Straight Up with Sherri

Monday, June 27, 2005

Another Right Bites The Dust

As I had expected, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) today ruled in the cases of two Kentucky Courthouses that any display of religion is no longer to be permitted on "public" property. Couple that with last Thursday's ruling that all property is "public property" and you have effectively a total ban on religion. As I had said on Friday, "We have lost our rights to life and to liberty and now it's property." There really isn't anything left, folks, except our guns! And I'm sure they will be the next target.

Associate Justice David H. Souter, writing for the majority, says, "The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion."

It says no such thing! He just made that up. What it says is that Congress cannot establish an "official" state religion. That's all. Religion is so ingrained into the fundamental fabric of our society, that to remove it is to destroy the United States. They know this, but one must recognize that the destruction of this Great Nation is the ultimate goal of four of these rouges in black robes (Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, and Breyer). O'Connor who concurred and Kennedy who dissented in this issue are just aimless, value-void judicial flotsam. Rhenquist, Scalia (my favorite - the most strict Constitutional interpreter), and Thomas at least believe that God gave the people rights and that the government is subservient to the people.

Lest you get to thinking that the government wants total control of everything, let me proffer a second opinion that was released today (you do realize that there is a reason these are called opinions and not divine decrees). In FCC v. Brand X, SCOTUS overturned a lower court ruling that required cable operators to open up their high-speed Internet lines to rivals. On the surface, this might seem fair enough, but what it does is to apply a different standard to internet access (and content access) to the internet than it does to telephone services. Smaller independent providers, such as Earthlink, are now in line to be squeezed out by massive content providers such as AOL. Keep in mind that these large communications conglomerates are also the most politically active. By eliminating the little guys and empowering the "big buddies" completes the cycle of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance law that removed freedom of speech from the Constitution (and SCOTUS also upheld as being terrific!).

Today is a really bad day for the people of the United States - and a really great day for Satan!
Let me interject a plea here to oppose limits on your free speech - tell your politicians to reject efforts aimed at a Constitutional ban on flag burning. SCOTUS would surely interpret that to include any and all criticism of the government!

By the way, I'm not the only one freaking out. Here is a great editorial by Tom Ambrose!

addendum: I missed this one last Friday. It seems that Justice Anthony Kennedy told a group of attorneys last Friday (June 24, 2005) that judges should be a select group and protected from criticism. It is happening right in your own back yard!

Right Wing Nut Job


  • Im Done! Im done praying for this country! its leaders! We are Living ina cesspool of socialism and fascism! The only thing Im praying for now is the end to come quickly and swiftly. LET JESUS REIGN AMONG US!

    By Blogger KC, at 2:30 PM  

  • I have been gone so long, I am have to go back a tad. It seems that wittle animals have more of a right to land that businesses want to build on- than PRIVATE LANDOWNERS! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

    An endagered PLANT can keep "big business form developing- but A PRIVATE CITIZEN CAN'T!

    Now- back to today.

    The SCOTUS has turned it's back on its very own FOUNDATION and its right to exist.

    I'm with RWNJ- Guns are next. Once they take our guns- we are toast. TOAST!

    They own the schools- the media- the land- the courts..they are about to hand over elections ILLEGALS (lawbreakers) and INMATES (more lawbreakers)- then come the guns.


    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 7:52 PM  

  • I think this last decision on public purpose having no meaning other than what some official says will have a major impact. My somewhat la cubettish (but perfect in every way) wife was absolutely outraged by the decision. She has a cabin (trailer, shack, whatever) on six acres within 50 miles of the D.C. beltway and can see what the decision could do to her. My hope is that the decision will be overturned shortly, but prior to that time will be a catalyst for state constitutional change. I think Texas will be the first battleground. link

    By Blogger levi from queens, at 8:18 PM  

  • levi,
    Several States already specify the meaning of "public use" in their Constitutions. You are right; more will follow. But when tyrants such as Justice Souter use phrases like "touchstone for our analysis", rather than the words of the Constitution, there is little hope that anything will hold up. I am afraid that the only thing that will stave off an impending collapse of our Nation is the removal of several of these evil overlords; or should I say self-appointed egomaniacal demi-gods?

