DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Supreme Court rejects atheists' attempt to scrub 'In God We Trust' off US currency

BTW the Kids were baptised NEAR the field not on it.

I don't really care GM, none of it bothers me. I've never held religion against anyone who is practicing it in a private way. These kids didn't drag anyone out there and force them to join or watch. They were doing what they wanted without hurting anyone else, so it's no big deal at all IMO.

Give it up pal...Public School property with public school paid coaches is a public school sponsored activity.

Different story completely if an Islamic or Jewish group did the exact same thing. It would go viciously viral. Look what happened when a Native American War hero single handed successfully diffused a riot in DC. yup Murcia ... the war hero get’s sued.

Not surprised..after all it is the trump era

As a nation, we are neither growing nor improving by taking things out of historical context and removing them now. It does NOT make us more inclusive or more enlightened to pretend like our ancestors, for all of their accomplishments and all of their faults, never existed. I can genuinely understand the removal of confederate statues but a small town cross to honor 49 men who died in WWI, is just ridiculous. It's insane and I can't help but think that on some level, you know that.

This country has many monuments, government funded and government maintained, that are at best exclusionary and at worst, downright offensive to many.. We have monuments dedicated to women who served in war, to blacks who served in various war, to native Americans who served, to Jews who served in wars, to Japanese-Americans who served in WWII..... we have dozens of monuments to gay pride and as recently as this month, some of our embassies wanted to fly the gay pride flag... We have some 400,000 headstones in Arlington Cemetery, most with the religious affiliation of the person who lies there proudly emblazoned at the top, and darn near every religion known on earth is represented.... Carved in marble inside the Supreme Court building in Washington D.C., directly above the courtroom bench, is a frieze showing eighteen of the greatest leaders in history who played a role in establishing laws. The line-up includes the Prophet Muhammad.

And when I see or read about these monuments which aren't inclusive of everybody, my thought to specifically honoring women, Jews, blacks, Muslims, gays etc who have served this nation well for many years, and the struggles they endured, is not that it should be removed, it's what took so long? I'm proud that we are finally recognizing that this country was built and made great by a whole lot more than "Christian white men"... Perhaps where we differ is that I don't believe we need to remove the monuments that were very important to our ancestors, simply because they weren't all-inclusive, in order to honor those who, for centuries, went unrecognized. If public opinion dictates, and the group did something honorable to contribute to this country, then let them have a damn monument... and let the monument reflect who they were and what they stood for...

I believe that 99% of the people who live in this country are perfectly comfortable seeing monuments that are not inclusive of their specific beliefs or group because they are intelligent enough to grasp that it had some impact on our history and our present... and that it was important enough to somebody at the time, to do it that way... The other 1% who is always throwing a fit is trying to be "woke" but they come across as weak minded, intolerant, snowflake, arse wipes.

Once again the man who makes claims that he wants nothing more than to hold civil debate throws around insults like Trump.

Amazing......

Oh the civility. I guess you changed your mind huh?

In small towns football fields and the areas around them get used for other things as well. So just because it was on School property, and the Coaches were there (they are free to be involved on their own time) does not make it a SPONSORED school activity. IF it was sponsored then that's a different story. Your assuming it was bro, while I would like to know for sure if it was or wasn't. comprende un ami

No, I just wanted to see if you would totally ignore 3 1/2 paragraphs of honest debate to focus on that one last sentence. Congrats on being shallow and predictable. Clearly you aren't looking for debate, you are looking for the fight.. I guess that's your Murica...

I have been debating you all along. Rather than to continue that, you resorted to the very thing you claim you dislike.

We used to have healthy debates on things. There was never a " last sentence" of labeling and name calling. But you are the one that changed that. You needn't place that burden on others.

Yes, aside from the insults, you have been debating all along..

We used to do a lot of things on here that are no longer possible because some people won't allow it... It's sad really.


I changed nothing. I spent considerable time trying to explain to you why you should maintain a more adult/rational approach, you said, basically trump is an arse and he is the President, therefore it's ok for you to be arse too.

