|
|
#21
11-19-2004, 04:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: I Got Hannitized This Morning!
I would be happy to read all of them if you were to post them here. However I would expect you to apologize for reckless hyperbole if you cannot produce at least 300 decisions. If there are "hundreds" the task should not be that difficult.
Now, I do agree that the founders wanted citizens to freely excercize their religion without interference from the government, but that is not what modern "seperation" apologists are arguing. The first amendment does not grant freedom FROM religion. It prohibits congress from establishing an "official" religion or passing laws that prohibit the free excercize of any religion. 
|
|
#22
11-19-2004, 05:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I Got Hannitized This Morning!
This is all i could find in a ten-minute search, i don't know how many there are as i don't have the time to count:
also I beleive these are all since 1990 you can extrapolate how many there have been in 230 years read 'em SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP [Concurrence] COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Opinion] LEE V. WEISMAN [Concurrence] ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA [Dissent] MITCHELL V. HELMS [Dissent] COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Concur in part, dissent in part] VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC. [Dissent] MARSH V. CHAMBERS [Dissent] MITCHELL V. HELMS [Concurrence] EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING [Dissent] WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Dissent] LEE V. WEISMAN [Concurrence] ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Dissent] COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Concurrence] LYNCH V. DONNELLY [Opinion] MITCHEL WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Opinion] LYNCH V. DONNELLY [Dissent] COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Concur in part, dissent in part] HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL, INC. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion] WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Concurrence] ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA [Opinion] SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP [Opinion] EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD [Dissent] MITCHELL V. HELMS [Opinion] ENGEL V. VITALE [Opinion] VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC. [Opinion] WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [Dissent] MUELLER V. ALLEN [Opinion] SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BALL [Opinion] THOMAS V. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION [Dissent] SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE [Opinion] ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Opinion] WELSH V. UNITED STATES [Dissent] LEE V. WEISMAN [Dissent] ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Dissent] AGOSTINI V. FELTON, 117 S.CT. 1997, 138 L.ED.2D 391 (1997). [Syllabus] LEE V. WEISMAN [Opinion] EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD [Opinion] ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT [Dissent] MARSH V. CHAMBERS [Opinion] SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP [Dissent] WIDMAR V. VINCENT [Opinion] BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS [Opinion] ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA [Concurrence] ROSENBERGER V. UNIVERSITY OF VA., 515 U.S. 819 (1995). [Syllabus] GOOD NEWS CLUB V. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL [Syllabus] When Milford Central School excluded the Good News Club from meeting after hours at the school on the ground that the Club was religious in nature, it violated the Club's free speech rights; that violation is not justified by Milford's concern that permitting the Club's activities would violate the Establishment Clause. CAPITOL SQUARE REVIEW BD. V. PINETTE, 515 U.S. 753 (1995). [Syllabus] SHERBERT V. VERNER [Concurrence] WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [Concurrence] SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE [Dissent] COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Syllabus] ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Concurrence] EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD [Concurrence] MITCHELL V. HELMS [Syllabus] SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE [Syllabus] Whether petitioner's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause." WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [Opinion] MCDANIEL V. PATY [Concurrence] BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS [Dissent] BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS [Concurrence] AGUILAR V. FELTON [Dissent] AGUILAR V. FELTON [Opinion] BOARD OF EDUC. OF KIRYAS JOEL VILLAGE SCH. DIST. V. GRUMET, 114 S. CT. 2481, [Syllabus] LEE V. WEISMAN, 505 U.S. 577 (1992). [Syllabus] HARRIS V. MCRAE [Opinion] EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING [Opinion] LEMON V. KURTZMAN [Opinion] LYNCH V. DONNELLY [Concurrence] LAMB'S CHAPEL V. CENTER MORICHES UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT [Opinion] BUCKLEY V. VALEO [Opinion] CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. V. CITY OF HIALEAH [Opinion] SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP [Concurrence] LEMON V. KURTZMAN [] ZOBREST V. CATALINA FOOTHILLS SCH. DIST., 509 U.S. 1 (1993). [Syllabus] ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Syllabus] Ohio's Pilot Project Scholarship Program, which provides, inter alia, tuition aid for Cleveland schoolchildren to attend a participating public or private, religious or nonreligious, school of their parent's choosing, does not offend the Establishment Clause. WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Concurrence] HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL, INC. V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence] BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS [Syllabus] MCDANIEL V. PATY [Opinion] LEMON V. KURTZMAN [Concurrence] WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Dissent] COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Concur in part, dissent in part] HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL, INC. V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence] VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC. [Dissent] ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Concurrence] LOCKE V. DAVEY [Syllabus] The Washington Constitution provides that no public money shall be appropriated or applied to religious instruction. Following this constitutional command, Washington does not grant college scholarships to otherwise eligible students who are pursuing a degree in theology. Does the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment require the state to fund religious instruction, if it provides college scholarships for secular instruction? POSTAL SERVICE V. FLAMINGO INDUSTRIES (USA) LTD. [Syllabus] The federal antitrust laws apply to a person, which is defined to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of * * * the United States. 15 U.S.C.7 (sherman Act), 12 (a) (Clayton Act). The question presented is whether the United States Postal Service is a person amenable to suit under the antitrust laws. ERIE V. PAP’S A. M. [Syllabus] Did the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the court of last resort of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, improperly strike an ordinance of the City of Erie which fully comports with the principles articulated in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., thereby willfully disregarding binding precedent in violation of the Supremacy Clause at Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States? ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA [Syllabus] HOBBIE V. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMM'N OF FLORIDA [Opinion] WISCONSIN V. YODER [Opinion] WIDMAR V. VINCENT [Dissent] LAMB'S CHAPEL V. CENTER MORICHES UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT [Concurrence] AGUILAR V. FELTON [Concurrence] BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN [Dissent] STONE V. GRAHAM [Opinion] BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN [Opinion] COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12 [Opinion] LEE V. WEISMAN [Syllabus] ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA [Concurrence] LEMON V. KURTZMAN [Concur in part, dissent in part] SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE [Syllabus] MARSH V. CHAMBERS [Syllabus] MUELLER V. ALLEN [Dissent] LYNCH V. DONNELLY [Syllabus] HIBBS V. WINN [Syllabus] LOS ANGELES V. ALAMEDA BOOKS, INC. [Syllabus] The Ninth Circuit's judgment striking down a Los Angeles ordinance banning multiple-use adult entertainment establishments under Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U. S. 41, is reversed, and the case is remanded. ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. V. NEWDOW [Syllabus] (1) Whether Michael Newdow has standing to challenge as unconstitutional a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance? (2) Whether a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words "under God," violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, as applicable through the 14th Amendment? ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL [Opinion] ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT [Concur in part, dissent in part] ESTATE OF THORNTON V. CALDOR, INC. [Opinion] EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH [Dissent] CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER V. MANHART [Opinion] WIDMAR V. VINCENT [Syllabus] SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Concurrence] BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS [Concurrence] WELSH V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence] BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN [Dissent] REID V. COVERT [Concurrence] WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Concur in part, dissent in part] ZORACH V. CLAUSON [Opinion] BOB JONES UNIV. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion] UNITED STATES V. PINK [Opinion] MISSOURI EX REL. GAINES V. CANADA [Opinion] AGUILAR V. FELTON [Syllabus] SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Opinion] MYERS V. UNITED STATES [Opinion] THOMAS V. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION [Opinion] MCDANIEL V. PATY [Syllabus] ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Syllabus] VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC. [Syllabus] GLIDDEN CO. V. ZDANOK [Opinion] ARIZONA GOVERNING COMMITTEE FOR TAX DEFERRED ANNUITY AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS V. NORRIS [Concurrence] ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL [Dissent] YOUNG V. AMERICAN MINI THEATRES, INC. [Opinion] CIVIL RIGHTS CASES [Dissent] HUBBARD V. UNITED STATES, 514 U.S. 695 (1995). [Syllabus] LEBRON V. NATIONAL R.R. PASSENGER CORP., 513 U.S. 374 (1995). [Syllabus] CITY NEWS & NOVELTY, INC. V. WAUKESHA [Syllabus] Is a licensing scheme which acts as a prior restraint required to contain explicit language which prevents injury to a speaker's rights from want of a prompt judicial decision?" SPRIETSMA V. MERCURY MARINE [Syllabus] A state common-law tort action seeking damages from the manufacturer of an outboard motor is not pre-empted by the enactment of the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971 or by the Coast Guard's decision not to promulgate a regulation requiring propeller guards on motorboats. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION V. PUBLICCITIZEN [Syllabus] Whether a presidential foreign-affairs action that is otherwise exempt from environmental-review requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(1), became subject to those requirements because an executive agency promulgated administrative rules concerning implementation of the President's action? CHURCH OF THE LUKUMI BABALU AYE V. CITY OF HIALEAH, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). [Syllabus] GOOD SAMARITAN HOSP. V. SHALALA, 508 U.S. 402 (1993). [Syllabus] SOUTH DAKOTA V. BOURLAND, 508 U.S. 679 (1993). [Syllabus] LAMB'S CHAPEL V. CTR. MORICHES UNION FREE SCH. DIST., 508 U.S. 384 (1993). [Syllabus] UNITED STATES V. ALASKA, 503 U.S. 569 (1992). [Syllabus] TUAN ANH NGUYEN V. INS [Syllabus] Title 8 U. S. C. §1409, which provides different citizenship rules for children born abroad and out of wedlock to one United States citizen and one noncitizen depending on whether the citizen parent is the mother or the father, is consistent with the equal protection guarantee embedded in the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY [Opinion] SCHAD V. BOROUGH OF MOUNT EPHRAIM [Opinion] BOWSHER V. SYNAR [Concurrence] EPPERSON V. ARKANSAS [Opinion] SCHLESINGER V. RESERVISTS COMMITTEE TO STOP THE WAR [Dissent] WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE [Dissent] SAN ANTONIO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT V. RODRIGUEZ [Opinion] EPPERSON V. ARKANSAS [Concurrence] MUELLER V. ALLEN [Syllabus] NORTHERN PIPELINE CONSTR. CO. V. MARATHON PIPE LINE CO. [Opinion] WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Syllabus] CHEROKEE NATION V. GEORGIA [Dissent] SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Concur in part, dissent in part] BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ROTARY INTERNATIONAL V. ROTARY CLUB OF DUARTE [Opinion] DAMES & MOORE V. REGAN [Opinion] BAILEY V. DREXEL FURNITURE COMPANY [Opinion] RENO V. ACLU [Concurrence] STONE V. GRAHAM [Dissent] ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Dissent] ALDEN V. MAINE [Dissent] CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. V. CITY OF HIALEAH [Concurrence] PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Concur in part, dissent in part] BARNES V. GLEN THEATRE, INC. [Concurrence] DESHANEY V. WINNEBAGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES [Dissent] EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD [Syllabus] EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD [Concurrence] MCCLESKEY V. KEMP [Dissent] BOWEN V. ROY [Opinion] BOWEN V. ROY [Concurrence] SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BALL [Syllabus] SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BALL [Dissent] SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BALL [Concurrence] ESTATE OF THORNTON V. CALDOR, INC. [Syllabus] ESTATE OF THORNTON V. CALDOR, INC. [Concurrence] ALLEN V. WRIGHT [Opinion] INS V. CHADHA [Dissent] ILLINOIS V. GATES [Syllabus] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE V. CLAIBORNE HARDWARE CO. [Opinion] MISSISSIPPI UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN V. HOGAN [Opinion] BOARD OF EDUC. V. PICO [Dissent] WIDMAR V. VINCENT [Concurrence] ROSTKER V. GOLDBERG [Dissent] CITY OF MEMPHIS V. GREENE [Dissent] PENNHURST STATE SCHOOL AND HOSPITAL V. HALDERMAN [Opinion] THOMAS V. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION [Syllabus] STONE V. GRAHAM [Syllabus] PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER V. ROBINS [Opinion] UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO-CLC V. WEBER [Dissent] MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY [Concurrence] UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK V. NEW JERSEY [Opinion] YOUNG V. AMERICAN MINI THEATRES, INC. [Concurrence] NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES V. USERY [Dissent] HAMPTON V. MOW SUN WONG [Opinion] MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY [Dissent] CHISHOLM V. GEORGIA [Concur in part, dissent in part] LLOYD CORP., LTD. V. TANNER [Opinion] LEMON V. KURTZMAN [Syllabus] WELSH V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [] EVANS V. ABNEY [Opinion] EPPERSON V. ARKANSAS [Syllabus] EPPERSON V. ARKANSAS [Concurrence] BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN [Syllabus] AMALGAMATED FOOD EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 590 V. LOGAN VALLEY PLAZA, INC. [Opinion] SHERBERT V. VERNER [Opinion] SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP [Concurrence] ENGEL V. VITALE [Dissent] SCALES V. UNITED STATES [Opinion] WIENER V. UNITED STATES [Opinion] WATKINS V. UNITED STATES [Opinion] YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER [Concurrence] DENNIS V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence] ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT [Opinion] EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING [Dissent] ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY [Concur in part, dissent in part] A. L. A. SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion] VILLAGE OF EUCLID V. AMBLER REALTY CO. [Opinion] MYERS V. UNITED STATES [Concur in part, dissent in part] SELECTIVE DRAFT LAW CASES [Opinion] WILSON V. NEW [Opinion] GUINN & BEAL V. UNITED STATES [Opinion] PACIFIC STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY V. OREGON [Opinion] LOCHNER V. NEW YORK [Opinion] LOCHNER V. NEW YORK [Dissent] PLESSY V. FERGUSON [Opinion] PLESSY V. FERGUSON [Dissent] YICK WO V. HOPKINS [Syllabus] HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA [Dissent] MUNN V. ILLINOIS [Opinion] SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES [Opinion] EX PARTE GARLAND [Dissent] LUTHER V. BORDEN [Dissent] PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. PROPRIETORS OF WARREN BRIDGE [Dissent] WORCESTER V. GEORGIA [Opinion] TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD [Syllabus] TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD [Concurrence] MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND [Opinion] UNITED STATES V. PETERS [Syllabus] JOHNSON V. ROBISON [Opinion] OLIVER V. UNITED STATES [Dissent] WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Dissent] TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD [Opinion] SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BALL [Concurrence] SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BALL [Dissent] AGUILAR V. FELTON [Dissent] OREGON V. MITCHELL [Concur in part, dissent in part] OREGON V. MITCHELL [Concur in part, dissent in part] OREGON V. MITCHELL [Concur in part, dissent in part] OREGON V. MITCHELL [Opinion] BARRON V. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE [Syllabus] AGUILAR V. FELTON [Dissent] CORNELIUS V. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC. FUND [Opinion] WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [Syllabus] POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY [Opinion] GOLDMAN V. WEINBERGER [Concurrence] GOLDMAN V. WEINBERGER [Dissent] GOLDMAN V. WEINBERGER [Dissent] DANDRIDGE V. WILLIAMS [Dissent] WALLER V. FLORIDA [Opinion] HADLEY V. JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICT OF METROPOLITAN KANSAS CITY [Dissent] POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY [Dissent] POWELL V. MCCORMACK [] KIRKPATRICK V. PREISLER [Syllabus] TINKER V. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIST. [Dissent] UNITED STATES V. E. C. KNIGHT COMPANY [Opinion] FORD V. WAINWRIGHT [Opinion] BOWSHER V. SYNAR [Dissent] IN RE NEAGLE [Dissent] MARTIN V. HUNTER'S LESSEE [Opinion] HOBBIE V. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMM'N OF FLORIDA [Syllabus] BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN [Dissent] JOHNSON V. TRANSPORTATION AGENCY [Dissent] BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ROTARY INTERNATIONAL V. ROTARY CLUB OF DUARTE [Syllabus] GREEN V. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF NEW KENT COUNTY [Opinion] CHEROKEE NATION V. GEORGIA [Syllabus] AMALGAMATED FOOD EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 590 V. LOGAN VALLEY PLAZA, INC. [Dissent] AMALGAMATED FOOD EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 590 V. LOGAN VALLEY PLAZA, INC. [Dissent] UNITED STATES V. JACKSON [Opinion] BERGER V. NEW YORK [Dissent] BERGER V. NEW YORK [Concurrence] KEYISHIAN V. BOARD OF REGENTS [Dissent] MIRANDA V. ARIZONA [Dissent] EVANS V. NEWTON [Opinion] EVANS V. NEWTON [Dissent] GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT [Dissent] BOOS V. BARRY [Concurrence] LYNG V. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION [Dissent] LYNG V. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION [Opinion] JACOBELLIS V. OHIO [Opinion] REYNOLDS V. SIMS [Opinion] SHERBERT V. VERNER [Syllabus] CIVIL RIGHTS CASES [Opinion] MORRISON V. OLSON [Opinion] SHERBERT V. VERNER [Concurrence] SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP [Syllabus] WARD'S COVE PACKING CO., INC. V. ANTONIO [Dissent] PATTERSON V. MCLEAN CREDIT UNION [Syllabus] BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE [Opinion] WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Concur in part, dissent in part] EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH [Opinion] RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS [Dissent] ENGEL V. VITALE [Syllabus] CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH [Opinion] STRAUDER V. WEST VIRGINIA [Opinion] PENNOYER V. NEFF [Dissent] SCALES V. UNITED STATES [Dissent] RUST V. SULLIVAN [Dissent] COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12 [Dissent] COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12 [Dissent] BARENBLATT V. UNITED STATES [Opinion] SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent] KENT V. DULLES [Dissent] TROP V. DULLES [Concurrence] PEREZ V. BROWNELL [Dissent] YATES V. UNITED STATES [Opinion] YATES V. UNITED STATES [Dissent] MUNN V. ILLINOIS [Dissent] REID V. COVERT [Opinion] REID V. COVERT [Dissent] RUST V. SULLIVAN [Opinion] UNITED STATES V. QUARLES [Opinion] UNITED STATES V. QUARLES [Dissent] YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER [Dissent] SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES [Syllabus] ZORACH V. CLAUSON [Syllabus] UNITED STATES V. FORDICE [Concur in part, dissent in part] ZORACH V. CLAUSON [Dissent] DENNIS V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence] COHENS V. VIRGINIA [Syllabus] SHELLEY V. KRAEMER [Opinion] LUCAS V. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL [Opinion] SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES [Dissent] LAMB'S CHAPEL V. CENTER MORICHES UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT [Concurrence] ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT [Concurrence] WOODS V. CLOYD W. MILLER CO. [Opinion] ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA [Dissent] EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING [Syllabus] LAMB'S CHAPEL V. CENTER MORICHES UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT [Syllabus] CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. V. CITY OF HIALEAH [Syllabus] UNITED STATES V. KLEIN [Opinion] MORGAN V. VIRGINIA [Dissent] MARSH V. ALABAMA [Dissent] C & A CARBONE, INC. V. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN [Concurrence] EX PARTE QUIRIN [Opinion] ROMER V. EVANS [Dissent] UNITED STATES V. PINK [Dissent] MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BOARD OF EDUCATION [Opinion] CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT [Syllabus] CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT [Opinion] THORNHILL V. ALABAMA [Opinion] HAGUE V. COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION [Concur in part, dissent in part] MULFORD V. SMITH [Opinion] CLINTON V. JONES [Opinion] PALKO V. CONNECTICUT [Opinion] UNITED STATES V. BELMONT [Opinion] WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH [Syllabus] WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH [Dissent] CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO. [Opinion] COHENS V. VIRGINIA [Opinion] PRIZE CASES [Opinion] NEBBIA V. NEW YORK [Concur in part, dissent in part] PATTON V. UNITED STATES [Opinion] WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA [Opinion] TYSON & BROTHER V. BANTON [Opinion] NGUYEN V. INS [Dissent] NGUYEN V. INS [Opinion] SAENZ V. ROE [Dissent] GITLOW V. PEOPLE [Opinion] SAENZ V. ROE [Dissent] SAENZ V. ROE [Opinion] BAILEY V. DREXEL FURNITURE COMPANY [Syllabus] UNITED STATES V. MORRISON [Opinion] HAMMER V. DAGENHART [Opinion] SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Dissent] SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Dissent] GUINN & BEAL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] NGUYEN V. INS [Syllabus] UNITED STATES. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. FRITZ [Opinion] FLETCHER V. PECK [Syllabus] SCHAD V. BOROUGH OF MOUNT EPHRAIM [Syllabus] METROMEDIA, INC. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO [Dissent] HARRIS V. MCRAE [Syllabus] METROMEDIA, INC. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO [Opinion] STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY V. UNITED STATES [Opinion] PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER V. ROBINS [Concurrence] UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO-CLC V. WEBER [Opinion] TWINING V. STATE [Opinion] BURCH V. LOUISIANA [Opinion] BUTZ V. ECONOMOU [Opinion] REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE [Opinion] ZURCHER V. STANFORD DAILY [Concurrence] CABELL V. CHAVEZ-SALIDO [Dissent] CABELL V. CHAVEZ-SALIDO [Opinion] GLOBE NEWSPAPER CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT [Opinion] BOARD OF EDUC. V. PICO [Opinion] NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES [Dissent] DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON [Concurrence] MULLER V. OREGON [Opinion] MAHER V. ROE [Opinion] ADAIR V. UNITED STATES [Opinion] YOUNG V. AMERICAN MINI THEATRES, INC. [Syllabus] NORTHERN PIPELINE CONSTR. CO. V. MARATHON PIPE LINE CO. [] LOCHNER V. NEW YORK [Syllabus] NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES V. USERY [Opinion] PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. PROPRIETORS OF WARREN BRIDGE [Concur in part, dissent in part] PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. PROPRIETORS OF WARREN BRIDGE [Syllabus] GREER V. SPOCK [Opinion] GREER V. SPOCK [Dissent] HUDGENS V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD [Dissent] NORTHERN PIPELINE CONSTR. CO. V. MARATHON PIPE LINE CO. [Syllabus] MISSISSIPPI UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN V. HOGAN [Dissent] MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY [Dissent] MAXWELL V. DOW [Dissent] GERTZ V. ROBERT WELCH, INC. [Dissent] MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING CO. V. TORNILLO [Opinion] SCHLESINGER V. RESERVISTS COMMITTEE TO STOP THE WAR [Dissent] MISSISSIPPI UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN V. HOGAN [Syllabus] UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK [Opinion] UNITED STATES V. KAHN [Opinion] DOE V. MCMILLAN [Opinion] SCHNECKLOTH V. BUSTAMONTE [Concurrence] MARSH V. CHAMBERS [Dissent] MAHAN V. HOWELL [Concur in part, dissent in part] MAHAN V. HOWELL [Syllabus] BOARD OF REGENTS OF STATE COLLEGES V. ROTH [Dissent] FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Concurrence] HOLDEN V. HARDY [Opinion] MOOSE LODGE NO. 107 V. IRVIS [Opinion] MOOSE LODGE NO. 107 V. IRVIS [Dissent] FUENTES V. SHEVIN [Opinion] WISCONSIN V. YODER [Concurrence] SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP [Concurrence] LEE V. WEISMAN, 505 U.S. 577 (1992). [Concurrence] MITCHELL V. HELMS [Dissent] Whether a program under Chapter 2 of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. 7301, et seq., which provides federal funds to state and local education agencies to purchase and lend neutral, secular, and nonreligious materials such as computers, software, and library books to public and nonpublic schools for use by the students attending those schools, and which allocates the funds on an equal per-student basis, regardless of the religious or secular character of the schools the students choose to attend, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. ROSENBERGER V. UNIVERSITY OF VA., 515 U.S. 819 (1995). [Dissent] LEE V. WEISMAN [Concurrence] COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Opinion] EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING [Dissent] MITCHELL V. HELMS [Dissent] ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA [Dissent] ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. V. NEWDOW [Concurrence] (1) Whether Michael Newdow has standing to challenge as unconstitutional a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance? (2) Whether a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words "under God," violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, as applicable through the 14th Amendment? ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Dissent] Ohio's Pilot Project Scholarship Program, which provides, inter alia, tuition aid for Cleveland schoolchildren to attend a participating public or private, religious or nonreligious, school of their parent's choosing, does not offend the Establishment Clause. LEE V. WEISMAN, 505 U.S. 577 (1992). [Concurrence] CAPITOL SQUARE REVIEW BD. V. PINETTE, 515 U.S. 753 (1995). [Dissent] WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Concurrence] COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Concur in part, dissent in part] MARSH V. CHAMBERS [Dissent] SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP [Opinion] MITCHELL V. HELMS [Concurrence] Whether a program under Chapter 2 of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. 7301, et seq., which provides federal funds to state and local education agencies to purchase and lend neutral, secular, and nonreligious materials such as computers, software, and library books to public and nonpublic schools for use by the students attending those schools, and which allocates the funds on an equal per-student basis, regardless of the religious or secular character of the schools the students choose to attend, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Dissent] WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Opinion] ROSENBERGER V. UNIVERSITY OF VA., 515 U.S. 819 (1995). [Opinion] COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Concurrence] GOOD NEWS CLUB V. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL [Opinion] When Milford Central School excluded the Good News Club from meeting after hours at the school on the ground that the Club was religious in nature, it violated the Club's free speech rights; that violation is not justified by Milford's concern that permitting the Club's activities would violate the Establishment Clause. CAPITOL SQUARE REVIEW BD. V. PINETTE, 515 U.S. 753 (1995). [Opinion] MITCHELL V. HELMS [Opinion] Whether a program under Chapter 2 of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. 