General Discussion

uponit7771

(93,325 posts)

44. +1,

Reply to Sympthsical (Reply #37)

Tue Jun 28, 2022, 10:40 AM

Jun 2022

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

46 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Help me understand this Gorsuch ruling about Jesus on the 50 yard line. [View all] Scrivener7 Jun 2022 OP

Unable to reply for fear of being ejected. lindysalsagal Jun 2022 #1

I don't understand that. It's a question about applying the ruling. Scrivener7 Jun 2022 #2

Unable to reply for fear of being ejected. lindysalsagal Jun 2022 #3

I'm with you and I'm Jewish. mucifer Jun 2022 #11

Ejected from what? A fighter jet that's about to crash? Not sure what you mean. Hope you are ok emulatorloo Jun 2022 #30

Poster has 3 hides. Mosby Jun 2022 #40

Yeah I have been there. Four bad hides, one wacky jury away from a ban . Thanks for the heads up. emulatorloo Jun 2022 #45

A heads up, you could get a hide for a post like this. So probably better just to lay low for emulatorloo Jun 2022 #46

May I respectfully suggest... Mister Ed Jun 2022 #31

You just did reply to the post. Albeit in a cryptic way. Politicub Jun 2022 #38

IANAL, but intrepidity Jun 2022 #4

"on the 50 yard line in the middle of the game." Scrivener7 Jun 2022 #5

As I posted elsewhere intrepidity Jun 2022 #8

Oh, but that's one of those parts of the Bible they don't have to follow. Scrivener7 Jun 2022 #9

This message was self-deleted by its author Mosby Jun 2022 #41

The junta set the precedent that "tradition" overrides separation of church and state. John1956PA Jun 2022 #6

But there was no tradition till this guy started it, right? So is it that anyone can do something Scrivener7 Jun 2022 #7

Thank you, too. The junta used this case as a bulldozer to overrule a 1970s case. John1956PA Jun 2022 #14

That is feckin' terrifying. Scrivener7 Jun 2022 #16

An honest lower would be at a loss applying this case to a similar claim brought to it. John1956PA Jun 2022 #21

So I guess we will be seeing more of these eroding the fundamental basis for our country. Scrivener7 Jun 2022 #23

You are welcome, and thank you for your cordial replies. John1956PA Jun 2022 #25

To you too. Scrivener7 Jun 2022 #29

I would love to see any ruling like this ... Novara Jun 2022 #10

I would love to know this. Lawyers? Anyone know? Scrivener7 Jun 2022 #12

One of the first things I learned in law school is that the 'facts' Tomconroy Jun 2022 #15

So this is not unusual? Interesting. I never knew. But then what does Scrivener7 Jun 2022 #17

There is a 'free exercise clause' as well as a 'non-establishment' Tomconroy Jun 2022 #13

Tell me about this. Are you saying they are justifying his act on the basis of these two? Scrivener7 Jun 2022 #18

This really isn't my issue and I haven't read the opinion, Tomconroy Jun 2022 #19

THANK YOU, ALL! This is a bit clearer to me now. I appreciate all the replies. Scrivener7 Jun 2022 #20

I think I can add some context FBaggins Jun 2022 #22

Bluster, and, it seems from the answers above that this is one part of a whole that will Scrivener7 Jun 2022 #26

I don't know... but I doubt that they need to FBaggins Jun 2022 #28

Thanks, that's helpful. nt sl8 Jun 2022 #27

One of the areas of the case I found interesting Sympthsical Jun 2022 #37

+1, uponit7771 Jun 2022 #44

+1, uponit7771 Jun 2022 #43

When the facts of a case change or are wrong, it can be appealed. Baitball Blogger Jun 2022 #24

That could be intentional FBaggins Jun 2022 #32

Does this coach thinks God cares who wins the football game? Emile Jun 2022 #33

Would such a prayer occur before the game? nt FBaggins Jun 2022 #34

I have a question. Haven't footballers been praying leftyladyfrommo Jun 2022 #35

There is nothing preventing players from praying. When I was a HS Coach, I stood JCMach1 Jun 2022 #39

Trying to picture Jesus in a football helmet, wnylib Jun 2022 #36

I will repeat moniss Jun 2022 #42