Tuesday, January 18, 2005


Michael Newdow vs. the 9/11 Survivors

Is it just me, or have the judges in this country gone koo koo?

Michael Newdow (who unfortunately won't just drop off the face of this earth) is appealing his inaugural prayer case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Somehow I doubt that the Supreme Court will throw this case.

The liberal argument will be that we all should have private freedom of religion, as well as freedom NOT to believe in a deity.

So I wonder what this moron would say should be done about parents who (hypothetically) murder their child, cut up the corpse in tiny pieces and make a human broth of the remains, as a religious practice. Does that constitute religious freedom? Obviously not. The reason is that our society is founded on Judeo-Christian values, where life is sacred.

It's annoying that this man is taking up the Court's time (and taxpayer money) over an inaugural prayer. No one is forcing him to convert to Christianity at gunpoint. And nowhere in the Constitution is there a right not to feel uncomfortable.

Anyway, I hope I'm wrong, but I see the Justices debating this one to death, whereas in the case of Saudi Arabia, U.S. District judge Richard Casey dismissed claims against Saudi Arabia, Saudi princes and Saudi banks by 9/11 survivors:

The judge dismissed claims against Al-Rajhi Banking & Investment Corp., Saudi American Bank, Arab Bank Plc, and royalty including Saudi Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud.

Casey, in a 62-page, single-spaced opinion, allowed claims to go forward against Saudi Binladin Group, the construction and distribution company run by bin Laden's relatives.

Casey refused to dismiss claims against the National Commercial Bank and several other defendants. Also, dozens of defendants, including foundations and charities such as the Muslim World League, weren't involved in the ruling.

These judges need to held accountable.

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?