Here we go again!
The same pinhead who took his last case to SCOTUS and was deemed to not have standing continued his drive to force his atheism upon everyone else by hunting down two families to sue for him.
Within 24 months, Chief Justice John Roberts will write the ruling that overturns this stupid decision (assuming, of course, the 9th Circus Court of Appeals upholds it, which wouldn't surprise me in the least).
Following that, Newdow ought to be required to pay everyone's fees.
[ September 14, 2005, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]
Was "under God" always part of the oath? I thought it was added around the time of FDR but not sure.
No, it wasn't always present. It was added several decades ago. This decision clearly conflicts with a 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which stated that the Pledge is clearly a patriotic exercise and not a religious test or requirement; therefore, it doesn't conflict with the Constitution.
Never mind the fact that the children aren't even required to say the Pledge.
These far out judges are beyond nuts.
Never mind the fact that the children aren't even required to say the Pledge.
These far out judges are beyond nuts.
it was added during the 50's....during the wonderful McCarthy era....
Let's take a look at just how much of an activist this judge is...
Judge Karlton ruled against water rights for farmers in California in order to protect a fish.
In May of this year, Judge Karlton ruled that 700 miles of trails had to be closed to off-road vehicles, and in August he ruled that a city could not close hotels because of code violations.
In another decision, Judge Karlton shut down a fire reduction project in a National Forest because it ignored the environmental impact of the project.
In 2001, Karlton overturned the conviction and death penalty sentence for a man who shot a woman and then allowed her to bleed to death.
Judge Karlton ruled against water rights for farmers in California in order to protect a fish.
In May of this year, Judge Karlton ruled that 700 miles of trails had to be closed to off-road vehicles, and in August he ruled that a city could not close hotels because of code violations.
In another decision, Judge Karlton shut down a fire reduction project in a National Forest because it ignored the environmental impact of the project.
In 2001, Karlton overturned the conviction and death penalty sentence for a man who shot a woman and then allowed her to bleed to death.
QUOTE
MIB:
These far out judges are beyond nuts.
Hello pot, meet kettle.
These far out judges are beyond nuts.
Wonder how the "Judge" would rule on 2 tacos for 99 cents raze?
Might change your next "date"...
Might change your next "date"...
I don't date children, PF. That leaves Razorbutt out.
QUOTE
MIB:
I don't date children, PF. That leaves Razorbutt out.
No worries MIB, I dont date fake judges or I don't date children, PF. That leaves Razorbutt out.
stem cell obsessed multiple personalities.
Then your post above re. your kitchen kettle is invalid. Can't have your cake and eat it, too, you know.
Gotcha. (Really! This is TOO easy, PF.)
Gotcha. (Really! This is TOO easy, PF.)
Gotta agree with MIB on this one....our tax dollars at work...
QUOTE
MiamiSpartan:
Gotta agree with MIB on this one....our tax dollars at work...
I can feel the love! Gotta agree with MIB on this one....our tax dollars at work...
Children are not "required" to say the pledge but they are required to hear it.
Do you think that Christians would be upset if our pledge said "One Nation under Allah"? Why is it surprising that someone who is athiest (or anyone who isn't in a monotheistic religion) is upset?
MIB- and please answer this calmly and rationally- how is this guy forcing atheism on someone? Forcing atheism on someone would be requiring the schools to tell people there is no god. This is telling schools they can't say there is a god.
Do you think that Christians would be upset if our pledge said "One Nation under Allah"? Why is it surprising that someone who is athiest (or anyone who isn't in a monotheistic religion) is upset?
MIB- and please answer this calmly and rationally- how is this guy forcing atheism on someone? Forcing atheism on someone would be requiring the schools to tell people there is no god. This is telling schools they can't say there is a god.
QUOTE
laxmanmd:
Children are not \"required\" to say the pledge but they are required to hear it.
So? That's irrelevant, as there is no constitutional right to silence. And why do you and your ilk constantly bring up the same old arguments? Newdow lost at the SCOTUS level, so he ran around trying to dig up a couple other folks and looked to a radical, left-wing judge to do his bidding. In the end, though, this WILL be overturned, and I'm willing to bet by a Court that will be almost unanimous. Children are not \"required\" to say the pledge but they are required to hear it.
