<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: FFRF Supreme Court Oral Argument</title>
	<atom:link href="http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/28/ffrf-supreme-court-oral-argument/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/28/ffrf-supreme-court-oral-argument/</link>
	<description>Atheism with Positivity</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:50:41 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: kate</title>
		<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/28/ffrf-supreme-court-oral-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-7031</link>
		<dc:creator>kate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:20:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/28/ffrf-supreme-court-oral-argument/#comment-7031</guid>
		<description>here&#039;s a link to a Scotusblog analysis of the case:

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/02/analysis_flast.html#more

also, more links to media on the case here:

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/02/roundup_80.html

unfortunately Scotusblog seem to think that there is going to be some overturning of precedent to make it harder for taxpayers to sue, although not as far as the Government would like.

Ah well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>here&#8217;s a link to a Scotusblog analysis of the case:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/02/analysis_flast.html#more" rel="nofollow">http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/02/analysis_flast.html#more</a></p>
<p>also, more links to media on the case here:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/02/roundup_80.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/02/roundup_80.html</a></p>
<p>unfortunately Scotusblog seem to think that there is going to be some overturning of precedent to make it harder for taxpayers to sue, although not as far as the Government would like.</p>
<p>Ah well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TXatheist</title>
		<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/28/ffrf-supreme-court-oral-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-7021</link>
		<dc:creator>TXatheist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2007 20:29:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/28/ffrf-supreme-court-oral-argument/#comment-7021</guid>
		<description>Thanks for keeping us updated Hemant.  I hope we are still doing this when Newdow goes to trial for the Pledge case.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for keeping us updated Hemant.  I hope we are still doing this when Newdow goes to trial for the Pledge case.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
