Trump-Linked Legal Group Wants SCOTUS to Let States Establish Religion - Rolling Stone

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  evilgenius  •  3 months ago  •  98 comments

By:   Jon Blistein (Rolling Stone)

Trump-Linked Legal Group Wants SCOTUS to Let States Establish Religion - Rolling Stone
A legal group filled with former Trump officials wants the Supreme Court to keep chipping away at the separation between church and state.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



America First Legal, whose team includes several Trump administration officials, wants the court's conservative majority to "eventually disincorporate" the First Amendment's establishment clause

By Jon Blistein

America First Legal (AFL), a right-wing group whose team includes several former Trump administration officials, is urging the Supreme Court to do even more to shatter what's left of the wall between church and state.

On Tuesday, June 28, the group issued a statement essentially calling for a total overhaul of the First Amendment's establishment clause, a key provision separating church and state. The statement arrived one day after the Supreme Court cracked part of the clause's foundation with its ruling in Kennedy v. Bremerton. In that case, the court's far-right majority ruled that public school officials in Bremerton, Washington, violated the First Amendment rights of high school football coach Joseph Kennedy when they fired him following a controversy stemming from his ritual of praying at the 50-yard line during football games. The 6-3 decision effectively overruled a 1971 precedent for interpreting the First Amendment's establishment clause.

While the establishment clause exists to keep the government from establishing an official religion in the United States, or doing anything that might favor one religion over another, the AFL is now hopeful that the Supreme Court will "eventually disincorporate" the establishment clause in a future case. Doing so, the AFL suggests, would allow states to "decide whether and to what extent they will establish religion within their borders."

The AFL's vice president and general counsel Gene Hamilton — a former Trump official in the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, whose hits include axing DACA and helping create the infamous family separation policy — argued in a statement that the original intent of the establishment clause was to let the states decide just how much they want to separate church and state.

"We are pleased that the Supreme Court decided in Coach Kennedy's favor," Hamilton said. "Perhaps the Court will, in a future case, finally restore the original meaning of the Establishment Clause and disincorporate it as to the states. But for today, we celebrate with Coach Kennedy and all Americans who value religious freedom."

Allowing individual states to establish their own official religions is just one possible tidal wave-sized ripple that could follow Kennedy v. Bremerton. Considering the current Court's apparent disdain for established precedent, it could also pave the way for overturning the landmark 1962 case that ruled prayer in public schools was unconstitutional.

Kennedy v. Bremerton is also just one of two major SCOTUS rulings this term to take a crack at the long-established boundaries between church and state. Earlier in June, the right-wing majority ruled in Carson v. Makin that taxpayer money from a tuition assistance program in Maine could be used to send kids to private religious schools.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
1  seeder  evilgenius    3 months ago

If you can read past the left leaning partisan language the fact remains - a group of MAGA idiots want to setup mini theocracies inside the US.  Not all that long ago I'd have said they would never have a chance, but slowly, chip, by chip the conservative SCOTUS is paving their way. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
1.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  evilgenius @1    3 months ago
a group of MAGA idiots want to setup mini theocracies inside the US

This really shouldn't surprise anyone who has been paying attention the last few decades. This is something many if not most right wing white evangelical conservative Christians have been desiring for a very long time. They regard the constitution and our system of government as of secondary importance to that of their doctrines, bible and religious beliefs. They see America as turning away from them and their God and condemn it as if they have always been the defacto established religion regardless of the separation our founders enacted.

There is virtually no difference, other than the religious book they revere, between right wing evangelical conservative Christians and their Islamic extremist counterparts living in Islamic States under Sharia law. These evangelical Christians deeply desire and wish for our nation to adopt Christo-sharia laws, banning abortion, banning gay marriage, restricting lgtbq rights, restricting women's rights and legalizing discrimination against those they have deemed "sinners". They believe this is the "promised land" and imagine America to be promised to them by their God, which is why they don't consider anyone who doesn't look like them, or those who are willing to be exceedingly servile to the white Christian patriarchy, as true "Americans".

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.1.1  Drakkonis  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1    3 months ago
This is something many if not most right wing white evangelical conservative Christians have been desiring for a very long time.

A number of problems with this statement. First, what is an evangelical? How does it differ from the rest of Christianity, given the term must be there to make the distinction? Second, other than propaganda in the left leaning media, why do you believe that many, if not most, of them want the separation clause eliminated? Third, why does "white" have anything to do with it? Because you read it in the news? 

They regard the constitution and our system of government as of secondary importance to that of their doctrines, bible and religious beliefs. They see America as turning away from them and their God and condemn it as if they have always been the defacto established religion regardless of the separation our founders enacted.

This part is true, for Christians who actually belong to God. For us, laws of man are second place behind the laws of God. This should not come as a surprise to anyone who knows anything about Christianity as we are called to put God before even our own personal desires. This doesn't mean we believe we are in a sort of "Sovereign Citizen" sort of position, however. We are called to obey civil laws of man as part of our obedience to God, provided those laws do not violate God's. For instance, turning in Native Americans to the government for extermination, should that sort of thing ever happen here, would not be something we would obey. 

