justices did not agree with her

Thomas's position (Mr. Radical)
Justice Thomas would abolish all existing law under the Establishment
Clause.
Seven other justices did not agree with him

Steven's position,
He didn't have standing
Four other justices could agree with him.

As I have said before. It was a compromise position. They were not
going to agree to a 4- 4 split which would have left the ruling by the
9th Circuit stand, therefore, they wanted a majority of some kind.
However, no five justices, of the eight, would agree that the pledge
as it stands today was constitution, nor would five, of the eight,
agree it was unconstitutional.

Thus they settled with five agreeing he didn't have standing when in
fact, law and more judges and justices, along the way said he does
have standing.

The only speculation that might be involved would be why they were
afraid to do the right thing.

As law professor Douglas Laycock said, "For most Justices in the
majority, this result avoided a very difficult problem: it was
politically impossible to strike down the Pledge, and legally
impossible to uphold it."

[strickland]

:|It doesn't matter that any one of
:|the 5 might have signed on with Rehnquist,

[me]
It matters a great deal. it shows that none of the others agreed with
him. Being the uninformed person you are you didn't understand that.

[strickland]

:|We know how Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Thomas feel.

There is that "we" again.
Let me remind you. Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas vote as a block 98% of
the time with regards to church state issues. They vote the ultra
conservative party line, which interestingly enough is the old Joseph
Story, old NRA, accommodation, modern religious right position.

Once upon a time O'Connor and Kennedy were more moderate conservatives
and frequently together or separately (Sometimes they took turns. one
would join the other three and one wouldn't thus still depriving the
other three of the five votes they needed to make a majority)

Beginning a few years back after Scalia gave Kennedy a scathing tongue
lashing in a opinion, Kennedy has been dancing with the other three
exclusively on church state matters.

O'Connor still foiled the other three as much as she helped them, if
not more so until she was "cheated' out of her retirement in 2000 by
the backlash to the Bush v Gore joke.

Before Scalia made a fool of himself, Newdow was figuring he would
win by a 6-3 vote. he figured this because he felt that he could carry
O'Connor and Kennedy for the simple reason that Kennedy had written
the Lee opinion and he did not believe that Kennedy would go back on
his reashoning and conclusion in that ruling. he felt he could win
O'Connor because she created the endorsement test and things she said
in doing so was right in line with his own arguments At the worse if
either she or Kennedy broke it would be O'Connor who did so still
giving im a 5-4 win.

After Scalia did the right thing Newdow was counting on a 6-2 or at
worse 5-3 win

He was right in his math, but he didn't count on those five wimping
out O'Connor did break with her previous comments, or actually tried
to juggle them with now and not very well at that. Kennedy did hold to
his Lee ruling (however had the vote actually been between yea or nay
on constitutionality of the pledge, he might have broke and joined the
other three making a 4-4 split which they were determined not to have.
So, one just doesn't know 100% with him)

When it was announced that Stevens wrote the majority opinion it was
thought at once Newdow had won. Newdow would never in a million years
imagine that they would wimp out like that and to do so using the
standing card. That was a double insult since anyone and everyone knew
the standing was a settled issue. He did have standing.

Hell, even the majority of the journalists and lawyers in the
courtroom that March 24th later wrote or said they felt he had won the
standing argument, that it was put to rest finally once and for all.

[strickland]
:|We know how Scalia feels.

:|So, there are four that would allow the Pledge to remain as it is,

albeit

:|for 4 different reasons.

[me]
Four different reasons don't form a majority thus do not change or
make law.

"J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net> wrote:

:|
:|> Let me ask you a simple question:
:|>
:|> Mike Newdow: graduate of Law School, U of Michigan. Filed suits and
won
:|> in
:|> the 9th Circuit. Filed suit to have Scalia recuse himself in the USSC
:|> Pledge case and won. Filed suit to be able to argue his own case
before
:|> the
:|> USSC and won
:|> Wowed everyone with his performance before that court
:|>
:|> Jeffy Strickland: doesn't know a thing about law, the legal system,
how
:|> courts work, how to file a suit, etc
:|>
:|> Who do you think would better know how to file a suit in federal
court?
:|>
:|
:|
:|Let me give you a simple answer,

The simple valid and accurate answer is, Newdow knows how to file a law
suit. Jeff Strickland is clueless.

:|the USSC shot down the 9th because Newdow
:|had no standing in the first place.

False

The USSC didn't rule on the merits.

The USSC took the easy way out.
The USSC jumped into state law and they were incorrect on that point as
has
been pointed out by a number of legal scholars

Ever hear of Federalism, something this USSC prides itself on upholding
except when they can appoint a right wing conservative President of the US
and rule against precedence in a Pledge case.

:|HE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE TIME
:|OF DAY FROM THE 9TH.

False

:|
:|It is reasonable to point out that Newdow lost in several lower courts
that
:|said the Pledge was fine.

False
Several?
One court. stupid

What exactly did that court say, EXACTLY SAY?

:|He just so happened to get a 3 judge panel that
:|consisted of three of the most liberal justices on the most liberal
circuit
:|court in the land.

False