What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Outside of Washington, DC is a monument erected by the city of Bladensburg, MD to their WW I dead in the shape of a large granite cross. The location is known as Peace Cross and has been since the monument went up. It is a DC landmark.

As you can guess, some organization, the American Humanist Society in this case, was offended and sued. The District Court agreed. The American Legion who now "owns" the cross is thinking of appealing to SCOUTS.

If the cross must come down, does every cross and star on every grave in every military cemetery have to come down too??
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

joecct said:
Outside of Washington, DC is a monument erected by the city of Bladensburg, MD to their WW I dead in the shape of a large granite cross. The location is known as Peace Cross and has been since the monument went up. It is a DC landmark.

As you can guess, some organization, the American Humanist Society in this case, was offended and sued. The District Court agreed. The American Legion who now "owns" the cross is thinking of appealing to SCOUTS.

If the cross must come down, does every cross and star on every grave in every military cemetery have to come down too??
Click to expand...

One should note the WHY it was told to come down. It's a cross.

The only group of people that use a cross as representation is christianity. So the monument, which is supposed to honor the WWI dead, is a big display of christianity. Which is illegal for any US government entity to do.

Funny to honor just ONE religion of the people who fought and died in WWI, IMHO.

Take the cross down, replace it with something that does not represent a religion, and everyone will be fine.

This isn't about honoring WWI dead, it's about honoring only one religion's dead based on the monument. So a simple solution would be to take the two arms off and just make it an obelisk. Done.

It's also amusing to see that republicans can be so offended so quickly over constitutional items. Oh, wait, this is to violate it instead of forcing guns to not violate it.

Either defend the WHOLE constitution or not. Can't pick and choose the parts you like.
 
Last edited:
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

joecct said:
If the cross must come down, does every cross and star on every grave in every military cemetery have to come down too??
Click to expand...

Nice scare tactic...you know the difference between a cemetery and a monument right?

Mind you the monument should stay up (as long as the Humanists are allowed to have a monument too if they choose) but your snowflaking on this crap is weak.

Let me ask you something...what if it is proven a Jew fought in WWI out of Maryland and his family feels he was not properly represented by a Cross? Does that matter? Isnt it fun when you pose complete hypotheticals to try and put forth your agenda?!
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

alfablue said:
This isn't about honoring WWI dead, it's about honoring only one religion's dead based on the monument. So a simple solution would be to take the two arms off and just make it an obelisk. Done.
Click to expand...

How about the statue of a soldier...they could have done anything. They chose a cross for a reason. A reason joe completely backs mind you.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Interesting case heading to the SCOTUS from Minnesota:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...oter-apparel-law-challenge-idUSKBN1DD1S8?il=0

(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear a conservative group’s free speech challenge to a Minnesota law prohibiting voters from wearing T-shirts or other apparel adorned with overtly political messages inside polling stations.

A group called the Minnesota Voters Alliance is appealing a lower court’s decision to uphold the law, which forbids political badges, buttons or other insignia inside polling places during primary or general elections. State election officials have interpreted the law as also barring campaign literature and material from groups with political views such as the conservative Tea Party movement or the liberal MoveOn.org.

Violators are asked to cover up or remove offending items, but officials are instructed not to actually bar anyone from voting.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

By all that's holy please keep that ban in place. I do not want to know how dumb my neighbors are.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Kepler said:
By all that's holy please keep that ban in place. I do not want to know how dumb my neighbors are.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Leave your sloganeering apparel at home on Election Day, please.

Of course, these are inevitably the people whose cars are plastered with the usual bumperstickers.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

The Sicatoka said:
Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Go on. ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, I meant both sides, smartypants. I can't stand anyone who puts sloganeering bumperstickers on their car. It's basically a flashing advertisement for, "I am a lofo voter who doesn't use my brain."
 
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Agreed. Leave your sloganeering apparel at home on Election Day, please.

Of course, these are inevitably the people whose cars are plastered with the usual bumperstickers.
Click to expand...

Eh, doesn't bother me. There is a circular lawn in front of my polling place and there were at least 100 signs on it last year for the election (obviously none inside).

Ban any active campaigning for sure, but I don't really have an issue with clothing.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Betteridge's Law
 
SCOTUS declined to take up a challenge to Maryland's assault weapons ban. The challenge was backed by the NRA... so cue conservative poutrage in 3, 2...
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

ShirtlessBob said:
SCOTUS declined to take up a challenge to Maryland's assault weapons ban. The challenge was backed by the NRA... so cue conservative poutrage in 3, 2...
Click to expand...

So it looks like the conservative wing of the SCOTUS has decided that they've seen enough mass murders over the past decade.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

ShirtlessBob said:
SCOTUS declined to take up a challenge to Maryland's assault weapons ban. The challenge was backed by the NRA... so cue conservative poutrage in 3, 2...
Click to expand...

That's pretty crazy. I don't know what to say.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

unofan said:
99 percent of all petitions for cert are denied. It's not crazy, it's normal.
Click to expand...

It's totally crazy. It does however appear to affirm Heller and what many liberals think Heller means. Which is good. Too bad we have a horrible legislature at the Federal Level.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

ScoobyDoo said:
It's totally crazy. It does however appear to affirm Heller and what many liberals think Heller means. Which is good. Too bad we have a horrible legislature at the Federal Level.
Click to expand...

I'd love to read a SCOTUS reporter's analysis of whether this means anything. Cert can be denied for reasons that have nothing to do with the Court's stance on the merits. They might have filed in the wrong font or something.

Edit: five seconds of searching.

The Supreme Court issued orders from its November 21 conference today. The justices did not add any new cases to their merits docket for the term, but they did deny review in several high-profile cases.

Perhaps the most noteworthy denials came in two cases involving gun rights: Kolbe v. Hogan, a challenge to Maryland’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines, passed in the wake of the mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school; and Norman v. Florida, a challenge to the state’s ban on the open carrying of guns in public. In both cases, the lower courts had upheld the states’ bans, so today’s rulings leave those decisions in place. Unlike last June, when Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the court’s denial of review in Peruta v. California, in which the justices had been asked to decide whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense, today’s denials were not accompanied by any public comments from the justices.
Click to expand...

I would think that if this was substantive Court doctrine the wingnuts would likewise squeal. Somebody probably stapled the request wrong.
 
Last edited:
Kepler said:
I'd love to read a SCOTUS reporter's analysis of whether this means anything. Cert can be denied for reasons that have nothing to do with the Court's stance on the merits. They might have filed in the wrong font or something.

Edit: five seconds of searching.



I would think that if this was substantive Court doctrine the wingnuts would likewise squeal. Somebody probably stapled the request wrong.
Click to expand...

What does this do to the handgun Heller ruling? Nothing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top