U.S. Supreme Court Won't Hear Challenge to 'In God We Trust'

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Abyssinia said:
The Supreme Court won’t hear an atheist’s latest challenge to the U.S. government’s references to God.

The court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Michael Newdow, who says government references to God are unconstitutional and infringe on his religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
A total waste of the Court’s time. Like the “birthers” whose attempts to get before the Court are worthless, so are the attempts of atheists. All theses people have a lot of spare time, it seems. 😦
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
A total waste of the Court’s time. Like the “birthers” whose attempts to get before the Court are worthless, so are the attempts of atheists. All theses people have a lot of spare time, it seems. 😦
Click to expand...
I agree. I do take issue where government policies demonstrate a clear favoritism for religion or certain sectarian religion, but I’m not a big fan of manufactured outrage over minor issues
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
A total waste of the Court’s time. Like the “birthers” whose attempts to get before the Court are worthless, so are the attempts of atheists. All theses people have a lot of spare time, it seems. 😦
Click to expand...
Can’t even celebrate a good court decision without attacking someone on the other side, can you? How pathetic.

There are lots of crazy lawsuits. No one brought up 9/11 conspirators, because it isn’t relevant. Can’t you even be happy about a victory without taking a shot at someone else?
 
Its a sad state of affairs that the best the SCOTUS can do in a particular case is to not hear it. I was very disheartened regarding last week’s ruling regarding WBC and I hope I am wrong but I wonder how Roberts will vote when Abortion is brought before the SCOTUS considering how he voted on the WBC.
 
USA started to collapse when they started to deviate from God way , God bless started to disappear from there.
 
He_Man said:
Can’t even celebrate a good court decision without attacking someone on the other side, can you? How pathetic.

There are lots of crazy lawsuits. No one brought up 9/11 conspirators, because it isn’t relevant. Can’t you even be happy about a victory without taking a shot at someone else?
Click to expand...
  1. What decision? :hmmm: There was no decision rendered. There wasn’t even a hearing.
  2. How could there be a victory? The Supremes didn’t decide anything.
 
As might be expected, Michael Newdow isn’t giving up:
“I plan on bringing the lawsuit again on behalf of other Americans who believe they are injured when the government lends its power to one side of the controversy over whether or not God exists,” he said Tuesday.
Click to expand...
Newdow, a doctor in Sacramento, Calif., has filed numerous First Amendment suits concerning government endorsement of religion. He filed the challenge to the national motto in 2005.
Click to expand...
blog.beliefnet.com/news/2011/03/court-rejects-challenge-to-in.php

I agree with Rich, this case was frivolous. But Newdow has a history of such cases, such as trying to get the phrase “under God” stricken from the Pledge of Allegiance often recited in US schools. Or forbidding the phrase “so help me God” from being used in presidential inaugurations.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
  1. What decision? :hmmm: There was no decision rendered. There wasn’t even a hearing.
  2. How could there be a victory? The Supremes didn’t decide anything.
Click to expand...
  1. They decided not to hear the case. That’s a decision.
  2. It is a victory for people who epouse to serve God. Victories are often one beofre the final battle is waged. Again, what is it in being contrarian JUST to be annoyance to the rest of the posters that you take pleasure in?
I would have thought this was one issue both liberals and conservatives on here could be happy about. Then I made the mistake of reading your post.
 
When the Supreme Court ‘won’t hear a challenge’… I think that says alot right there. 🙂
 
He_Man said:
  1. They decided not to hear the case. That’s a decision.
Click to expand...
Not in law, it isn’t, and the Supreme Court would have had to heard arguments before they could render a decision.
  1. It is a victory for people who epouse to serve God.
Click to expand...
A motto is the equivalent of serving God???
I would have thought this was one issue both liberals and conservatives on here could be happy about. Then I made the mistake of reading your post.
Click to expand...
🤷
 
Bwtby said:
When the Supreme Court ‘won’t hear a challenge’… I think that says alot right there. 🙂
Click to expand...
No. The Court gets hundreds of petitions every year and the fact that they reject most appeals goes to the level of work they have. They are under no obligation to hear any challenge.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
No. The Court gets hundreds of petitions every year and the fact that they reject most appeals goes to the level of work they have. They are under no obligation to hear any challenge.
Click to expand...
And this stupid case is not even deserving of acknowledgment, so it ain’t being heard. They have more important cases, as you just said.

That’s wonderful.
 
Bwtby said:
And this stupid case is not even deserving of acknowledgment, so it ain’t being heard. They have more important cases, as you just said.

That’s wonderful.
Click to expand...
Right! 👍

I’d like to have them review Roe v Wade, not some petition regarding a motto. What’s more important?
 
He_Man said:
  1. They decided not to hear the case. That’s a decision…
Click to expand...
That’s correct. It means that the Justices read the appeal documentation, the prior case decisions and briefs created by their staffs re: the relevant case law. They then voted on weither to take up the case or not. A majority vote decides. In this case, a majority of the Justices DECIDED that the lower courts decision was the correct one and that no grounds for appeal existed.
 
Brendan said:
That’s correct. It means that the Justices read the appeal documentation, the prior case decisions and briefs created by their staffs re: the relevant case law. They then voted on weither to take up the case or not. A majority vote decides. In this case, a majority of the Justices DECIDED that the lower courts decision was the correct one and that no grounds for appeal existed.
Click to expand...
You are using “decision” in the broadest sense. Perhaps they all “decided” as well as to where to have lunch that day.

The normal use of “decision” is of one published after a case has been heard and adjudicated by them. What the Supreme Court did in this case was not to “decide” the case, but simply to deny a hearing to the petitioner. There was no decision on the merits.

Just using it technically rather than informally. Mox nix either way. 🤷
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
You are using “decision” in the broadest sense. Perhaps they all “decided” as well as to where to have lunch that day.

The normal use of “decision” is of one published after a case has been heard and adjudicated by them. What the Supreme Court did in this case was not to “decide” the case, but simply to deny a hearing to the petitioner. There was no decision on the merits.

Just using it technically rather than informally. Mox nix either way. 🤷
Click to expand...
As I understand it, the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear a case is not necessarily even a ringing endorsement of a lower court’s decision in any given matter. The SC is a very deliberative body of nine mature folks who don’t like to work the 100 hour weeks of an aspiring partner in private practice. They have limited time and tend to reserve that for the cases where some overarching weighty question needs resolution or where differences in various appellate courts are creating some confusion on an issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top