This decision conflicts with others, including the Ten Commandments one that was handed down only a couple months ago.
I know I asked this before, but why in the US do you feel the need to bring God and religion into every aspect of public life? Shouldn't religion/faith be matters of private concern to individuals in their homes and churches?
Don't mean to offend anyone by asking, it just always amazes me how often issues of public debate come back to religion south of the border.
Don't mean to offend anyone by asking, it just always amazes me how often issues of public debate come back to religion south of the border.
Who says anyone is "bringing" God into this? The deity was already brought in decades ago.
I find it quite amusing that those who somehow are huge proponents of precedence--say, oh, I don't know, in a clearly terribly-written case like Roe v. Wade ("stare decisis! stare decisis!"), currently being debated in the Senate hearings--conveniently throw precedence out the window when it's something they don't like, as in the Pledge. The Pledge with "under God" has been around for 50 years, so what's suddenly wrong with it? Answer: nothing. It's the loony left trying to impose their warped view of society on the rest of the nation. Remember, they can't do it via their elected officials, so they get a judge that's so far to the left that he has to turn to the right to see Ted Kennedy.
Oh! The hypocrisy!
[ September 14, 2005, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]
I find it quite amusing that those who somehow are huge proponents of precedence--say, oh, I don't know, in a clearly terribly-written case like Roe v. Wade ("stare decisis! stare decisis!"), currently being debated in the Senate hearings--conveniently throw precedence out the window when it's something they don't like, as in the Pledge. The Pledge with "under God" has been around for 50 years, so what's suddenly wrong with it? Answer: nothing. It's the loony left trying to impose their warped view of society on the rest of the nation. Remember, they can't do it via their elected officials, so they get a judge that's so far to the left that he has to turn to the right to see Ted Kennedy.
Oh! The hypocrisy!
[ September 14, 2005, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]
Actually Judge, the question was why does God/religion have to be part of seemingly all public debate in the US.
He has been throughout our history, but He hasn't been the subject of the Pledge until Newdow decided to make it so.
Ya know squares, If you want to say the pledge go ahead. If you want to make your kids say it, then fine.
I pledge allegiance to the fag, and to the community for which it swishes...one circuit party under Ru, incessant with drum beats and Tina for all...
I pledge allegiance to the fag, and to the community for which it swishes...one circuit party under Ru, incessant with drum beats and Tina for all...
Damn. The rehab center let outs its patients early, I see.
You were finally able to turn the TV set in the break room to the channel you wanted to watch?
burn
Surely you can do better than that, twin, considering it wasn't that good. At least the doobie-puffing chap following ya understood, which isn't saying much.
MIB, there seems to be a contradiction in your argument. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're saying that, because the phrase "...under God...)has been in the pledge for fifty years, etc., and that it is more historic in nature than religious, then it doesn't matter if it's taken out; if you argue that it IS religious and is meant to glorify a diety, then it's clearly violative of the 1st amendment, and unless you are in favor of the establishment of religion by the government, you can not really argue against its exclusiion. And by the way, while the right to silence is not in the Constitution, as you so pithily noted, there are limits placed on our constitutional rights, and when the exercise of your rights (government-sponsored recitation that the nation is united under God, etc.) infringes on another's (i.e, not to have the government establish or support a religion,) it is constitutional to limit those rights (delete the phrase), IMHO. Constitutionally yours, Mike
QUOTE
swiminbuff:
I know I asked this before, but why in the US do you feel the need to bring God and religion into every aspect of public life? Shouldn't religion/faith be matters of private concern to individuals in their homes and churches?
Take a walk through our nation's capital, where one can go on a walking tour filled with references and reliances of God:I know I asked this before, but why in the US do you feel the need to bring God and religion into every aspect of public life? Shouldn't religion/faith be matters of private concern to individuals in their homes and churches?
