First of all, Federal judges can only be removed for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" (Article II, Section 4). If simply being wrong was a high crime or misdemeanor, you'd already be a life prisoner.
They can only be impeached for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". Their Federal Judicial Districts can be eliminated and reconstituted for any damn reason Congress pleases.
Violation of an American citizen's right to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion is as high a "high crime and misdemeanor" as it gets.
You don't seem to get this 'We the People..." thing.
Second, the judge did not order "The young lady who was to give the valedictory address" not to pray. In fact, the appeals court noted that the judge's order "did not expressly address the involvement of the valedictorian in the graduation ceremony." The students (even remotely) in question were, according to the school's own program, slated to deliver an "invocation" and "benediction." If you don't understand the argument that government-sponsored "invocations" and "benedictions" violate the Constitution, that is just a piece with the rest of your "Egnorance."
Oh, I could'a sworn Judge Biery dictated a list of religious words the kid(s) couldn't say. I guess this was all such a big misunderstanding...
Third, the judge did not issue the order against the students (and, therefore, no penalty could be imposed against them).
Of course a penalty could be imposed against the kids-- detention, suspension, expulsion, denial or revocation of diploma- by the school district, which is directed by the judge to enforce his ruling.
[Jude Biery] ordered that:
["]The District, through its officials, shall instruct the students previously selected to deliver the "invocation" and "benediction" to modify their remarks to be statements of their own beliefs as opposed to leading the audience in prayer. These students, and all other persons scheduled to speak during the graduation ceremony, shall be instructed not to present a prayer, to wit, they shall be instructed...["]
Federal judges always enforce their rulings via government intermediaries (police, school officials,...).
Did you think Judge Biery was going to attend the graduation and throttle the kids himself?
"...that they may not ask audience members to "stand," "join in prayer," or "bow their heads," they may not end their remarks with "amen" or "in [a deity's name] we pray," and they shall not otherwise deliver a message that would commonly be understood to be a prayer, nor use the word "prayer" unless it is used in the student's expression of the student's personal belief, as opposed to encouraging others who may not believe in the concept of prayer to join in and believe the same concept."
Hmmm...
Compare:
Religious speech prohibited by a Federal Court ruling:
"
...they may not ask audience members to stand...join...in...prayer...bow...their...heads...amen...in... a [deity's name]...we...pray...prayer..."
with:
"Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion] or abridging the freedom of speech..."
Discuss.
"...The students may in stating their own personal beliefs speak through conduct such as kneeling to face Mecca, the wearing of a yarmulke or hijab or making the sign of the cross..."
The judge deigns to permit discrete expression of limited Constitutional rights. Perhaps we should rename them 'Constitutional permissions, conferred by judiciary..'
We have a right to kneel to Mecca, wear a yarmulke or hijab, or sign the cross. This right is not granted by judges. It is endowed by our [deity's name].
The gesture appropriate to the judge's ruling is a finger.
Fourth, if a police officer announced that he or she was going to go to your house, illegally search it and beat you up in the process, would a court have to wait until that happened before issuing an order to against it?
Are you asserting that a teenager's prayer is analogous to an unlawful violent assualt by a police officer?
The only violation of the Constitution that I see here is the judge's ruling, which contains an implicit threat of violence. Violation of a federal court ruling is subject to punishment by arrest, fine and imprisonment.
The genuine analogy is between the violations of citizens' rights by the police and by the judge. The kids can't violate anyone's Constitutional rights, because they're private citizens. The judge can violate someone's Constitutional rights, because he, unlike the kids, is a government official.
An order by a federal judge that citizens not speak religious words is an explicit violation of the Constitution.
And the judge's order is obviously aimed at the kids; the school is merely the enforcent agent, and the judge has threatened the school with prosecution if they do not enforce his ruling against the kids.
It is analogous to an order by a judge that police prohibit a citizen from criticizing the President. The judge's defense that his order 'only applied to the police' would be nonsense. And the judge would be removed from the bench.
