Help
I'm thinking this person doesn't get around on the internet as much as they pretend.
Atheist couple denied custody of their adopted child This seems just plain wrong.
#41
Terez 
- High Analyst of TQB
-
- Group: Team Quick Ben
- Posts: 4,981
- Joined: 17-January 07
- Location:United States of North America
- Interests:WWQBD?
- WoT Fangirl, Rank Traitor
Posted 25 August 2009 - 01:47 AM
The President (2012) said:
Please proceed, Governor.
Chris Christie (2016) said:
There it is.
Elizabeth Warren (2020) said:
And no, I’m not talking about Donald Trump. I’m talking about Mayor Bloomberg.
#42
HoosierDaddy
- Believer
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 8,119
- Joined: 30-June 08
- Location:Indianapolis
- Interests:Football
Posted 25 August 2009 - 01:56 AM
Quote
The lower court's decision is also defective in that it runs afoul of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Ordinarily, we would not consider a constitutional question if it were possible to rest our decision on narrower grounds. State v. Salerno, 27 N.J. 289, 296 (1958). However, in the present case, the lower court saw no constitutional impediments to its decision, and the court appointed amicus curiae urges us to subscribe to that view. He asks us to rule prospectively that agencies may constitutionally promulgate rules requiring of applicants for adoption membership in an established religion "if there is an abundant supply of adopting parents." Although it should be clear from what we have said above that we do not believe such a rule would comport with our case law or our statutory scheme, we believe that, in any event, the adoption of such a rule is barred by the First Amendment and the trial court erred in holding that it was not.
The First Amendment provides in pertinent part:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. * * *
This freedom of religion provision is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
The First Amendment provides in pertinent part:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. * * *
This freedom of religion provision is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
In Re the Adoption of E, American Adoptions, pg 6. Http://www.americanadoptions.com/adoption/...le_id/2435?pg=6.
I love being right.
Trouble arrives when the opponents to such a system institute its extreme opposite, where individualism becomes godlike and sacrosanct, and no greater service to any other ideal (including community) is possible. In such a system rapacious greed thrives behind the guise of freedom, and the worst aspects of human nature come to the fore....
#43
Raymond Luxury Yacht
- Throatwobbler Mangrove
-
- Group: Grumpy Old Sods
- Posts: 5,600
- Joined: 02-July 06
- Location:The Emerald City
- Interests:Quiet desperation and self-loathing
Posted 25 August 2009 - 10:59 AM
This just goes to show, if you're going to bash the americans, at least have the common courtesy to use current material.
Error: Signature not valid
#44
Aptorian
- How 'bout a hug?
-
- Group: The Wheelchairs of War
- Posts: 24,785
- Joined: 22-May 06
Posted 25 August 2009 - 11:07 AM
Raymond Luxury Yacht, on Aug 25 2009, 12:59 PM, said:
This just goes to show, if you're going to bash the americans, at least have the common courtesy to use current material.
No, old material is fine as well.
Did you hear about those poor native Amerians?
This post has been edited by Aptorian: 25 August 2009 - 11:07 AM
#47
Raymond Luxury Yacht
- Throatwobbler Mangrove
-
- Group: Grumpy Old Sods
- Posts: 5,600
- Joined: 02-July 06
- Location:The Emerald City
- Interests:Quiet desperation and self-loathing
Posted 26 August 2009 - 11:07 AM
Where can I find 40 year old articles that horrify apt?
Error: Signature not valid
