Lyle Northey (Silent/Boomer)

   We have through the maximum stupidity of people to believe a disreputable individual, been saddled with the most f’d up supreme court we could possibly imagine. 

   Let’s look at the credentials of this group and I believe we will find not a single veteran among them. Most likely they have not had a member of their family serve in quite some time if ever. So then we have someone, a veteran, taking a case to them asking for a literal pie in the sky, and probably hoping for something more than crumbs on the plate, and what happens they, these ever so conservative unpatriotic individuals decide that a one year window is all you can have to make a claim after separation from active duty.

   The Pac Act was just brought to the table last year and it covers all the way back to the beginning of the VietNam conflict. People are still allowed to claim, are encouraged to claim that far back, but now the court says that those efforts will be denied because their sorry asses say so. Can we get that kind of limitation on any other issue?

   Lets see if the courts are willing to forget a charge if for some reason it has not made it into a courtroom within one year. Person was badly injured and could not appear. Or if a debt has not been repaid in a year can we forget those kinds of things. How about cancer, if it has had a year to mess up your life but hasn’t taken you yet can we get it to go away. Might be a bit far out on that one but the idea is a year is not necessarily a long enough period of time for an illness to appear after exposure. Sometimes it takes something else to make it happen.

   If you have had cancer and done chemo then you should know that you traded whatever type you had for leukemia as the treatment destroyed your immune system. Now chances are if you catch a cold it will kill you at least by the age of 70.

   One year should be the maximum time we allow a judge to be on the Supreme Court. After that year they must leave and go back to private practice without compensation for time served. Having a panel made up of pro religious individuals has a negative effect on the rest of us. How are they going to rule if someone other than a Christian comes before them and tries to use their religious belief to support their claim? 

   The business of prayer and public school has been resolved by saying if you choose to pray go ahead and do it on your own, so having a coach pray on a ball field in front of the stands full of people is now putting an entire community of people in an uncomfortable position. This happened and the school fired the coach and he took the matter to the supreme court and they found in his favor and now the school has to pay his legal fees.

   Personal rights should be protected but there are limitations to that expression of rights. It is illegal to burn the flag, it is illegal to piss in public, having sex where others can view is considered unacceptable so why is this disruptive behavior condoned? The reason is simple and that is because this court can not and will not separate the law from their faith which makes them unacceptable for the positions they hold.

   The more religion enters the political agenda of a nation the more rigid the laws become especially if there is a conflict between the scriptures and the law. The tendency is for the scripture to win and more rights being taken away. Being a biblical scholar is not my forte so the parts that I do recall seem to begin with “Thou Shall Not” and that is carried to the extreme by those that want to keep men in total control, keep women from having any rights and creating an atmosphere of distrust by encouraging neighbors to spy on and report on their neighbors. As an example look at the law enacted in Texas about abortion. No need to go much further than to say the state is not spying on you, they are rewarding others for doing for them, and once you are reported the state is more than happy to prosecute.