"Irreparable harm" is a term of legal art that you are as "Egnorant" of as biological science. It simply means that the complainant can not be made "whole" if the court waits until after the fact to address the wrong.
How is the atheist kid "irreparably harmed" in any sense by listening to a prayer? In what way does someone else's prayer render the tender atheist un-"whole"?
Fifth, the appeals court reversed the judge's order in no small part because the school district obeyed his order and "abandoned including the words "invocation" and "benediction" on the program."
Right. If everyone does what da judge says, nobody gets hurt.
In short, you are bloviating (once again) on a subject you have no knowledge of.
I have a right to
There can be rational arguments about whether the judge in this case was right in the first instance.
The judge can make them, to his next employer.
Please sign the petition to remove him.
Their Federal Judicial Districts can be eliminated and reconstituted for any damn reason Congress pleases.
ReplyDeleteOh, good! So now we will have Congress doing away with individual Federal judgeships because some temporary majority doesn't like a ruling? So it would have been okay with you if that Federal judge who ruled that Clinton had to go through the Jennifer Flowers deposition, that lead to his impeachment, had been thrown off the bench by a Democratic Congress?
You don't seem to get this 'We the People..." thing.
No, you don't! Typically, you quote mine the Constitution. It reads:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
We are a nation of laws, not a mob of angry (and not very bright) partisans who can use the mechanisms of the government to address every petty grievance at their whim. It is you who are deeply anti-American ... at least against the America that the Founders envisioned.
Oh, I could's sworn Judge Biery dictated a list of religious words the kid(s) couldn't say. I guess this was all such a big misunderstanding...
No, that was typical ignorance on your part. I gave you verbatim what the judge's order said. In case you can't remember, here it is again:
The District, through its officials, shall instruct the students previously selected to deliver the "invocation" and "benediction" to modify their remarks to be statements of their own beliefs as opposed to leading the audience in prayer. These students, and all other persons scheduled to speak during the graduation ceremony, shall be instructed not to present a prayer, to wit, they shall be instructed that they may not ask audience members to "stand," "join in prayer," or "bow their heads," they may not end their remarks with "amen" or "in [a deity's name] we pray," and they shall not otherwise deliver a message that would commonly be understood to be a prayer, nor use the word "prayer" unless it is used in the student's expression of the student's personal belief, as opposed to encouraging others who may not believe in the concept of prayer to join in and believe the same concept. The students may in stating their own personal beliefs speak through conduct such as kneeling to face Mecca, the wearing of a yarmulke or hijab or making the sign of the cross.
In case you can't read any better than you can think, he did not order that they couldn't use religious words, he stated that they could not use words that indicated that it was an official, government-sponsored prayer. They could state "their own beliefs" and their own "personal belief," just not as a state-sanctioned prayer.
Of course a penalty could be imposed against the kids-- detention, suspension, expulsion, denial or revocation of diploma- by the school district, which is directed by the judge to enforce his ruling.
ReplyDeleteYou originally claimed they could be "arrested, fined and imprisoned." Once again, we have the ever-movable Egnor goal posts. Would a graduate have the right to exercise free speech by bringing water balloons to throw at teachers against direct orders not to do so? Of course the school would have the right to discipline a student who disobeyed a direct and legal order (as it was, at least until the appeals court reversed the decision). Again, we are a nation of laws ... not merely the laws you personally like.
Federal judges always enforce their rulings via government intermediaries (police, school officials,...).
So there was no point in your claiming the children could be jailed ... except to display your ignorance?
"...they may not ask audience members to stand...join...in...prayer...bow...their...heads...amen...in... a [deity's name]...we...pray...prayer..."
... as part of an official, government-ordained "invocation" and "benediction." The judge specifically did not forbid the students from praying. Of course, the judge need not ignore the possibility that the school district will perpetrate a fraud on the court and just take the words "invocation" and "benediction" off the program and have the students deliver them anyway.
The judge deigns to permit discrete expression of limited Constitutional rights.