- The Declaration of Independence--\"we are endowed by our Creator\"--to the
- The National Archives' large display of the Ten Commandments shown across the floor
- Washington's own monument (look for the monument cornerstone, the Free Press Methodist Episcopal Church Memorial Plaque, prayer and psalm inscriptions, and on the top of the monument: Laus Deo - \"Praise God\")
- Thanksgiving Day - a holiday instituted to specifically and directly thank God
- The Jefferson Memorial (look what's on its dome)
- The Lincoln Memorial (read what's on its walls)
- The east entrance of the Senate chamber: Annuit coeptis: \"God has favored our undertakings\"
- In the Supreme Court building, the Ten Commandments (multiple images), statue of Mohammed
- Zorach v. Clauson
These are but a few of the religious aspects of our own government. If you support today's anti-Pledge decision, then you must oppose all the above examples (and the hundreds more I do not mention here). If so, then you are truly outside the overwhelming majority of American opinion and tradition. It's no wonder, then, why many Dems can't win elections.
QUOTE
judemorrison:
MIB, there seems to be a contradiction in your argument. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're saying that, because the phrase \"...under God...)has been in the pledge for fifty years, etc., and that it is more historic in nature than religious, then it doesn't matter if it's taken out;
No, I was drawing an analogy to the Left's supposed love of and adherence to precedence vis-a-vis Roe v. Wade.MIB, there seems to be a contradiction in your argument. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're saying that, because the phrase \"...under God...)has been in the pledge for fifty years, etc., and that it is more historic in nature than religious, then it doesn't matter if it's taken out;
QUOTE
if you argue that it IS religious and is meant to glorify a diety, then it's clearly violative of the 1st amendment,
I'm rather shocked by how so many people here simply do not understand the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. It is not unconstitutional for the U.S. government to acknowledge God, His relationship to our nation, His meaning to our history and culture, or our reliance on His inspiration.
Mr. Newdow and his cronies in the very dangerous ACLU seem to think that the First Amendment mandates that the government be absolutely devoid of any and everything religious. This is preposterous. It's silly.
It also goes against over 200 years of American history.
[ September 14, 2005, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]
But MIB, when the government mandated religious prayer in school (i.e., when public school teachers LED prayer in class), that went way beyond merely tolerating religion or God, and the SCOTUS correctly found that such school-led prayer to be a violation of the 1st. Despite many challenges, the Court, so far, has struck down attmepts to get around that decision (i.e, giving students the chance to opt out of prayer, moments of silence, meditative periods, etc.) WHy is it such a stretch to find that school-led recitations of a pledge (that states that our nation is united under god,) when there are millions of Americans who do not believe in such things, violates the 1st amendment? A public school is an entity of the government; if it is encouraging the belief in a diety, that's unconstitutional. And the analogy to the 10 commandments case is wrong: that decision was based on the historical context of law throughout history and the place of the commandments therein, if I'm not mistaken.
My bad, I meant "acknowledging" god, not "tolerating" which has a whole other meaning that I did not intend. Mike
The conundrum Twin 58...How do we dumb it down even more and still keep our self-respect. We do value our friendly troll's understanding and input. Jude's turn to feed the troll. Do you smell fish or is that billy goats?
[ September 14, 2005, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: Erik G ]
[ September 14, 2005, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: Erik G ]
QUOTE
judemorrison:
WHy is it such a stretch to find that school-led recitations of a pledge (that states that our nation is united under god,) when there are millions of Americans who do not believe in such things, violates the 1st amendment?
Because the Pledge isn't religious, that's why. It is a patriotic piece of work. The school isn't encouraging a belief in a deity. Furthermore, school children aren't required to recite it. These are the reasons why this judge's decision will ultimately be overruled. Easily.WHy is it such a stretch to find that school-led recitations of a pledge (that states that our nation is united under god,) when there are millions of Americans who do not believe in such things, violates the 1st amendment?
[ September 14, 2005, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]
I used to have lower limits, but they kept getting in the way.
Since the word "G-d" was specifically put into the pledge in the 50s to counter the influence of the atheistic nature of Communism, I would think it would fail the test the Court seems to have created in the two Ten Commandments cases that it decided this past year.
I went to private religious schools for all but one year of my primary and secondary education. I'm not the most qualified to speak to the policies of public education. However, I can say that the only environment I've ever been in that is more coercive than school is prison (I was volunteering in a chaplaincy program). I imagine the military is a more coercive environment than schools, but I haven't served in the military and have no first hand knowledge.