That's why your insulting obnoxious behavior goes back years, mine goes back to a few days ago when I decided to play the game everybody else plays.. sorry you don't like it.

Can we really consider boiling all arguments down to an over-simplified strawman and getting in the last word, healthy debating?

Yes.

But seriously, no not really. Debate however requires open minds and open exchanges of ideas without petty insults. I USED to try to do that in here, but when the feces started flying every second, I got tired of being hit.

I don't have a clue what you are talking about...

Healthy debating is dead... I'm sure it still exists in some corners of the political biosphere but in general, the people don't want it and the politicians/talking heads don't want to do it. It almost certainly doesn't exist on the internet any more.

Gone are the days of making points, actually listening to the other side, mutual respect.. and the outcome "agree to disagree" is not an option any more, every battle must be fought to the death or until it just gets so nasty with personal insults that somebody taps out... that's how you win a debate these days...

Yeah, it’s frustrating because I used to enjoy discussing issues and ideas on the board. Pretty much all that is left in this particular forum are trolls and people who like arguing with and berating trolls so that they can feel superior. That isn’t enjoyable for me or worth my time. I still like the board and visit from time to time, but it’s just not as much fun as it used to be, though I think it’s more the current political climate than it is this particular message board.

I miss sea cows and Ted Williams head.

I don't really care one way or the other. I can go toe to toe in either direction. I can hold a civil debate with those who wish to do so. I can sling arrows with those who wish to do so.

In your case? It's more like the preacher who gives a sermon on fidelity and then immediately gets caught porking his neighbors wife in the church parking lot.

this will be my last post on this topic, feel free to respond, I will read it but I will not respond...

We have had debates, you have slung your share of arrows in the middle of otherwise reasonable debates... if you believe the tone our debates have taken on recently is all on me, then there is nothing I'm going to try to do to change that...

All I can control is me.. so I will try to be better in my tone and more selective in what I respond to...

Peace.

Supreme Court decides federal judges cannot block gerrymandering

-The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that federal courts may not block partisan gerrymandering in a 5-4 decision that fell along partisan lines.

-“We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, who delivered the opinion of the court.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/27/supreme-court-decides-that-courts-cannot-block-gerrymandering.html

Such a trash ruling. On par with citizens united.

Supreme Court Blocks Citizenship Question on 2020 Census

Breaking story, link to come.

Wow they’re on a roll today.

A busy week for Diana Ross and the girls.

Diana Ross and the Supremes...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXGz8i0I2L0

While I think it’s important to ask the question on the census. Without knowing the opinion and dissent of the SC, I can see why.

I can see the responses to that question being used to further the gerrymandering crap we see going on. Politicians can easily pull a speculation excuse like “we drew it this way cause we *believe* there’s a ton of illegals in this area so we tried to compensate for it”. It could further lead to a huge imbalance of district maps, something the SC already screwed up 20 minutes prior.

An update has arrived, posted below...

Supreme Court effectively blocks census citizenship question for now in a blow to Trump administration

The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a setback to the Trump administration’s plans to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, effectively blocking the addition of the question for now.

In an opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court questioned the administration’s reasoning for adding the question and ordered the case to be reconsidered by a lower court.

The Census Bureau has said it faces a July 1 printing deadline, raising questions about whether the government will be able to add the question even if it ultimately prevails.

The Constitution requires the government to conduct a census every 10 years, and the results of the survey are used to allocate billions of dollars in federal funding. The census is also used to determine representation in the House and the Electoral College.

Critics of the citizenship question argued that asking it would result in less accurate data and disproportionately harm cities and states with large immigrant populations, as well as immigrants themselves. The question has not been posed to all U.S. households since 1950.

If included on the census, one government analysis determined that as many as 6.5 million fewer people may respond. As a result, California, Texas, Arizona, Florida, New York and Illinois all face serious risk of losing a seat in the House, one federal court found.

