Standing in the Gap in a Society that's Warring with God.

Is That Stuff Really Yours?

October 8th, 2012 Viewed 1954 times, 1 so far today

Courtroom 1What if I told you that the stuff in your house that you think you’re going to be able to sell to buy next big thing would be worth nothing to you?  That television, computer or cell phone that you bought—worthless.

The U.S. Supreme Court has on its list of cases, one that should be a cause of concern for anyone that enjoys reselling their stuff.

In 1997, a college student to Cornell University figured out a way to make a lot of money by getting his relatives in Thailand to buy his textbooks at their prices, ship them to him, and then resell for cheaper than the bookstore could sell them.  Of course this made the bookstore upset, so it sued.

US Supreme Court on Religion and Marriage

June 16th, 2010 Viewed 2074 times, 1 so far today

AncientWe live in a very interesting time—a time when the very moral foundation of this country is being challenged.  The general American feeling of “live and let live” has come directly up against a culture and morality that would have been foreign to the founders—and those very founders are being trotted out as accepting and perhaps even promoting such changes.

This should not be so.

If The Baby Can Feel Pain…

April 7th, 2010 Viewed 2058 times, 1 so far today

Woman & Baby on the beach 2

North Dakota has led the way in terms of chipping away at abortion rights.  Along with Mississippi and other Bible Belt states, North Dakota has sought time and again to test the Supreme Courts ruling that has allowed women in the United States to kill their unborn children at any stage of their pregnancies.

Another Activist Judge

October 5th, 2009 Viewed 2218 times, 2 so far today

Courtroom 1

A judge in Dallas ruled on Thursday that the Texas’ ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional1—which is quite absurd when you think about it.

  1. Judge: Texas Ban on Gay Marriage Unconstitutional – NBC []

Sotomayor: Ratings and Tactics

July 13th, 2009 Viewed 1958 times, 1 so far today

President Obama and Judge Sotomayor header

Rewind the clock back a few years and recall the last change of a Supreme Court Justice.  Then President George W. Bush nominated one of his friends—Harriet Miers—to the bench with problems on both sides of the aisle.

Judge Sotomayor—a judge with a much longer record in jurisprudence and who is about to enter the confirmation process—has poll numbers from the country that come close to that of Harriet Miers.

Standing strong on pro-life legislative efforts

October 31st, 2008 Viewed 2133 times, 1 so far today

There’s an argument going around that says that the pro-life cause is legislatively lost, whether it is McCain or Obama who wins the White House.  Dr. Albert Mohler writes about it here.

The supporting logic continues to say that we should rather vote for the social policies of Barack Obama, because they will improve the economic factors which underlie many decisions to abort.  The proponents of this line of thinking say that pro-life legislation should be abandoned and that we should rather work to change hearts.

The problem is that this line of thinking could be extended to almost any societal ill that we have outlawed.  Slavery, for example.  Why legislate against it?  Why wasn’t it enough to just change the slave-owner’s heart?

When Judges Become Legislators

June 26th, 2008 Viewed 1840 times, 2 so far today

US Supreme Court 1

Back when we were having the debate over Capital Punishment one of the areas that always comes up is whether it is just, and the fact that God has a bunch of rules in the Old Testament that have, as their sentence, death.

At that point, I hadn’t even realized that up until yesterday six states had the death penalty as the result of the rape of a minor.

California, New York, and Same Sex Marriage

May 29th, 2008 Viewed 1335 times, 1 so far today

wedding collection 3The past few weeks has seen a flurry of activity in the area of same-sex marriage.  Specifically, the Supreme Court of California ruled that same-sex couples should have equal protection rights under the California Constitution to marry, and have instructed the state to do so starting in the middle of June.

Libel? On the Internet? Say it ain’t so!

November 25th, 2006 Viewed 3297 times, 2 so far today

Supreme CourtAccording to the California Supreme Court, it ain’t so.

Monday’s ruling from the California Supreme Court allows broad immunity from libel prosecution due to the Communications Decency Act of 1996. To briefly summarize the case, an email was sent to a health advocate (Ilena Rosenthal) who published the email on her website. The email contained language that was considered libelous by two doctors mentioned in the email. They sued the Rosenthal for knowingly publishing the information after being warned it was false and defamatory.

A Cross We Want to Bear

September 6th, 2006 Viewed 3197 times, 3 so far today

Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial in San DiegoThis cross has quite the history:

The cross was erected on city property in the 1950s as a tribute to veterans from both world wars and the Korean War. It was uncontroversial until 1989, when Mr. Paulson and his supporters sued to have it removed from public land. In 1991, U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson ruled in their favor. So the city decided to sell the land to a private organization. In 1992 more than two-thirds of voters approved of the sale, and in 1998 it went to the highest bidder–a group that planned to keep the memorial intact.

Mr. Paulson, indicating that his beef is with the cross and not just its presence on public property, went back to court to block the sale. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals obligingly ruled that selling the memorial violated the state constitutional prohibition on state-sponsored religion because it unfairly discriminated against any potential buyers who would have had to bear the burden of pulling the cross down.

Frustrated local voters fought back, and last year 76% of them approved Proposition A, authorizing the city to donate the memorial to the federal government. They were shot down again, this time by Superior Court Judge Patricia Yim Crowley, who invalidated the vote on the ground that it violated state law by showing preference for a particular religion.

The one judicial reprieve in this case came from Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who last month stayed a U.S. district court order fining San Diego $5,000 for each day that the cross remained standing–giving Congress time to pass the eminent-domain transfer. Mr. Paulson is now trying to block that transfer. If the case reaches the Supreme Court again, we hope that Justice Kennedy’s colleagues share the democratic view that the people of San Diego should be allowed to keep their cross.

Every time this issue has come before the voters, they overwhelmingly vote to keep it– and our challenged at the court level. The latest move by Congress to use eminent domain to buy the land and make it a federal memorial should be the final say– but we do not know what the courts will do. And that is the problem. We have become a nation that has a vote and a voice that is continually told that they are wrong by non-elected individuals.

If you’re long time readers, you will know that I’m definitely in the camp that we are a republic, not a democracy, but even a republic means that the people have representatives of their chosing– and the judges declare what our representatives pass. In this case, Mr. Paulson should be told to stop wasting his time and to find another route to wherever he is going that is causing him to see this cross and be offended.


Standing in the Gap in a Society that's Warring with God.