The order, to anyone able to read with comprehension, was directed solely at words that would convey the message that such prayer was official and school sponsored. (By the way, the school district, like any other government agency, does not have freedom of speech, since it is not an "individual" citizen but an arm of the government.) It was the school district's attempt at proselytizing that was restricted, not the student's. As I noted before, there are reasonable arguments to be made that the judge went too far in trying to prevent such a fraud but reason has nothing to do with your rants.
We have a right to kneel to Mecca, wear a yarmulke or hijab, or sign the cross. This right is not granted by judges. It is endowed by our [deity's name].
Actually, it is endowed by the Constitution. If you don't think so, there are plenty of places in the world you can go to see whether it is gods or laws that establish religious rights. In any event, individuals have that right, not school districts. And it is totally appropriate for a judge, when proscribing the conduct of the school district, to set forth the rights of the children because there are plenty of people, like you, who are incapable of reading with comprehension.
Are you asserting that a teenager's prayer is analogous to an unlawful violent assualt [sic] by a police officer? ... How is the athiest [sic] kid "irreparably harmed" in any sense of the word by listening to a prayer?
ReplyDeleteI am asserting that an unconstitutional act done by or on behalf of and/or with the complicity of an arm of government, by whoever, is wrong and that waiting until after the act is done before addressing it is what the law designates as "irreparable harm." I know you have problems listening to others over all the voices constantly shouting in your head but please try to follow along. There is no such thing as being "a little bit unconstitutional" any more than there is any such thing as being "a little bit pregnant." The "kid" is harmed by having government power, and his and his parent's tax money, used to proselytize him at an official event. Would you think it is all right if the school district used taxpayer funds hired an imam to give an "invocation" and "benediction"? The fact that the district employees used government paid-for time and effort to arrange these "invocations" and "benedictions" by volunteers is, as far as the law is concerned, the same thing.
I'm one of "We the people..." and I have a right and an obligation to [bloviate] speak.
Of course. But people who know you are peddling ignorance and irrationality have just as much right to point it out and, for the sake of a civil and, hopefully, better America, have even more of an obligation to counter your nonsense.
You have managed to rephrase and repeat yourself almost entirely.
ReplyDeleteIt is hardly my fault that the doctor is incapable of understanding the points I originally made and, instead, resorted to moving goal posts and irrelevancies. If someone refuses to listen rationally, there is little else to do but raise your voice.
If an educated individual feels that this judge has crossed a line and forced government into an area it should not be (a teen's grad speech)they are an idiot.
An "educated" person gets no greater pass for incorrectly maintaing that a judge "crossed a line," based on his ignorance of what the judge did, than an "uneducated" person would get. I don't see why this is a hard concept.
The entire issue here was whether the the government (the school district) had "forced government into an area it should not be (a teen's grad speech)," which it labeled "invocations" and "benedictions" and conspired to have them convey a particular religious view.
If they disagree with your materialist doctrine, they are an idiot.
Where did I assert a "materialist doctrine"? Are you actually saying that not wanting the government to have the power to decide whose beliefs are favored and whose are not is a "materialist doctrine"? So, it would be okay if the government decided that anyone who said nasty things about Islam could be jailed? Wasn't the doctor just praising Geert Wilders for that? Or is the Constitutional doctrine that you'd like "I can say and do what I like and you can't". Sorry, opposing that is not materialistic, it's rational and a belief in freedom.
So who exactly are you speaking with? idiots?
Now there you have me. Trying to make rational arguments to deeply irrational people is probably a fool's errand. Still, hope springs eternal and there are (other) people who may stop by here and realize just how silly and harmful the doctor's views are.
Perhaps we need to take atheists' word on it: they are indeed such pathetically unstable-minded creatures that simply hearing a prayer would inflict serious psychological harm.
ReplyDeleteFine. I believe them.
Perhaps we need to take atheists' word on it: they are indeed such pathetically unstable-minded creatures that simply hearing a prayer would inflict serious psychological harm.