The Trump administration acknowledged in court that the inclusion of the citizenship question could make the survey less accurate. But the Commerce Department argued that the question would enable the government to better enforce certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

That rationale did not pass muster before three federal courts, which each blocked the addition of the question. Those courts, in New York, Maryland and California, found that the rationale offered by the Commerce Department was a pretext.

The official justification for the question came under further scrutiny in recent weeks after new documents surfaced that provided new evidence of a political motive behind the addition of the question. The documents were obtained by the government watchdog group Common Cause, and provided to the justices.

One of those documents was an unpublished 2015 study by an influential Republican redistricting expert, who found that the addition of the citizenship question could benefit “Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites” if the data were used in redistricting.

The study’s author, Thomas Hofeller, appeared to help ghostwrite a 2017 draft letter from the Justice Department to the Commerce Department that provided the Voting Rights Act rationale for the citizenship question, the documents show.

The Trump administration denied that Hofeller played any role in the Justice Department’s request for the citizenship question. After his death in August, his estranged daughter discovered hard drives in her father’s home and turned them over to Common Cause.

The new development has thrust the case into uncertainty.

On Tuesday, a federal appeals court based in Richmond issued an order reopening a similar case in light of the new documents. In briefs, the Commerce Department asked the justices to prevent the lower court from barring the citizenship question, but it was not clear the top court will do so.

Challengers of the citizenship question asked the justices to send the case before them back to a lower court to consider the new evidence, if the top court was not inclined to bar the question outright.

The case is known as Department of Commerce v. New York, No. 18-966.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/27/supreme-...ower-court.html

i read this article and another article on the ruling.

basically, the SC said the question itself isn't the problem, but the administration's decision and reasoning FOR the question to be put on is what ultimately made them rule that way.

basically, this won't be going anywhere since they just sent it back to the lower courts. and since the trump administration faces a july 1st deadline for printing, that question won't be getting added on to the 2020 census.

Agreed.

So now the illegals in sanctuary states and cities will be counted as residents which effects how many congressional seats they get and how much federal money they get.

Now we know why the Liberal Democrats pretend to care about illegals. It is all about gaming the system.

Census law clearly states that ALL residents will be counted.
Period.

The inverse is a naked attempt to suppress census participation which in turn, would have an effect on the very things you mentioned, chief among which are appropriations. Your focus on the illegals (clearly a fraction of the population ignores the 98% of legal American citizens who would also be effected by such policy.

ALL residents. Period.

He, as well as you, are perfectly fine with hurting Real Americans in your zeal to deal with these others. Shame on you both.

Interesting side note: The IQ45 admin went to the whip and spurs to get this decision done with all due haste. As soon as the ruling came down Dolt45 made 2 statements:

1. We would like to slow down and take more time to revisit this issue
2. We might consider postponing the official census.



Only spolied, petulant 6 year-olds try to change the rules of the game after the final whistle has blown.

Typical.

Praise Jesus cake? Lol.. I just love these ridiculous scenarios. Everybody is a Jessie Smoltz nowadays.

Lol. Yeah bro. We got sum catching up to do, because the GOP gerrymandering is light years ahead in this gaming the system thang.

You do comprehend that where you reside and live is what constitutes you being a resident, right?

And there you have it!

You guys are basically admitting to gaming the system.

res·i·dent

a person who lives somewhere permanently or on a long-term basis.

Hope that helps.

So it wasn't enough to have dead people voting but now you game the Census for residency.

Too much.

I see things like the English language and the definition of words no longer have meaning to you. Why am i not surprised?

Trump DOJ scores rare win on sanctuary city crackdown in appeals court

President Trump notched a win on Friday in a federal appeals court, which upheld a Department of Justice method for cracking down on sanctuary cities.

In a 2-1 decision that overturns a nationwide injunction, the DOJ is now allowed to give preferential treatment for community policing grants to cities that don't defy federal immigration enforcement.


"The department is pleased that the court recognized the lawful authority of the administration to provide favorable treatment when awarding discretionary law enforcement grants to jurisdictions that assist in enforcing federal immigration laws," the DOJ said in a statement.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-d...n-appeals-court

No Funds For You!