"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:01:05 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 12:41:32 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Gunner
says...

Dont you just hate it when all those evil republicans keep pushing
those gun control laws..and forbidding religious symbols ?

Freedom *from* religion, gunner. Given their druthers your born
again morons in the white house would install state religions.
See Ed's post about Thomas, it's true. Granted that was a dissent
but this is what he came right out and said.

I check my facts. g

Now, how much should we gamble on the idea that Thomas, having said
that
the
First Amendment only applies to the federal government, would take it
the
next step and say that the states have a perfect right to prevent the
"expression of" unsanctioned religions?

Thomas is a hard-boiled originalist. If they were eggs, Scalia would
be a
soft-boiled one. Likewise Roberts and Alito.

Give them one more, and we'll have a hard-and-soft-boiled egg salad
deciding
what's constitutional and what's not.

Good..better than having Liveing Document Marxist/Socialists doing the
deciding.

As you often say, be careful what you wish for. And be glad that Thomas
is
the hard-boiled one. He doesn't have the talent for sophistry that would
keep the judicial results from starting a civil war.

A really "dead" Constitution would end up with confiscation of your guns,

religious wars, and the State of California moving in on your liberties,
one
by one.

Then based on the actions of the State of California over the past 10
yrs..the Constitution is in its death throes.

You ain't seen nothing yet. Wait till. Scalia, Roberts, and Alito start
exercising their opinions about states' rights.

You'll be wishing for a liberal Court that thinks the 14th Amendment is
living and breathing. g

--
Ed Huntress