Tell me once again, do you champion this kind of glorious ignorance to your wife's fancy "bryn mawr friends" - or do you reserve for anonymous bleatings on a basketball BBS?
This, on the other hand, is just awful. The worst part being: This is blind and stupid...and if this guy really is a lawyer or law professor or even took a class on law or government in the US at any point of his life, he should be called out for this. Because it's not even remotely intellecutally honest. To go on to say, "it's not in the text...just a VERSION of what's in the cases interpreting the text" is to completely miss the entire role of the Supreme Court and to ignore roughly 120 years of well settled law. Do we need to discuss why the Bill of Rights were applied to the States?? That we have about 120 years of history since that happened via the 14th Amendment and the incorporation doctrine??? really??? This is literalism to the point of being stupid. You would criticize someone if they read a religious text this way..without any context or history. In no way does a local government have the right to snub its nose in the US to the Constitutional requirements of the Bill of Rights. This is specifically true of the Establishment Clause and SCOTUS' interpretations of separation of church and state. Honestly, you don't seem like the kind of cat that would do anything BUT champion separation of church and state. Is this just team sports politics? She's wearing your team's jersey with a big "R" on it, so you're rooting for her against the bad guys on the other team? We are in a very dangerous time in America if this is what passes for potential leadership.
Yeah, I saw "Ann Althouse" who's not exactly Cass Sunstein or Larry Tribe or even Eugene Volokh, so I will make you a deal - if I read this link to a right wing blogger post, will you read the Establishment clause and hundreds of years of case law that you and Commodore O'Donnell claim doesn't exist? Thanks in advance for your response.
Please tell me you're not this stupid. These debates are CRITICAL for O'Donnell as she is behind in the polls. So, what you're saying is that she is repeating the "separation of church and state" because she wants to call him out for it not being in there literally? OK, so what would logically follow, if that was her point, would be this: "Mr. Coons, I hate to correct you, but the First Amendment does NOT use the phrase "separation of church and state" at all. There is most certainly a difference between saying that the government cannot establish a religion and that ..." etc., etc. But that's not what she said, now, is it? Forgive me, but since she's had trouble remembering Amendments several times now, and because she professes to be an expert on the Constitution, and that she is a member of the literal-reading-of-the-Constitution-obsessed Tea Party, and because she herself stated that "senators shouldn't have to memorize the Constitution," yes, I think that any person with 1/4 of a brain could add 1 to the other 1 and get 2. But, no, of course, she was trying to point out that Coons didn't know. That's exactly why she stated this (NOT), as that would have been the obvious thing to do (DUH!). uNbelievable.
I can't believe how ignorant she is about the 1st amendment. Case history and decision after decision has determined that what she claims isn't part of the constitution is indeed part of the constitution. She not only has no clue about the constitution, but has no clue about the way constitutional law is applied, and the countless review that's gone on in case after case on this subject. Not only does she doesn't understand the constitution she doesn't understand govt. at all. What an idiot. How embarrassing for those who've tried to defend her at any point.
i suppose it depends on what you mean by "separation of church and state." if you mean it as jefferson interpreted it (while president) to there should be no official state religion (contrasting the US with England and the Anglican Church), then of course. however, taken to it's extreme, as we've often seen local governments do, supported by the courts, banning things like a creche on city property, then, i think it's kind of ridiculous. and if a creche at city hall is beyond the pale, why is there a big menora at the little (city owned) park across from my apt. every year? Spoiler NTTAWWT sidebar: would a Kwanza display be ok, constitutionally speaking? is that a religious holiday?
I just read that piece and fully agree. Honestly Ann Althouse is just making herself look bad trying to justify O'Donnell. Also Althouse keeps on saying that reporters are misquoting O'Donnell. I saw the footage of that section of the debate and they aren't misquoting her at all. If anything O'Donnell comes off worse in the footage than just reading her quote. In the footage she has the deer in the headlights look and comes off as truly clueless about what is in the First Amendment.
those are valid arguments. we debate over that stuff. what is not a valid argument is somehow suggesting that local government is not subject to the scrutiny of the Bill of Rights, as that article suggests O'Donnell is doing. that is blatantly misleading and flat out wrong.
The problem is O'Donnell never stated any of that. You and Althouse are both trying to read further into O'Donnell's statement than what was there. To give O'Donnell the benefit of the doubt maybe she had in her mind that but in that case she did a terrible job conveying that. Also that still doesn't counter MadMax's spot on point that Althouse is completely wrong in regard to the extension of the First Amendment down to local governments. While you might find that ridiculous clearly the courts don't as you cite and in this case they, not you, are the one who establishes the precedents. As far as the Menorah on the city park you might have a case if you sue the city in regard to that.
Classic basso post. Particularly stung by getting the proverbial Gary Payton dumbbell in the face post from Mad Maxhe's got to respond - his mission on the BBS still exits, make no mistake. Let's analyze Step 1 - he takes a snippet of something he's copying and pasting from freeper or somewhere else, not going to bother to google as we know that's where it's from. Obviously he's trying to tone down his original statements in order to assuage the mad one, including some hamfisted hypothesizing and qualifications about Thomas Jefferson that church state enthusiasts like to use when trying to explain away the "wall of separation" letter. Probably should stay away from that one, bro. Step 2, basso the common man makes an appearance, trying to just be your average every day guy, not just the right wing court-jester of the basketball internet. Basso the reasonable UWS renting registered republican stereo seller arrives - hello chap! Step 3 And the coup administered....NOW, with classic basso subtextual race baiting time - Hey pgabriel, rocket river, ANYBODY - please respond to my post, I beg you. This topic has taken a turn for the worse, I need to shake this Mad Max guy. He's stealing all of my petrol.
I just got around to watching that portion of the debate. What's striking to me is the smugness in her interactions with Coons. She tries to constantly talk over him and seems really proud of the way she "trapped" him in the debate. I honestly think she thought the law students laughing at her were laughing with her because she made such great points. Dumb and highly ambitious is quite possibly the worst combo out there. I hate working with people like that. Those folks never realize how stupid they are and they will stop at nothing to get what they want.