7301, et seq., which provides federal funds to state and local education agencies to purchase and lend neutral, secular, and nonreligious materials such as computers, software, and library books to public and nonpublic schools for use by the students attending those schools, and which allocates the funds on an equal per-student basis, regardless of the religious or secular character of the schools the students choose to attend, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. LEE V. WEISMAN [Concurrence] ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Dissent] EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD [Dissent] BOARD OF EDUC. OF KIRYAS JOEL VILLAGE SCH. DIST. V. GRUMET, 114 S. CT. 2481, [Dissent] BOARD OF EDUC. OF KIRYAS JOEL VILLAGE SCH. DIST. V. GRUMET, 114 S. CT. 2481, [Opinion] LEE V. WEISMAN, 505 U.S. 577 (1992). [Opinion] VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC. [Dissent] WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [Dissent] CAPITOL SQUARE REVIEW BD. V. PINETTE, 515 U.S. 753 (1995). [Concurrence] WELSH V. UNITED STATES [Dissent] COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Concur in part, dissent in part] SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE [Opinion] Whether petitioner's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause." CHURCH OF THE LUKUMI BABALU AYE V. CITY OF HIALEAH, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). [Opinion] MITCHELL V. HELMS [Concurrence] LYNCH V. DONNELLY [Dissent] ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA [Opinion] MITCHELL V. HELMS [Syllabus] Whether a program under Chapter 2 of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. 7301, et seq., which provides federal funds to state and local education agencies to purchase and lend neutral, secular, and nonreligious materials such as computers, software, and library books to public and nonpublic schools for use by the students attending those schools, and which allocates the funds on an equal per-student basis, regardless of the religious or secular character of the schools the students choose to attend, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP [Dissent] MITCHELL V. HELMS [Opinion] LOCKE V. DAVEY [Opinion] The Washington Constitution provides that no public money shall be appropriated or applied to religious instruction. Following this constitutional command, Washington does not grant college scholarships to otherwise eligible students who are pursuing a degree in theology. Does the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment require the state to fund religious instruction, if it provides college scholarships for secular instruction? MCDANIEL V. PATY [Concurrence] ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT [Dissent] BOARD OF EDUC. OF KIRYAS JOEL VILLAGE SCH. DIST. V. GRUMET, 114 S. CT. 2481, [Concurrence] LYNCH V. DONNELLY [Opinion] LEE V. WEISMAN [Opinion] SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BALL [Opinion] ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Dissent] Ohio's Pilot Project Scholarship Program, which provides, inter alia, tuition aid for Cleveland schoolchildren to attend a participating public or private, religious or nonreligious, school of their parent's choosing, does not offend the Establishment Clause. WIDMAR V. VINCENT [Opinion] ENGEL V. VITALE [Opinion] LAMB'S CHAPEL V. CTR. MORICHES UNION FREE SCH. DIST., 508 U.S. 384 (1993). [Opinion] SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE [Opinion] THOMAS V. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION [Dissent] BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS [Opinion] CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. V. CITY OF HIALEAH [Opinion] CITY OF BOERNE V. FLORES, 117 S.CT. 2157, 138 L.ED.2D 624 (1997). [Dissent] ROSENBERGER V. UNIVERSITY OF VA., 515 U.S. 819 (1995). [Concurrence] WISCONSIN V. YODER [Opinion] AGOSTINI V. FELTON, 117 S.CT. 1997, 138 L.ED.2D 391 (1997). [Dissent] ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Concurrence] Ohio's Pilot Project Scholarship Program, which provides, inter alia, tuition aid for Cleveland schoolchildren to attend a participating public or private, religious or nonreligious, school of their parent's choosing, does not offend the Establishment Clause. ZOBREST V. CATALINA FOOTHILLS SCH. DIST., 509 U.S. 1 (1993). [Opinion] CHURCH OF THE LUKUMI BABALU AYE V. CITY OF HIALEAH, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). [Concurrence] WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [Opinion] EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD [Opinion] HARRIS V. MCRAE [Opinion] EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING [Opinion] LEE V. WEISMAN, 505 U.S. 577 (1992). [Dissent] SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE [Dissent] Whether petitioner's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause." LAMB'S CHAPEL V. CENTER MORICHES UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT [Opinion] LOCKE V. DAVEY [Dissent] The Washington Constitution provides that no public money shall be appropriated or applied to religious instruction. Following this constitutional command, Washington does not grant college scholarships to otherwise eligible students who are pursuing a degree in theology. Does the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment require the state to fund religious instruction, if it provides college scholarships for secular instruction? BUCKLEY V. VALEO [Opinion] BOARD OF EDUC. OF KIRYAS JOEL VILLAGE SCH. DIST. V. GRUMET, 114 S. CT. 2481, [Concurrence] CAPITOL SQUARE REVIEW BD. V. PINETTE, 515 U.S. 753 (1995). [Concurrence] GOOD NEWS CLUB V. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL [Syllabus] When Milford Central School excluded the Good News Club from meeting after hours at the school on the ground that the Club was religious in nature, it violated the Club's free speech rights; that violation is not justified by Milford's concern that permitting the Club's activities would violate the Establishment Clause. CAPITOL SQUARE REVIEW BD. V. PINETTE, 515 U.S. 753 (1995). [Syllabus] ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Dissent] WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [Concurrence] BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS [Concurrence] LAMB'S CHAPEL V. CTR. MORICHES UNION FREE SCH. DIST., 508 U.S. 384 (1993). [Concurrence] HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL, INC. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion] LEMON V. KURTZMAN [Opinion] LEMON V. KURTZMAN [] SHERBERT V. VERNER [Concurrence] ZOBREST V. CATALINA FOOTHILLS SCH. DIST., 509 U.S. 1 (1993). [Dissent] ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA [Concurrence] BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN [Opinion] ROSENBERGER V. UNIVERSITY OF VA., 515 U.S. 819 (1995). [Syllabus] MCDANIEL V. PATY [Opinion] HOBBIE V. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMM'N OF FLORIDA [Opinion] EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH [Dissent] ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Concurrence] CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. V. CITY OF HIALEAH [Concurrence] EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD [Concurrence] LAMB'S CHAPEL V. CENTER MORICHES UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT [Concurrence] LEE V. WEISMAN [Dissent] SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE [Dissent] LEE V. WEISMAN, 505 U.S. 577 (1992). [Syllabus] MITCHELL V. HELMS [Syllabus] BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS [Dissent] ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT [Concur in part, dissent in part] WIDMAR V. VINCENT [Dissent] LEMON V. KURTZMAN [Concur in part, dissent in part] LOCKE V. DAVEY [Syllabus] The Washington Constitution provides that no public money shall be appropriated or applied to religious instruction. Following this constitutional command, Washington does not grant college scholarships to otherwise eligible students who are pursuing a degree in theology. Does the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment require the state to fund religious instruction, if it provides college scholarships for secular instruction? MUELLER V. ALLEN [Opinion] LEMON V. KURTZMAN [Concurrence] GOOD NEWS CLUB V. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL [Dissent] When Milford Central School excluded the Good News Club from meeting after hours at the school on the ground that the Club was religious in nature, it violated the Club's free speech rights; that violation is not justified by Milford's concern that permitting the Club's activities would violate the Establishment Clause. VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC. [Opinion] THOMAS V. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION [Opinion] ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. V. NEWDOW [Concurrence] (1) Whether Michael Newdow has standing to challenge as unconstitutional a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance? (2) Whether a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words "under God," violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, as applicable through the 14th Amendment? ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Concurrence] Ohio's Pilot Project Scholarship Program, which provides, inter alia, tuition aid for Cleveland schoolchildren to attend a participating public or private, religious or nonreligious, school of their parent's choosing, does not offend the Establishment Clause. ROSENBERGER V. UNIVERSITY OF VA., 515 U.S. 819 (1995). [Concurrence] ZORACH V. CLAUSON [Opinion] ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA [Concurrence] WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE [Dissent] HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL, INC. V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence] HIBBS V. WINN [Opinion] EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH [Opinion] LYNG V. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION [Dissent] MARSH V. CHAMBERS [Opinion] WELSH V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence] SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Opinion] MUELLER V. ALLEN [Dissent] LAMB'S CHAPEL V. CTR. MORICHES UNION FREE SCH. DIST., 508 U.S. 384 (1993). [Syllabus] UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO-CLC V. WEBER [Dissent] BOWEN V. ROY [Opinion] LEE V. WEISMAN [Syllabus] SHERBERT V. VERNER [Opinion] JOHNSON V. ROBISON [Opinion] AGUILAR V. FELTON [Opinion] BOB JONES UNIV. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion] GOOD NEWS CLUB V. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL [Concurrence] When Milford Central School excluded the Good News Club from meeting after hours at the school on the ground that the Club was religious in nature, it violated the Club's free speech rights; that violation is not justified by Milford's concern that permitting the Club's activities would violate the Establishment Clause. WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Concurrence] BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN [Dissent] GOOD NEWS CLUB V. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL [Concurrence] When Milford Central School excluded the Good News Club from meeting after hours at the school on the ground that the Club was religious in nature, it violated the Club's free speech rights; that violation is not justified by Milford's concern that permitting the Club's activities would violate the Establishment Clause. ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. V. NEWDOW [Opinion] (1) Whether Michael Newdow has standing to challenge as unconstitutional a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance? (2) Whether a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words "under God," violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, as applicable through the 14th Amendment? MCDANIEL V. PATY [Syllabus] ZOBREST V. CATALINA FOOTHILLS SCH. DIST., 509 U.S. 1 (1993). [Syllabus] WATCHTOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOC. OF N. Y., INC. V.VILLAGE OF STRATTON [Opinion] A village ordinance making it a misdemeanor to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first registering with the mayor and receiving a permit violates the First Amendment as it applies to religious proselytizing, anonymous political speech, and the distribution of handbills. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS [Syllabus] ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Concurrence] TANGIPAHOA PARISH BD. OF ED. V. FREILER [Dissent] STONE V. GRAHAM [Opinion] CHURCH OF THE LUKUMI BABALU AYE V. CITY OF HIALEAH, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). [Syllabus] EPPERSON V. ARKANSAS [Opinion] ROSENBERGER V. RECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA [Syllabus] BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. MERGENS BY AND THROUGH MERGENS [Concurrence] COLUMBIA UNION COLLEGE V. CLARK [Dissent] LYNG V. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION [Opinion] SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP [Concurrence] SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Dissent] HIBBS V. WINN [Syllabus] SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Concur in part, dissent in part] EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING [Dissent] WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Concur in part, dissent in part] ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT [Opinion] ALDEN V. MAINE [Dissent] ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. V. NEWDOW [Syllabus] (1) Whether Michael Newdow has standing to challenge as unconstitutional a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance? (2) Whether a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words "under God," violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, as applicable through the 14th Amendment? CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT [Opinion] DENNIS V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence] SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Dissent] THOMAS V. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION [Syllabus] LAMB'S CHAPEL V. CENTER MORICHES UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT [Syllabus] ARIZONA GOVERNING COMMITTEE FOR TAX DEFERRED ANNUITY AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS V. NORRIS [Concurrence] WIDMAR V. VINCENT [Syllabus] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE V. CLAIBORNE HARDWARE CO. [Opinion] CAMPS NEWFOUND/OWATONNA, INC. V. TOWN OF HARRISON, 520 U.S. 564 (1997). [Opinion] SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP [Concurrence] COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12 [Dissent] GOLDMAN V. WEINBERGER [Dissent] MCINTYRE V. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N, 514 U.S. 334 (1995). [Concurrence] EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION V. ARABIAN AMERICAN OIL CO., 499 U.S. 244 (1991) [Opinion] BOARD OF EDUC. V. PICO [Opinion] ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA [Dissent] ALDEN V. MAINE [Dissent] MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING CO. V. TORNILLO [Opinion] BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN [Syllabus] MAXWELL V. DOW [Dissent] WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [] ENGEL V. VITALE [Dissent] MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY [Opinion] LEWIS V. CASEY, 516 U.S. 804 (1996) [Concurrence] SELECTIVE DRAFT LAW CASES [Opinion] BOWEN V. ROY [Concurrence] LAMB'S CHAPEL V. CENTER MORICHES UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT [Concurrence] MILLER V. ALBRIGHT, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) [Dissent] TINKER V. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIST. [Dissent] LANDGRAF V. USI FILM PRODS., 511 U.S. 244 (1994). [Opinion] WATKINS V. UNITED STATES [Opinion] LEMON V. KURTZMAN [Syllabus] ESTATE OF THORNTON V. CALDOR, INC. [Concurrence] ZORACH V. CLAUSON [Dissent] TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD [Syllabus] JOHNSON V. TRANSPORTATION AGENCY [Dissent] MARSH V. ALABAMA [Dissent] BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ROTARY INTERNATIONAL V. ROTARY CLUB OF DUARTE [Opinion] EPPERSON V. ARKANSAS [Syllabus] NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR ARTS V. FINLEY, 524 U.S. 569 (1998) [Opinion] LUCAS V. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992). [Opinion] MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BOARD OF EDUCATION [Opinion] CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. V. CITY OF HIALEAH [Syllabus] EX PARTE GARLAND [Dissent] EPPERSON V. ARKANSAS [Concurrence] EPPERSON V. ARKANSAS [Concurrence] PALKO V. CONNECTICUT [Opinion] CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT [Syllabus] FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Concurrence] UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO-CLC V. WEBER [Opinion] WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [Syllabus] RICE V. CAYETANO [Opinion] Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution permit the adoption of an explicitracial classification that restricts the right to vote in statewide elections for state officials. TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD [Concurrence] SHERBERT V. VERNER [Concurrence] WISCONSIN V. YODER [Concurrence] SHERBERT V. VERNER [Syllabus] PENNHURST STATE SCHOOL AND HOSPITAL V. HALDERMAN [Opinion] ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT [Concurrence] GOLDMAN V. WEINBERGER [Concurrence] HARRIS V. MCRAE [Syllabus] MAHER V. ROE [Opinion] SHELLEY V. KRAEMER [Opinion] GOLDMAN V. WEINBERGER [Dissent] REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE [Opinion] GLOBE NEWSPAPER CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT [Opinion] GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT [Dissent] LUCAS V. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL [Opinion] MOOSE LODGE NO. 107 V. IRVIS [Opinion] ZORACH V. CLAUSON [Syllabus] MUNN V. ILLINOIS [Dissent] EVANS V. NEWTON [Dissent] CHEROKEE NATION V. GEORGIA [Syllabus] HOBBIE V. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMM'N OF FLORIDA [Syllabus] BARENBLATT V. UNITED STATES [Opinion] BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN [Dissent] WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Concur in part, dissent in part] AGOSTINI V. FELTON, 117 S.CT. 1997, 138 L.ED.2D 391 (1997). [Opinion] ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Opinion] Ohio's Pilot Project Scholarship Program, which provides, inter alia, tuition aid for Cleveland schoolchildren to attend a participating public or private, religious or nonreligious, school of their parent's choosing, does not offend the Establishment Clause. EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH [Concurrence] LOS ANGELES V. ALAMEDA BOOKS, INC. [Opinion] The Ninth Circuit's judgment striking down a Los Angeles ordinance banning multiple-use adult entertainment establishments under Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U. S. 41, is reversed, and the case is remanded. ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Opinion] ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. V. NEWDOW [Concurrence] (1) Whether Michael Newdow has standing to challenge as unconstitutional a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance? (2) Whether a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words "under God," violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, as applicable through the 14th Amendment? AGOSTINI V. FELTON, 117 S.CT. 1997, 138 L.ED.2D 391 (1997). [Syllabus] COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Syllabus] POSTAL SERVICE V. FLAMINGO INDUSTRIES (USA) LTD. [Opinion] The federal antitrust laws apply to a person, which is defined to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of * * * the United States. 15 U.S.C.7 (sherman Act), 12 (a) (Clayton Act). The question presented is whether the United States Postal Service is a person amenable to suit under the antitrust laws. CITY OF BOERNE V. FLORES, 117 S.CT. 2157, 138 L.ED.2D 624 (1997). [Concurrence] SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE [Syllabus] Whether petitioner's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause." CITY OF BOERNE V. FLORES, 117 S.CT. 2157, 138 L.ED.2D 624 (1997). [Opinion] AGUILAR V. FELTON [Dissent] ERIE V. PAP’S A. M. [Opinion] Did the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the court of last resort of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, improperly strike an ordinance of the City of Erie which fully comports with the principles articulated in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., thereby willfully disregarding binding precedent in violation of the Supremacy Clause at Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States? PGA TOUR, INC. V. MARTIN [Opinion] Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 prohibits petitioner from denying golfer Casey Martin equal access to its golf tours on the basis of a disability that prevents him from walking a golf course; allowing Martin to use a golf cart, despite petitioner's walking requirement, is not a modification that would "fundamentally alter the nature" of petitioner's tours. BOARD OF EDUC. OF KIRYAS JOEL VILLAGE SCH. DIST. V. GRUMET, 114 S. CT. 2481, [Syllabus] LYNCH V. DONNELLY [Concurrence] ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Syllabus] Ohio's Pilot Project Scholarship Program, which provides, inter alia, tuition aid for Cleveland schoolchildren to attend a participating public or private, religious or nonreligious, school of their parent's choosing, does not offend the Establishment Clause. ERIE V. PAP’S A. M. [Concurrence] Did the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the court of last resort of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, improperly strike an ordinance of the City of Erie which fully comports with the principles articulated in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., thereby willfully disregarding binding precedent in violation of the Supremacy Clause at Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States? CAPITOL SQUARE REVIEW BD. V. PINETTE, 515 U.S. 753 (1995). [Dissent] MONTANA V. EGELHOFF, 518 U.S. 37 (1996). [Dissent] HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL, INC. V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence] WALLACE V. JAFFREE [Dissent] FRAZEE V. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY [Opinion] COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Concur in part, dissent in part] VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC. [Dissent] ERIE V. PAP’S A. M. [Syllabus] Did the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the court of last resort of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, improperly strike an ordinance of the City of Erie which fully comports with the principles articulated in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., thereby willfully disregarding binding precedent in violation of the Supremacy Clause at Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States? POSTAL SERVICE V. FLAMINGO INDUSTRIES (USA) LTD. [Syllabus] The federal antitrust laws apply to a person, which is defined to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of * * * the United States. 