Washington post says: Supreme Court dodges church-state issue by ruling father had no standing to sue over phrase in Pledge oath. The UnionTribune says: The Supreme Court allows schoolchildren to keep affirming loyalty to one nation "under God" but dodges the underlying question of whether the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. The LATimes says: Justices sidestep "under God" debate by ruling that a non-custodial parent can't sue. Sacramento bee says: The Supreme Court preserved the phrase "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling Monday that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath but sidestepping the broader question of separation of church and state. Yup..... they didnt address the core issue. Not debateable. peace axeman
Wow... are you fricken retarded or what??? Answer this SIMPLE yes or no question: Did the supreme court address the core issue of separation of church and state in the schools? YES OR NO. peace axeman
Attacking the messenger, rather than defending the message? Maybe it is an alias, so there is no personal baggage, you know the kind you carry from thread to thead, even use as your signature. Nope, just deal with this issue at hand, and try to leave the personality out of it. Is that possible? Or are you too emotional right now?
Optional??? that you 777?!?!? LMAOOOOOOOOOOO no wonder youre not making ANY sense.... ROFLMAOOOOO peace axeman
Youve already been called out with your ALIAS coward, you blind? LOL! I already DEALT with the issue. Its a done deal. Its an objective fact and hard reality that the supreme court DID NOT RULE on the core issue. Read the newspaper clippings I just posted.... dodge dodge sidestep ...etc. Now go register your 100th alias since Pabst already gave your banned silly self away....LOL! peace axeman
I see....youre only interested in little 777 semantic games. Totally predictable. If you want to assume that "ducked" means there is some grand conspiracy to avoid the issue by the justices, then be my guest. But there is no proof of this one way or the other. My position is that the core issue was NEVER ADDRESSED. Period. Its not arguable. All those newspapers used terms such as "ducked" and "sidestepped", does this mean they believe that the supreme court really avoided the issue ON PURPOSE because they have some agenda??? Come on now.... I have my suspicions...but there is no real proof for this. ITS MERELY A CHOICE OF WORDS. Youre reading into it WAY too much. Thats your own fault. peace axeman
This whole thing simply depends on the definition of "ducked" or "dodged". One can use the term to imply something nefarious, or the term can be completely benign -- as in "I dodged a bullet" or "I ducked out of the meeting". I can't speak to how Axe is using the terms, but I for one feel that the Court dodged a bullet here. It's gonna be a interesting situation when someone with standing takes it back to them. I'll enjoy the hell out of watching that one. JB