Slowpoke_Rodrigo
New member
ESSAY
Monday, June 26, 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOOD FOR THOUGHT
GOP judges: Who needs them?
by Dr. Chuck Baldwin
A few days ago, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, handed down a school prayer ruling that is as perfidious as any decision it has ever made. This ruling rivals the '62 and '63 Supreme Court decisions that expelled prayer and Bible reading from our public schools. It might even be worse, because it prohibits student-led prayers, something the court had never before addressed.
It is more than interesting that the current court is a lopsided Republican appointed court. The current Supreme Court is comprised of seven Republican-appointed justices to only two Democrat appointed ones. This fact created a curiosity that prompted me to review past Supreme Court rulings. My discovery leads me to believe that there is little difference between Democrat and Republican appointed Supreme Court justices.
Consider the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion on demand. Republican appointed justices held a 6-3 majority on that court. Yet, the vote was 7-2 in favor of Roe. (And one of the two dissenting votes was cast by a Democrat appointed justice.) In the Roe decision, Republican appointed justices voted 5-1 in support of legalizing abortion.
Consider the two infamous cases in '62 and '63. The first, Engel v. Vitale, resulted in voluntary prayer being removed from our public schools. The second, Abington Township v. Schemp, removed Bible reading from schools.
In 1962, Democrat-appointed justices held a 6-3 majority. The same was true in 1963. The vote to remove prayer from schools in '62 was 6-1 (two members did not participate). The vote to remove Bible reading in '63 was 8-1. Republican-appointed justices voted 2-1 to remove prayer from school. Republican-appointed justices voted to remove Bible reading from schools by the same margin.
No one can argue that each of these cases was a landmark case. Many historians regard the cases in '62 and '63 and the one in '73 as the worst court decisions since the Dred Scott case in 1857 that declared Negroes to be mere chattel. This latest decision is no less egregious.
The point is this: Republicans insist that we must vote for their presidential candidate in order to insure that liberal justices are not appointed to the Supreme Court. Oh, really? The facts described above do not support their argument. Even a 7-2 Republican majority hasn't turned the tide. For the past four decades, the Supreme Court has continued to take the nation down the path toward secularism, and it hasn't mattered which party has had a majority of appointments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To read more articles like this one, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/
------------------
Slowpoke Rodrigo...he pack a gon...
"That which binds us together is infinitely greater than that on which we disagree" - Neal Knox
Monday, June 26, 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOOD FOR THOUGHT
GOP judges: Who needs them?
by Dr. Chuck Baldwin
A few days ago, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, handed down a school prayer ruling that is as perfidious as any decision it has ever made. This ruling rivals the '62 and '63 Supreme Court decisions that expelled prayer and Bible reading from our public schools. It might even be worse, because it prohibits student-led prayers, something the court had never before addressed.
It is more than interesting that the current court is a lopsided Republican appointed court. The current Supreme Court is comprised of seven Republican-appointed justices to only two Democrat appointed ones. This fact created a curiosity that prompted me to review past Supreme Court rulings. My discovery leads me to believe that there is little difference between Democrat and Republican appointed Supreme Court justices.
Consider the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion on demand. Republican appointed justices held a 6-3 majority on that court. Yet, the vote was 7-2 in favor of Roe. (And one of the two dissenting votes was cast by a Democrat appointed justice.) In the Roe decision, Republican appointed justices voted 5-1 in support of legalizing abortion.
Consider the two infamous cases in '62 and '63. The first, Engel v. Vitale, resulted in voluntary prayer being removed from our public schools. The second, Abington Township v. Schemp, removed Bible reading from schools.
In 1962, Democrat-appointed justices held a 6-3 majority. The same was true in 1963. The vote to remove prayer from schools in '62 was 6-1 (two members did not participate). The vote to remove Bible reading in '63 was 8-1. Republican-appointed justices voted 2-1 to remove prayer from school. Republican-appointed justices voted to remove Bible reading from schools by the same margin.
No one can argue that each of these cases was a landmark case. Many historians regard the cases in '62 and '63 and the one in '73 as the worst court decisions since the Dred Scott case in 1857 that declared Negroes to be mere chattel. This latest decision is no less egregious.
The point is this: Republicans insist that we must vote for their presidential candidate in order to insure that liberal justices are not appointed to the Supreme Court. Oh, really? The facts described above do not support their argument. Even a 7-2 Republican majority hasn't turned the tide. For the past four decades, the Supreme Court has continued to take the nation down the path toward secularism, and it hasn't mattered which party has had a majority of appointments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To read more articles like this one, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/
------------------
Slowpoke Rodrigo...he pack a gon...
"That which binds us together is infinitely greater than that on which we disagree" - Neal Knox