More Separation
On the O’Donnell flap, looks like the fix is in. It fits the narrative mentioned here.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
October 20th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Read the Insty link.
These precocious law students, each a brilliant Constitutional law scholar in his or her own right, laughs down a candidate who correctly notes that the First Amendment doesn’t say anything about the separation of church and state that the media has ordained it to provide.
I have a better question for these soon to be debt-ridden, unemployed attorneys: – Where in the hell is Widener Law School?
I have been studying law for 31 years and practicing law for 28 years, and I have never heard of it.
Lots of luck to you, youngsters.
October 20th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
They probably train paralegals, chris.
Flunkies for real lawyers.
October 20th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Yesterday the school’s event page included an article stating “The law school audience reacted strongly to O’Donnell’s lack of familiarity with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment”
Today that whole paragraph has been memory-holed. I think they know a lot more about the first-amendment today than they did yesterday. Perhaps they can invite Philip Hamburger for to give a lecture there.
October 20th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
O’Donnell is an inarticulate, self-serving politician, who has gotten by on cutenes. And the more she talks, the more it’s obvious.
October 20th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
And that’s worse than Joe Biden how, exactly?
October 20th, 2010 at 8:20 pm
Joe Biden is not cute. 😉
But she’s not running against him. She’s running against a man, no matter whether you like his political philosophy, who is very intelligent, educated, and a good administrator. Hmm?
I am in Illinois. I cannot vote in Delaware. But I would not vote for O’Donnell vs. Durbin in Illinois. She’s a weirdo.
October 20th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
She seems quite articulate to me, troll, certainly moreso than the marxist that can’t list more than zero of the five freedoms acknowledged in the first amendment.
October 20th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
Oh, and yeah, she’s cute… them conservative chicks, you know…
October 20th, 2010 at 10:41 pm
Chris,
With that resume, you’d think you’d have come across the very, very basic law school 101 stuff found here: http://www.au.org/about/faqs/
To wit:
This really isn’t hard–if you can’t have a law “respecting an establishment”, it’s kinda hard to see how you can have public officials endorsing religion or using their positions to foist it upon us.
Even if you disagree with Messrs. Jefferson and Madison (at your own intellectual peril, obviously) and don’t think such a wall exists between church and state, it’s rather hard to see how exactly a functional 1A compliant govt would integrate the two.
What exactly does it mean to not have the two separated? I really don’t think you Talibs really have thought that one through.
October 20th, 2010 at 11:22 pm
Hmm. Interesting. Funny thing about “public officials endorsing religion or using their positions to foist it upon us”. Wonder how you feel knowing that on every Military Base in the U.S., Taxpayer money is used to support an Established Religion, and that on Sunday Mornings, the Chaplain’s Flag is raised, so that Military Chaplains (who get paid from Tax dollars) can have services in buildings (paid for and built using Taxpayer dollars), and that on most Headstones in a Military Cemetery, there is some sort of Religious Symbol that was paid for out of Taxpayer dollars. Of course, on every piece of currency issued by the U.S. Government in the last 50 years is the Phrase “In God We Trust” (not Buddha, Krishna, Allah, Oden, Jove, but the Judeo-Christian usage of the word God).
Oh, the 5-4 Hugo Black decision? Written by a man who was a Klansman, was a Lawyer for the Klan, and HATED the Roman Catholic Church. But FDR liked him for some reason.
And many schools rent out their schools to Churches on Sunday Mornings, which SCOTUS said was perfectly legal.
And the Government has no problem using Federal Tax Dollars (through the Pell Grants and Stafford Loans) to support places like Harvard and its School of Divinity.
Of course, if the Federal Government didn’t support Christianity, then we could get mail on Sundays, and go the Court house, and apply for Passports, and see an IRS Agent, or talk to a DOJ Lawyer, but for some reasons Jews and Muslims have to take their Sabbath Days off sometimes to do U.S. Government business.
Seems like that “Separation Wall” sure has a lot of holes in it.
October 20th, 2010 at 11:44 pm
Here is Jefferson talking about the establishment of the state-run University of Virginia:
“In conformity with the principles of our Constitution, which places all sects of religion on an equal footing, with the jealousies of the different sects in guarding that equality from encroachment and surprise, and with the sentiments of the Legislature in favor of freedom of religion, manifested on former occasions, we have proposed no professor of divinity; and the rather as the proofs of the being of a God, the creator, preserver, and supreme ruler of the universe, the author of all the relations of morality, and of the laws and obligations these infer, will be within the province of the professor of ethics”
The constitution he refers to here is that of Virginia, which is quite explicit in what is disallowed of government, and yet Jefferson feels fine enforcing state teaching that there is a god who is “creator preserver and supreme ruler of the universe” and the source of our morality and laws.
October 20th, 2010 at 11:46 pm
Oops, forgot to close my italics, go by the ” marks…
October 21st, 2010 at 6:01 am
I didn’t watch the whole debate, but I did see the clip where the audience laughed. It seemed to be that they were laughing at Coons for not knowing that the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the constitution. That irked me, since the concept is clearly right there in the 1st amendment.
Maybe in the context of the entire debate it would’ve been clearer, but it wasn’t obvious to me that the students were mocking O’Donnell at all.
October 21st, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Les–those aren’t holes in the wall, those are perfectly reasonable private practices of religion that aren’t impacted by the Wall at all (well the IGWT thing on money is a silly anachronism that we largely ignore by convention since nobody really has standing to challenge it). Offering servicemen a choice of how and where they want to worship or renting out facilities isn’t an endorsement of any particular faith.
The Wall is simply what keeps our govt from endorsing an official religion…it’s what keeps teachers from indoctrinating the faith of their choice in their students. It’s what keeps Catholic dominated legislatures from passing laws about how Protestants should worship.
This isn’t hard.