    That's pretty assertive for someone who didn't even like guns six months ago.

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 8:29 PM  

  • Sherri,
    That's pretty assertive for someone who didn't even like guns six months ago.


    I still don't like guns....


    After watching the political overthrow of MY AMERICA (the one I grew up learning about and loving)- I am about to buy 50 acres- put a trailor on it and build an underground valley of arms. Not inside the D.C. Beltway though....(lol!)

    Come August, I am applying for a permit to carry.

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 8:36 PM  

  • I am so glad you are back, I pray for your mom. I have missed your commentary.

    By Anonymous Crimsonfisted, at 9:37 PM  

  • Thanks to all of you agian for your kindness and graciousness. Thank you for the prayers for my mother, also.

    SHe is Tough as nails. We disagree ALOT politically. But I get my stubbornness honestly.

    She is truly a TROOPER!

    It is SOOOO GREAT to be back.

    I have missed you ALL GREATLY!

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 10:11 PM  

  • Hugh Hewitt on the decisions:

    "The dismay among some circles in the public stems from a general lack of understanding of the Court's march over the past twenty years, as though Rip Van Winkle had woken up to find the world changed.

    The cases do underscore the stagnation at the Court, as old battles are fought and refought again and again. Only with new blood and new ideas will the logjams break open. The bottom line is that all 5-4 decisions are hardly anything more than pause points, and not very decisive ones at that."


    By Blogger levi from queens, at 10:24 PM  

  • It seems from what i have read that it is in government buildings.
    If thids is so what is wrong with it?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:12 PM  

  • Anonymous,
    What it says is that some bureaucrat must "read the mind" of the operator of the facility. If it is there for a "religious" reason, then it is prohibited. If it is there for a "historical" reason, it's okay. Got that? No, neither do I! We don't have "thought police" in this Nation, yet! But it seems that some of the Supreme Court Justices think we should. It worked for Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (their idols) - why not for United States government tyrants everywhere?

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 7:29 PM  

  • yes that part is kind of stupid i have to say. With that being said I agree that government buildings should not post anything about God, or Buddah , osr Satan. It all should be kept out of government.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:50 PM  

  • Gosh, Sherri, you seem like exactly the kind of person (impulsive) in exactly the kind of situation (single mom) where gun ownership is more a liability than an asset. I honestly fear your shooting one of your kids sneaking back into the house late one night.

    By Anonymous SuperMom, at 10:24 PM  

  • One thing often overlooked in the Kentucky 10 Commandments case:

    Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence said what seemed to make the difference for the justices was the fact Kentucky county commissioners had issued a resolution expressing openly religious motives and purposes for putting up the display.

    So the notion that SCOTUS was trying to "read minds" is pure rhetoric.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:34 PM  

  • I'm not implying that the SCOTUS was "reading minds". I am stating that their conclusions, and consequent opinion, require others to do so in virtually unlimited circumstances. That is the ridiculuous, incoherent part of this.

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 11:14 AM  

  • It's amusing to see christian conservatives tie their minds up in knots trying to understand how these two decisions differ from one another.

    If the government puts up the 10 commandments as a way to endorse christianity or imply that all good citizens should really be christian, the display will be taken down.

    If the government puts up the 10 commandments as a way to reflect historical influences, the display is appropriate.

    Bottom line: don't make grandiose statements about any religious motives for displaying the 10 commandments (this is called "Moore's Syndrome").

    All the major christian web outlets are, quite conveniently, omitting the fact that the KY government came right out and declared their display a relgiious symbol, not a historical one. Those local governments that repeat the same mistake will now lose their displays. It's a very effective step in moderating those suffering from Moore's Syndrome.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:10 AM  

  • you said " im single " why not get a date!

    Cool place i found to do with dating

    Click here to date!

    Hope u find a date

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:14 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home