Any communal activity in school is by its very nature coercive, and there is a presumption upon the student that he or she will participate. Nonparticipation is seen by both students and teachers as separating the child from the mainstream. The result is marginalization of the students who do not participate.
My mother went to public schools her entire life. She is still traumatized by a school yard taunt of "Christ killer." Religion in the public schools leaves marks. There was no legal remedy for my mother. You can't legislate or even adjudicate children to be nice to each other. But it is the responsibility of those who can legislate and adjudicate to protect as much as they can.
I am very much in favor of erring on the side of caution when it comes to protecting children of any religious stripe from the coercive nature of public schools.
I went to private religious schools for all but one year of my primary and secondary education. I'm not the most qualified to speak to the policies of public education. However, I can say that the only environment I've ever been in that is more coercive than school is prison (I was volunteering in a chaplaincy program). I imagine the military is a more coercive environment than schools, but I haven't served in the military and have no first hand knowledge.
Any communal activity in school is by its very nature coercive, and there is a presumption upon the student that he or she will participate. Nonparticipation is seen by both students and teachers as separating the child from the mainstream. The result is marginalization of the students who do not participate.
My mother went to public schools her entire life. She is still traumatized by a school yard taunt of "Christ killer." Religion in the public schools leaves marks. There was no legal remedy for my mother. You can't legislate or even adjudicate children to be nice to each other. But it is the responsibility of those who can legislate and adjudicate to protect as much as they can.
I am very much in favor of erring on the side of caution when it comes to protecting children of any religious stripe from the coercive nature of public schools.
Erik G., you still crack me up. I nearly spit out my salad onto my keyboard reading your version of The Pledge. Does this ruling mean we are also going to have to change our currency? After all, it does say "In God We Trust". What's so wrong with believing in a higher power? I understand the need for separation of church and state, but this strikes me as much ado about nothing. If you don't want your kid to say The Pledge due to the word God, then fine, have him/her not say it. Don't deny the majority of this country the right to say The Pledge. What's next...caving in to the Druids? It's rulings such as this that make me question my "left"ness.
jqueer, permit me to say something that might shock folks here: if the Pledge did not currently have "under God" in it, it wouldn't bother me at all. However, I am not now in favor of removing it. In other words, if it had not been inserted, that's fine with me; but now that it has been inserted--fifty years ago--I don't want it removed because some nuisance runs around saying it offends him. It's just stupid.
And miller, there still yet may be hope for you.
And miller, there still yet may be hope for you.
Cute, MIB. A bit dark, but cute. You know, I have always been intrigued with darkness.
And somehow you manage to conflate this "nuisance" and this judge with the entire Democratic Party. If the fascists in Congress decided to ram through, by legislative fiat, an amended statement saying "under God and His representative on earth, George W. Bush," would you go along with that? Where does your yielding to politically problematic ations that become "precedence" end? Oh, I know, where they begin with Republican thuggery. God help your defendents, "judge."
QUOTE
Originally posted by millerbeach
Cute, MIB. A bit dark, but cute. You know, I have always been intrigued with darkness.
Indeed.Cute, MIB. A bit dark, but cute. You know, I have always been intrigued with darkness.
[ September 14, 2005, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]
It was much more civil and enjoyable in here without you, fantomas. I'd suggest you go back to your socialist club meeting and let us continue to enjoy this thread.
QUOTE
MIB:
It was much more civil and enjoyable in here without you, fantomas. I'd suggest you go back to your socialist club meeting and let us continue to enjoy this thread.
It's the Trotskyite Arts Club, on Clark and Belmont, as you well know,and they were waiting for you to give your weekly report. They're all wearing bullet proof vests, though, since they know you still receive ESP messages from the rotting corpse of the Great Leader, Stalin....It was much more civil and enjoyable in here without you, fantomas. I'd suggest you go back to your socialist club meeting and let us continue to enjoy this thread.
QUOTE
That leaves Razorbutt out.
You call that "civil"? You're more delusional than anyone thought, "judge"....[ September 15, 2005, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
Please excuse me, but not being American, I 'm not sure I have the pledge right. Off the top of my head,
"I pledge alliegience (sp) to the flag of the United States and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation, under God, undivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
I have the feeling,I;m missing something. Am I?
