Will someone please remove this redneck drunk trading poser pathetic excuse for a human from ET please? We have a raving lunatic on our hands ruining this site. peace axeman
yeah but it wasn't YOUR point it was Archangel's point. at least give HIM the credit for it you LYING POS!
Oh, the verbiage is not yours. Ok, then why not quote the source when you used the verbiage? Are you simply a parrot of an atheist group? There was no reason to address the core issue, if the case could be dismissed and avoided on technical issues. This is very common. They are saying in effect, bring back the case when you have done everything properly to the point when it cannot be dismissed on a technical basis. In this way, by dismissing it on technical grounds, if a similar case is brought forth that is free of technical issues, no one can argue their actual juducial decision was technically influenced. The ruling was not judicial in the classic sense of the issue, but on the merit of the case technically, and it should not be evaluated if the technical grounds are not present. The Supreme Court has plenty to do with properly and technically grounded appeals. That the group or individuals that sponsored the case to begin with did not get the ruling they wanted, and call it "ducking the case", means they don't completely understand the system, the law, and the need for every single technical ground to be covered before the issues at the heart of the case can be addressed. The court is telling those who want to really address the issue of church and state to bring them something clean, not muddled with other issues of who is actually filing a suit, or qualified to file a suit. Bottom line, they did the right thing, as you rarely see a court with both conservatives and liberals agree without dissent. Your side lost, they are pissed, so what else is new?
and another takes axe's little balls in his hands and squashes them.. i love it ps please dont insult parrots. Axe doesnt have IQ of a parrot
I DID, go back and read my first post. Or cant you READ??? QUOTE: "The court ducked the issue, which means that a legal conflict still exists," said Dave Silverman I cant believe I have to explain these things. :eek: peace axeman
LOL!!! ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz very FIRST post to ET is on my thread. Surprise surprise Geezuz im sick of all the COWARDS with the 100 aliases on ET. peace axeman
axeman Elite Member Registered: Feb 2002 Posts: 3334 06-15-04 09:11 AM Its clear they ducked the main issue, its not even arguable. Guess we will have to wait for someone else with a stronger legal standing to push the issue. But its obvious the court really doesn't want to have to deal with it. I wonder why peace axeman ----------------------------------------------------------- No, it is not clear they "ducked" the issue. That is an OPINION, not a fact. It is arguable, and your responsibility to make a case, which you haven't. You can be pissed, that's understandable, that happens often when people lose. Question is, is it your opinion, or are you parroting the opinion of others? If it is your opinion, back it up with fact. Or are you just a parrot? Make a case, give us proof.