15 U.S.C.7 (sherman Act), 12 (a) (Clayton Act). The question presented is whether the United States Postal Service is a person amenable to suit under the antitrust laws. AGUILAR V. FELTON [Concurrence] BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN [Dissent] JOSEPH BURSTYN, INC. V. WILSON [Concurrence] AGOSTINI V. FELTON, 117 S.CT. 1997, 138 L.ED.2D 391 (1997). [Dissent] LYNCH V. DONNELLY [Syllabus] COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12 [Opinion] MARSH V. CHAMBERS [Syllabus] SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE [Syllabus] WISCONSIN V. YODER [Dissent] ENGEL V. VITALE [Concurrence] MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT V. BOARD OF EDUCATION [Dissent] BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE [Dissent] Whether a state law requiring a Boy Scout Troop to appoint an avowed homosexual and gray rights activist as an Assistant Scoutmaster responsible for communicating Boy Scouting's moral values to youth members abridges First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association." LOCAL 144 NURSING HOME PENSION FUND V. DEMISAY, 508 U.S. 581 (1993). [Concurrence] CAPITOL SQUARE REVIEW BD. V. PINETTE, 515 U.S. 753 (1995). [Concurrence] BUNTING V. MELLEN [Dissent] BUNTING V. MELLEN [] WASH. AIRPORTS AUTH. V. NOISE ABATEMENT CITIZENS, 501 U.S. 252 (1991) [Opinion] RENO V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, 117 S.CT. 2329, 138 L.ED.2D 874 (1997) [Concur in part, dissent in part] LOS ANGELES V. ALAMEDA BOOKS, INC. [Syllabus] The Ninth Circuit's judgment striking down a Los Angeles ordinance banning multiple-use adult entertainment establishments under Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U. S. 41, is reversed, and the case is remanded. CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER V. MANHART [Opinion] ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL [Opinion] REID V. COVERT [Concurrence] SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Concurrence] JOHNSON V. ROBISON [Dissent] ESTATE OF THORNTON V. CALDOR, INC. [Opinion] BOWEN V. ROY [Concur in part, dissent in part] BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE [Dissent] CITY OF BOERNE V. FLORES, 117 S.CT. 2157, 138 L.ED.2D 624 (1997). [Syllabus] MARSH V. ALABAMA [Opinion] PRINCE V. MASSACHUSETTS [Opinion] GOLDMAN V. WEINBERGER [Dissent] AGUILAR V. FELTON [Syllabus] VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE V. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, INC. [Syllabus] ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Syllabus] UNITED STATES V. PINK [Opinion] YOUNG V. AMERICAN MINI THEATRES, INC. [Opinion] MISSOURI EX REL. GAINES V. CANADA [Opinion] MYERS V. UNITED STATES [Opinion] ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL [Dissent] NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence] CIVIL RIGHTS CASES [Dissent] GLIDDEN CO. V. ZDANOK [Opinion] M. L. B. V. S. L. J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996). [Dissent] SWANNER V. ANCHORAGE EQUAL RIGHTS COM'N., 513 U.S. 979 (1994) [] UNITED STATES V. GUEST [Concur in part, dissent in part] CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. V. CITY OF HIALEAH [Concurrence] CHURCH OF THE LUKUMI BABALU AYE V. CITY OF HIALEAH, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). [Concurrence] AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS [Opinion] HARRIS V. MCRAE [Dissent] DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION V. PUBLICCITIZEN [Opinion] Whether a presidential foreign-affairs action that is otherwise exempt from environmental-review requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(1), became subject to those requirements because an executive agency promulgated administrative rules concerning implementation of the President's action? ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS [Dissent] Ohio's Pilot Project Scholarship Program, which provides, inter alia, tuition aid for Cleveland schoolchildren to attend a participating public or private, religious or nonreligious, school of their parent's choosing, does not offend the Establishment Clause. LOS ANGELES V. ALAMEDA BOOKS, INC. [Concurrence] The Ninth Circuit's judgment striking down a Los Angeles ordinance banning multiple-use adult entertainment establishments under Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U. S. 41, is reversed, and the case is remanded. GREATER NEW ORLEANS BROADCASTING ASSN., INC.V. UNITED STATES [Opinion] NASA V. FLRA [Opinion] JONES V. UNITED STATES [Opinion] CITY OF EDMOND V. ROBINSON, 517 U.S. 1201 (1996) [] MONTANA V. EGELHOFF, 518 U.S. 37 (1996). [Opinion] VIMAR SEGUROS Y REASEGUROS, S. A. V. M/V SKY REEFER, 515 U.S. 528 (1995). [Opinion] MISSOURI V. JENKINS, 515 U.S. 70 (1995). [Dissent] DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF ORE. V. ACF INDUS.,510 U.S. 332 (1994). [Opinion] WEISS V. UNITED STATES, 510 U.S. 163 (1994). [Opinion] PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. V. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) [Concur in part, dissent in part] NEW YORK V. UNITED STATES, 488 U.S. 1041 (1992). [Concur in part, dissent in part] NEW YORK V. UNITED STATES, 488 U.S. 1041 (1992). [Opinion] FREYTAG V. COMMISSIONER, 501 U.S. 868 (1991) [Concurrence] FOUCHA V. LOUISIANA, 504 U.S. 71 (1992). [Dissent] NEW JERSEY V. NEW YORK, 523 U.S. 767 (1998) [Opinion] ELKHART V. BOOKS [Dissent] AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS [Dissent] PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. V. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) [Opinion] UNITED STATES V. GUEST [Opinion] U.S. TERM LIMITS, INC. V. THORNTON, 514 U.S. 779 (1995). [Opinion] MADSEN V. WOMEN'S HEALTH CTR., 512 U.S. 753 (1994). [Concur in part, dissent in part] WATCHTOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOC. OF N. Y., INC. V.VILLAGE OF STRATTON [Syllabus]
|
|
#23
11-19-2004, 05:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I Got Hannitized This Morning!
[ QUOTE ]
Stu, i have genrally respected and enjoyed your posts, til this last one. why the personal attack? I "should be ashamed"? [/ QUOTE ] Its not an attack. Its an admonishment. [ QUOTE ] YOU should be ashamed for defending Hannity [/ QUOTE ] I have never defended Hannity so your admonishment is unwarranted. [ QUOTE ] get off your high horse [/ QUOTE ] ok maybe I deserved that one, but [ QUOTE ] before you stick your foot in your mouth again. [/ QUOTE ] Doesn't apply to me(at least in this thread) Stu
|
|
#25
11-19-2004, 05:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I Got Hannitized This Morning!
whatever the hell you posted was entirely to long.
|
|
#27
11-19-2004, 05:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I Got Hannitized This Morning!
Where's your example of Hannity's bigotry just out of curiosity? To me this appears to be bigotry:
[ QUOTE ] Hannity is the kind of reckless ideolouge that is making rational discussion of real political issues harder and harder. 'a big mouth' is pretty much all he brings to the table. [/ QUOTE ] From the insult by the first poster who responeded and your apparent disapproval of anyone who would attend a Hannity function (that was your first response to my post until you gave your "approval" for being curious) strikes me as being intolerant and closed minded which adds up to bigotry on your part. I just don't understand the disdain for people that don't share your viewpoint.
|
|
#28
11-19-2004, 05:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I Got Hannitized This Morning!
ummmm
that sentance makes no sense, please restate it so i can respond. (i think you are saying that i am a bigot? just so we're clear about what we are discussing: Main Entry: big·ot Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t Function: noun Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices - big·ot·ed /-g&-t&d/ adjective - big·ot·ed·ly adverb
|
|
#29
11-19-2004, 05:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I Got Hannitized This Morning!
[ QUOTE ]
hannity still an ass. [/ QUOTE ] And if people want to hear what you consider an ass has to say why do you feel the need to put them down. Your original post to me was a put down.
|
|
#30
11-19-2004, 05:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I Got Hannitized This Morning!
First of all, you list the same cases multiple times and ask that they be counted individually. Second, you do not meet the minimum number I specified. Third, the cases you list do not say anything about the constitutional right to freedom from religion. Finally, concerning your 230 years argument the seminal seperation case was in the 1940's...
I will give you credit for actually presenting a large number of cases. I wish you had actually read them to see if they applied to the discussion at hand.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