"I pledge alliegience (sp) to the flag of the United States and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation, under God, undivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
I have the feeling,I;m missing something. Am I?
very close chuck....the poem uses the full name of the country - the United States of America.
Other than that....you nailed it.
Other than that....you nailed it.
Simply stating that "under God" should stay in the pledge because it has been there for 50 years isn't an argument for keeping it around today. By that argument, any goverment practice that has been around for a period of time (even if later considered a violation of the Constitution) would not be addressed or corrected.
I know what you mean, MIB, but be honest about it: it is not an issue of star decisis. Nor can you entertain this as a parallel because stare decisis only applies to court decisions. Roe v. Wade was a court decision, the addition of "under God" during the worst period of anti-Americanism/anti-liberties of the past 100 years is not the equivalent of a court decision and should not be afforded the same respect or consideration.
That said, I don't think "under God" is the worst thing in the world. As others have pointed out, we have all kinds of references to an almighty in countless number of government-related areas (money, courthouse displays, statues, museums) and they don't threaten the separation of church and state. Manadatory school prayer? Unconstitutional. "In God We Trust"? Fine.
I know what you mean, MIB, but be honest about it: it is not an issue of star decisis. Nor can you entertain this as a parallel because stare decisis only applies to court decisions. Roe v. Wade was a court decision, the addition of "under God" during the worst period of anti-Americanism/anti-liberties of the past 100 years is not the equivalent of a court decision and should not be afforded the same respect or consideration.
That said, I don't think "under God" is the worst thing in the world. As others have pointed out, we have all kinds of references to an almighty in countless number of government-related areas (money, courthouse displays, statues, museums) and they don't threaten the separation of church and state. Manadatory school prayer? Unconstitutional. "In God We Trust"? Fine.
I believe its also "indivisible" rather than "undevisible" chuck. At least thats what I was saying all those years in school when we had to to the pledge.
What I have always found to be so ironic about the whole "under God" piece of the pledge is that its primarily the conservative Christians who are so adamant about keeping it in. Yet, the Bible clearly states (the Ten Commandments) that followers of God should not practice idolatry or pledge their allegiance to any being or graven image other than God Himself. Yet, in this particular pledge we are asked to give our allegiance to a piece of cloth and the country it represents. Whats the difference between the Hebrews who sculpted and worshipped a calf made out of gold and a nation that holds a piece of cloth with stars and stripes in an iconic status? In the current pledge you are offering your being (often with hand over heart) to something other than God. So to me, the whole pledge is sacreligious and as a Christian, offensive.
Good point, Hotlanta. That one escaped me. But some folks also consider Catholics to do that, simply because we have statues in our church. I never considered that as worshipping an idol. For me, it's the same with the flag and The Pledge. By the way, our currency also says "In God We Trust", but I digress, as there are people whom really do worship money above all else.
QUOTE
HotlantaTarheel
So to me, the whole pledge is sacreligious and as a Christian, offensive.
You're not alone.So to me, the whole pledge is sacreligious and as a Christian, offensive.
4th Circuit upholds Virginia's Pledge law
QUOTE
By The Associated Press
08.11.05
RICHMOND, Va. — A federal appeals court yesterday upheld a Virginia law requiring public schools to lead a daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Edward Myers of Sterling, a father of three, claimed that the reference to “one nation under God” in the pledge was an unconstitutional promotion of religion.
A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, ruling that the pledge is a patriotic exercise, not an affirmation of religion similar to a prayer.
“Undoubtedly, the pledge contains a religious phrase, and it is demeaning to persons of any faith to assert that the words ‘under God’ contain no religious significance,” Judge Karen Williams wrote for the panel in Myers v. Loudoun County Public Schools. “The inclusion of those two words, however, does not alter the nature of the pledge as a patriotic activity.”
Myers and his attorney, David Remes, said they had not yet discussed whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“If I don’t move forward, what’s my other choice? Withdraw from public school?” Myers said in a telephone interview.
Remes said the appeals court had failed to examine the effect of the pledge on children in a school setting.