ReplyDeleteOh, good! We don't have to worry about stable-minded Christians being psychologically harmed by having a "mosque" within sight distance of the former World Trade Center then ... right?
Doubtless, you definition of "serious psychological harm" will be dependent on whose ox is being gored.
Ah, so you equate being against building a Victory Mosque at the site of the jihadist slaughter of over three thousand people (such a symbol only serving to encourage more jihad) with being against saying a prayer at a graduation ceremony?
ReplyDeleteThanks for the clarification.
Jihad-driven mass murder, teenagers praying, it's all the same thing to the unstable atheist mind.
Ah, so you equate being against building a Victory Mosque at the site of the jihadist slaughter of over three thousand people (such a symbol only serving to encourage more jihad) with being against saying a prayer at a graduation ceremony?
ReplyDeleteOf course I equate the power of government to force prayer at a graduation to the power some people would claim for government to stop others from building a perfectly legal community center. It's got nothing to do with atheism (hint: the people who want to build the community center aren't atheists); only a little thing called logic. Thanks for demonstrating that you are unfamiliar with the latter.
"If someone refuses to listen rationally, there is little else to do but raise your voice."
ReplyDeleteAgain, reason is abused!
"I don't see why this is a hard concept."
Of course you don't. hence the repetition.
"..which it labeled "invocations" and "benedictions" and conspired to have them convey a particular religious view."
So it is the terminology that has you so outraged? A simple prayer would not cause you to burst into flames or become a psychological wreck - but an invocation or benediction would? Fascinating.
Perhaps it is that particular religious view you take issue with?
Perhaps, and I ask honestly here, you feel more akin to those "others" who are being prevented from "from building a perfectly legal community center" by "stable-minded Christians"?
There are many flaws, in my eyes, in your "logic" (reasoning actually) and moral position.
The most important: ALL stripes of New Yorkers stand opposed to that Mosque. Many Jews, agnostics and others as well as various denominations of Christians. The MAIN opponents are the VICTIM'S families.To present this as a "Christians" issue is both crass and foolish.
It also shows your naiveté on the subject of the war we, as a civilization, are engaged in; as well as the history of that conflict.
As a serving officer in a NATO force, I advise you to reassess your position for your own good and the good of your progeny.That is sincere advice.
"Where did I assert a "materialist doctrine"?"
Sorry, I mistook you for an Atheist. Your position seems anchored in materialist (and promissory materialism)on this and other issues in which you post. For example, that a child's mind (brain to you) is somehow damaged by exposure to metaphysical thinking.
"So, it would be okay if the government decided that anyone who said nasty things about Islam could be jailed?"
No. Someone saying "nasty things" about a religion has nothing to do with this conversation. The veracity of those "nasty things" aside, this student was not about to call for the death of unbelievers or homosexuals, nor make pretenses on temporal and political power, as Jihadists ('extremist' to you) do. Those jihadists are the centre of Mr Wilders critique. But you know that don't you? I hope so.
I also take note at your expression in this line:
"former World Trade Center".
Did it (the WTC) quit or resign it's position? Was it renamed? Perhaps it simply crumbled with age?
I hope you can see where I am going with this. You selection of words belies your incapacity to grasp the event that was 9/11 and/or it's consequences and implications.
Now there you have me. Trying to make rational arguments to deeply irrational people is probably a fool's errand.
I do indeed. As I "have" your entire position.
In your response to Matteo's astute criticism of your position you say:
Of course I equate the power of government to force prayer at a graduation to the power some people would claim for government to stop others from building a perfectly legal community center.
A government forcing prayer? What type of De Sitter universe to you inhabit, John? This is NOT about governments enforcing prayer - BUT BANNING them from a public place. This is about religious intolerance on the the part of non-believing materialist/Atheist PARENTS "forcing" their monistic view on the graduating class of a an American HS with the help of the judiciary. What is that view? That Prayers are harmful to children.
This is Mike's original objection and one you have completely failed (avoided) in addressing.
Can an Australian sign the petition?
ReplyDelete