No Bong Hits for Jesus....

Superfreak said:
I wonder Desh... had the sign (at a school function) stated that "Jesus Saves" or something of that nature... would you still hold the same position? Or would you be screaming about seperation of church and state?
Click to expand...


why would I object to that?
 
Desh said:
how do you know they didnt?
Click to expand...
Because you can read the decisions and portions of the transcripts. You can read the arguments made in the Supreme Court's writings on the decision, both of them (dissenting and agreement) speak of it being a school-sponsored event.

Nobody even argued that it wasn't before the SCOTUS. You are being misled.
 
Superfreak said:
"The principle had allowed kids to come out of the school and take part BUT it was NOT a school event."

As already stated... if the principal allowed students to participate, then it was a school event. The school is still obligated in their responsibility for the students. It doesn't matter whether the school created the event or not.
Click to expand...


No it was a community event and the school kids were allowed to take part.

It wasnt a school event was it.
 
"why would I object to that?"

For the same reason that people like you scream when their is an image of the ten commandments on school property etc....

You would be screaming about seperation of church and state.
 
Desh said:
No it was a community event and the school kids were allowed to take part.

It wasnt a school event was it.
Click to expand...
If the school allows you to take part, it does not dismiss you from school, it becomes a school sanctioned (sponsored) event. Are you really this daft?

The lawyers would have seen this "loophole" and exploited it if it were possible. Or do you believe that you are somehow more clever than lawyers who argue before the SCOTUS?
 
"No it was a community event and the school kids were allowed to take part."

Again retard... if the kids are supposed to be in school, but the school allows them to participate in the community event, then it most certainly is a school sponsored event FOR THE STUDENTS. If the school takes kids to a museum during the school day... it is a school event... it doesn't mean that the school built the museum. They DO NOT HAVE TO CREATE THE EVENT. It is the fact that they are participating that makes it school sponsored.

"It wasnt a school event was it."

Did the school authorize students to attend? Yes. THAT makes it a school event. It doesn't mean that it isn't also a community event. Retard.
 
Superfreak said:
"why would I object to that?"

For the same reason that people like you scream when their is an image of the ten commandments on school property etc....

You would be screaming about seperation of church and state.
Click to expand...

Why do you refuse to understand the differance between the school putting up a sign and the student holding a sign.

The school is a government entity the student is not.

Be honest
 
Desh said:
http://www.aclu.org/scotus/2006term/morsev.frederick/30230prs20070625.html

the ACLU talks about the fact that he was not yet at school that day
Click to expand...
However, the argument was not made before the SCOTUS. Why? Because it really wasn't school sponsored? Rubbish. The students were sanctioned to attend by the authority of the school, this is school sponsored. Have you noticed that they often lose cases too?

And lastly, do you think the lawyers for the kid were too stupid to see this? They didn't argue it because it is a frivolous and rejected argument.
 
Desh said:
Why do you refuse to understand the differance between the school putting up a sign and the student holding a sign.

The school is a government entity the student is not.

Be honest
Click to expand...
I do understand the difference. However allowing others to sanction breaking the law while under their authority is also grounds for a suit.

As I said, this school was in between a rock and a hard place. There really was no room for them to manuever here.
 
Why was the fact that he was not under their supervision rejected?

What right do they have to ignore this fact?

If the kid had been harmed and the school blamed for lack of supervision do you think the school would have said "yes he was our responsibility at the time", NO they would have said in court he wasnt our responsibility at the time.

You cant use it at your convenience.
 
Desh said:
Why was the fact that he was not under their supervision rejected?

What right do they have to ignore this fact?

If the kid had been harmed and the school blamed for lack of supervision do you think the school would have said "yes he was our responsibility at the time", NO they would have said in court he wasnt our responsibility at the time.

You cant use it at your convenience.
Click to expand...
Because they believed that he was under supervision. Just as any other student arriving late for school would be. That he reported to the event rather than class doesn't change that being late doesn't excuse you from supervision.

Now can we continue with the actual decision?

Can you accept that his lawyers were at least as clever as you on that matter, but that the entire court rejected that argument so fully that it isn't even found in either the dissenting or the winning decisions?
 
It was in all the ohter decisions by the lower courts.

This scotus ignored the information just like they ignored the harm to the woman in the partial birth case.
 
Desh said:
It was in all the ohter decisions by the lower courts.

This scotus ignored the information just like they ignored the harm to the woman in the partial birth case.
Click to expand...
They didn't mention it in the opinion because they rejected the argument, and did so universally. Had a few in dissent disagreed that he was under school supervision at all there would have been another dissenting opinion (that happens you know) written with that added.

Why are you stuck on this point in such an after-the-fact way? How is it so hard for you to figure out that a student that arrives at school late is still under school supervision?

If I arrive at school late and don't check in I'm cool? I can paint the school with whatever slogan I wish because I didn't check in? I'm ditching class while hanging in the halls, since I didn't check in I'm not under their supervision? Damn. I wish I had you as a Principle!

I could have passed out Satanic Tracts while ditching first hour so long as I showed up late and didn't "check in". Then if my class was attending an event with permission from the school... Well, I could just park in the lot, make sure I'm late, cross the street and hang with my friends and put up any sort of banner regardless of what the rules might be! Wooooot! Then if I got injured I'd sue the school and "Have it both ways" (note the tongue in cheek reference to your earlier argument)....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top