“The problem is that young schoolchildren are quite likely to view the pledge as affirming the existence of God and national subordination to God,” Remes said. “The reference to God is one of the few things in the pledge that children understand.”
Myers belongs to the Anabaptist Mennonite faith, a Christian sect opposed to the mingling of church and state. He challenged the pledge law because of that belief and his fear that Loudoun County public schools were indoctrinating his sons with a “God and country” world view.
“The combination of God and country approaches a civic religion that is in competition with my religion,” Myers said.
Two of Myers’ sons, ages 11 and 9, attend public schools. Their teachers know that he has instructed them to sit quietly while their classmates recite the pledge, Myers said, but several times a year a substitute teacher or other school official will compel them to participate.
“It’s a difficult problem for them because I want them to respect their teachers, but at the same time they have to respect my religious beliefs,” Myers said.
....
Edited to add: the three-judge panel did not include J. Michael Luttig, thought to be on the short list for a SCOTUS nomination.08.11.05
RICHMOND, Va. — A federal appeals court yesterday upheld a Virginia law requiring public schools to lead a daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Edward Myers of Sterling, a father of three, claimed that the reference to “one nation under God” in the pledge was an unconstitutional promotion of religion.
A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, ruling that the pledge is a patriotic exercise, not an affirmation of religion similar to a prayer.
“Undoubtedly, the pledge contains a religious phrase, and it is demeaning to persons of any faith to assert that the words ‘under God’ contain no religious significance,” Judge Karen Williams wrote for the panel in Myers v. Loudoun County Public Schools. “The inclusion of those two words, however, does not alter the nature of the pledge as a patriotic activity.”
Myers and his attorney, David Remes, said they had not yet discussed whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“If I don’t move forward, what’s my other choice? Withdraw from public school?” Myers said in a telephone interview.
Remes said the appeals court had failed to examine the effect of the pledge on children in a school setting.
“The problem is that young schoolchildren are quite likely to view the pledge as affirming the existence of God and national subordination to God,” Remes said. “The reference to God is one of the few things in the pledge that children understand.”
Myers belongs to the Anabaptist Mennonite faith, a Christian sect opposed to the mingling of church and state. He challenged the pledge law because of that belief and his fear that Loudoun County public schools were indoctrinating his sons with a “God and country” world view.
“The combination of God and country approaches a civic religion that is in competition with my religion,” Myers said.
Two of Myers’ sons, ages 11 and 9, attend public schools. Their teachers know that he has instructed them to sit quietly while their classmates recite the pledge, Myers said, but several times a year a substitute teacher or other school official will compel them to participate.
“It’s a difficult problem for them because I want them to respect their teachers, but at the same time they have to respect my religious beliefs,” Myers said.
....
[ September 16, 2005, 06:09 AM: Message edited by: twin58 ]
I recited the pledge many times while growing up. I think at least through fourth grade. But to me, here's the issue. No teacher ever took the time to discuss what it meant. What second grader knows what "allegiance" means? Or "republic"? "Indivisible"? And we weren't taught why we were putting our right hand over our heart, or why we had to stand up, or anything. Thus the pledge ended up not being a loyalty oath or something that brought us together as a country or whatever the heck it was supposed to do. It meant, every morning, we'd stand up, look in the vague direction of the flag, chant a series of syllables, then sit back down again. And I don't think I'm alone. Most people know about Richard Stanz ("...and to the republic for Richard Stanz...") because they too just said the words.
The pledge was presumably put in place for noble reasons - to foster national identity or what have you. But I don't think it serves its purpose. Having kids yammer a set of words every morning without telling them what the words mean seems like an utter waste of time.
LXN
The pledge was presumably put in place for noble reasons - to foster national identity or what have you. But I don't think it serves its purpose. Having kids yammer a set of words every morning without telling them what the words mean seems like an utter waste of time.
LXN
I like what liberal attack dog Senator Charles Schumer said last night in an interview where he commented on, among other things, this judge's decision:
"This decision was terrible. Judges who make decisions like this make us Democrats look bad. I'm sure it will eventually be overturned, as it should be."
"This decision was terrible. Judges who make decisions like this make us Democrats look bad. I'm sure it will eventually be overturned, as it should be."
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.