[Magdalen] Texas was / Re: EC v. ED of Ft. Worth

[Jay Weigel]

Roland, it's because during her 13 1/2 hour filibuster (a remarkable feat
in itself) against a restrictive anti-abortion law the Texas legislature
was attempting to pass--and eventually did, but not on that occasion--she
wore pink running shoes.

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Roland Orr <roland at orr55.org> wrote:

> Wendy-pink-shoes - could she not wear blue shoes?
> Any more info??
> Roland
> UK
> who attended Ike's first election
>
>
> On 21/10/2014 16:01, Lynn Ronkainen wrote:
>
>> (regarding different states)
>>
>> As a resident of TX, I am ever mindful that it is not easy to just 'up
>> and move', when the state one lives in becomes an anathema to one's
>> self...  It is near impossible to distance one's self from the governmental
>> policies enshrined under our current governor of 14 years. I'm voting early
>> (and I wish often <g>) this week but the possibility of changing leadership
>> parties in this state, in this election cycle, is doubtful.
>>
>> Those who must be obeyed keep chanting that the 'majority' of Texans did
>> this or that (voted this way or that way), but in fact only 18% of our
>> population voted in the last general election! Our policies do not really
>> represent the 'will' of the people, but sadly, I don't see it changing much
>> either. It is my hope that as people rush here for jobs, and we do have
>> them and that is happening, that they bring a different social
>> consciousness with them and slowly turn things around.
>>
>> My real fear is that if the current Attorney General (second in command
>> to governor) is elected governor, the same old, same old will just escalate
>> here - the only problem is that our state government is truly a case of the
>> Emperor's new state/new clothes, and I'm not sure how many more years it
>> can sustain itself without substance, and without imploding.
>>
>> Wendy-pink-shoes is very probably not going to get elected, but I can
>> hope. And vote.
>>
>> Lynn
>>
>>
>> website: www.ichthysdesigns.com
>>
>> When I stand before God at the end of my life I would hope that I have
>> not a single bit of talent left and could say, "I used everything You gave
>> me." attributed to Erma Bombeck
>>
>> Thomas Merton writes, “People may spend their whole lives climbing the
>> ladder of success only to find, once they reach the top, that the ladder is
>> leaning against the wrong wall.”
>>
>> "What you seek is seeking you." - Rumi
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Jay Weigel" <jay.weigel at gmail.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 8:58 AM
>> To: <magdalen at herberthouse.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Magdalen] EC v. ED of Ft. Worth
>>
>>  Um, Grace, that's the case in SC.
>>>
>>> Sometimes I think the solution for Texas is to pull all our federal funds
>>> and military bases, build a fence on the northern border, secede from
>>> them,
>>> and offer unconditional amnesty to all Texans wishing to be in the real
>>> U.S. of A. /snark off
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Roy Murphy <roy.murphy at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  The title of the case is odd from our point of view. It is TEC v. Jack
>>>> Iker
>>>> et al. I believe the titling of the case was changed by the Iker
>>>> faction in
>>>> the appeals process.
>>>> On Oct 20, 2014 11:09 PM, "Grace Cangialosi" <gracecan at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I'm still confused. You said the conservatives 'left, wanting to take
>>>> > everything' and the Supreme Court of Texas gave it back to them.
>>>> > So, in other words, they got to take everything?
>>>> >
>>>> > Why is the Episcopal Church suing the Episcopal Diocese? Aren't they
>>>> on
>>>> > the same side? I would think the Episcopal Church or Diocese would be
>>>> suing
>>>> > the breakaway folks...
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > > On Oct 20, 2014, at 6:00 PM, "Lynn Ronkainen" <
>>>> ichthys89 at comcast.net>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > The conservatives 'left' wanting to 'take everything'.... the
>>>> SCourt > > of
>>>> > TX gave it back to them... it's still not settled as you can see.
>>>> The > TX
>>>> > SCourt still fancies that TX is a Republic, IMNSHO...
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Lynn
>>>> > >
>>>> > > website: www.ichthysdesigns.com
>>>> > >
>>>> > > When I stand before God at the end of my life I would hope that I >
>>>> > have
>>>> > not a single bit of talent left and could say, "I used everything You
>>>> gave
>>>> > me." attributed to Erma Bombeck
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Thomas Merton writes, "People may spend their whole lives climbing
>>>> > > the
>>>> > ladder of success only to find, once they reach the top, that the >
>>>> ladder
>>>> is
>>>> > leaning against the wrong wall."
>>>> > >
>>>> > > "What you seek is seeking you." - Rumi
>>>> > >
>>>> > > --------------------------------------------------
>>>> > > From: "Grace Cangialosi" <gracecan at gmail.com>
>>>> > > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 4:54 PM
>>>> > > To: <magdalen at herberthouse.org>
>>>> > > Subject: Re: [Magdalen] EC v. ED of Ft. Worth
>>>> > >
>>>> > >> So is this Episcopal Church vs. Episcopal Diocese? Which group are
>>>> > >> the
>>>> > good guys?
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>> On Oct 20, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Roy Murphy <roy.murphy at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> The Episcopal church won in the state district court and the >
>>>> >>> appeals
>>>> > court
>>>> > >>> but the TX Supreme Court ruled in favor of the former bishop of
>>>> Ft.
>>>> > Worth.
>>>> > >>> TEC appealed to SCOTUS. The brief is not a bad argument. It has
>>>> already
>>>> > >>> gotten a few amicus curae briefs in support.
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> SCOTUS hasn't yet decided whether to grant cert on the case. The
>>>> > justices
>>>> > >>> will discuss it on 12/31 and decide whether to hear the case, deny
>>>> the
>>>> > >>> request they hear it or hold it over for another conference.
>>>> > >>>> On Oct 20, 2014 12:26 PM, "Jay Weigel" <jay.weigel at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>>> Huh? Details, please.
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Roy Murphy > >>>>> <
>>>> roy.murphy at gmail.com
>>>> >
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> > >>>>>
>>>> > >>>>> The Supreme Court docket says the case was distributed for the
>>>> 10/31
>>>> > >>>>> conference. We could hear further news on 11/1. Either grant, >
>>>> >>>>> deny
>>>> or
>>>> > >>>>> relist.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>