As for being the de facto religion, it was, simply because the overwhelming majority of the people claimed Christianity. Right or wrong, no other religion came anywhere near the influence Christianity had on the development of this country. 

There is virtually no difference, other than the religious book they revere, between right wing evangelical conservative Christians and their Islamic extremist counterparts living in Islamic States under Sharia law.

The ignorance of this statement can't be overstated. If that were actually the case, the United States would be a very different place than it is now. We would be, in fact, a theocracy at this moment and you'd be in prison for your past and present. Even today, about two out of three claim Christianity in some way. It was much greater in the past. If 'evangelicals' really wanted a theocracy, we'd be one right now. 

These evangelical Christians deeply desire and wish for our nation to adopt Christo-sharia laws, banning abortion, banning gay marriage, restricting lgtbq rights, restricting women's rights and legalizing discrimination against those they have deemed "sinners".

As already asked, what is an evangelical Christian? I'll save you the trouble of trying to come up with a definition. There really isn't one, although the left leaning media is trying hard to impose one. The meaning of the word is actually "good news" or "gospel", which also means good news. So, loosely speaking, calling someone an evangelical Christian should mean nothing more than one who believes in and takes seriously the good news of the Bible. By extension of the Great Commission, it would also mean sharing that good news with others. 

In other words, there is nothing defining evangelicals as having the desire to create a theocracy of the kind you're thinking of. We do look forward to one, but that will be when Jesus returns and not before. I think most Christians, who are by definition evangelical in one way or another if they are taking it seriously, have no desire to create another RCC, which would be the inevitable result of attempting to create a theocracy without Jesus. 

Of course, there are some Christians who seem to want to try. I don't think they have much support. Falwell and his supporters had a brief time in the spotlight but they didn't last very long. Ascribe that to what you will, but in my opinion, it was because he really didn't have the majority of Christians behind him. More importantly, I don't think he had God behind him, either. I think most of us who know the Lord we claim to follow know that if we want people to say no to things like gay marriage and the like, it can't be through government. It can only come from trying to persuade them to Christ. 

As for the seeded article, it's just rhetoric. There's been no breech of separation. No cracks in its foundation. Rather, a correction in the unfair application of it. Given the partisan nature of the article, we can't even say we're seeing an accurate depiction of the legal firm being talked about. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
1.1.2  seeder  evilgenius  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.1    3 months ago
As for the seeded article, it's just rhetoric. There's been no breech of separation. No cracks in its foundation. Rather, a correction in the unfair application of it.

Over the course of several SCOTUS rulings that have tossed decades of legal president aside for political whims of a minority of people I vehemently disagree with your assessment. The cracks are now wide enough this group, along with some members of Congress itself, think they can now blow right around the Bill of Rights and let states do whatever they please. Instead of a dominionist theocratic USA they now think they can take a smaller step to create their own little theocratic kingdoms in deep red states. Personally I don't think it will work, but then again I didn't think the SCOTUS would overturn Roe either. Especially after 3 of them said they wouldn't.

Given the partisan nature of the article, we can't even say we're seeing an accurate depiction of the legal firm being talked about. 

There is some left leaning language and the Rolling Stone is liberal, but the facts of the article can't be disputed. A far right group being represented by a member of Trumps former Administration are bringing suit to give states the right to end run the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
1.1.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.1    3 months ago
First, what is an evangelical? How does it differ from the rest of Christianity, given the term must be there to make the distinction?

I would define an evangelical as one who is intent on spreading their faith to everyone and into everything in their life and that believe their religious faith supersedes any and all constitutions and laws of the land.

Second, other than propaganda in the left leaning media, why do you believe that many, if not most, of them want the separation clause eliminated?

This is just my own opinion after having lived in and among the evangelical movement attending many large events hosting tens of thousands of evangelicals who all seemed to support the push for more Christian influence in government, schools, courthouses and public spaces.

Third, why does "white" have anything to do with it?

Because of the three decades I spent among them few of those in the church leadership were people of color if any. The evangelicals of color tend to spend their time preaching about forgiveness and the plight of their minority communities and were rarely pushing their religious beliefs on society around them, they were too busy just trying to cling to the hard won equal rights they'd managed to partially secure through the civil rights act and voting rights act.

This part is true

Yes, I know.

For us, laws of man are second place behind the laws of God.

Which essentially means Christians who believe that are already living in their own theocracy which is why they get so angry and upset when they're religious rule is challenged by civil law like accommodation laws that say they can't discriminate based on race, gender or sexual orientation. For a long time those Christian bigots proclaimed that women shouldn't have a vote because the man is the head of a woman. They argued that their faith informed them that blacks were the cursed sons of Cain and didn't deserve equal treatment or a vote. They claimed their faith condemned the mixing of races so they banned interracial marriage. And even today many refuse to do business with the lgtbq community because they have been deemed "sinners".

So yes, religious beliefs have been used to justify all sorts of hate, discrimination, segregation, lynching and even genocide for centuries. If you claim that your God commands it and that your Gods law supersedes mans law then you can justify anything no matter how immoral and deplorable as we've seen religions do over and over again for thousands of years and it's no different today.

If you had to live next to people who admit that if their God told them to sneak over to your house and murder you and your family in your sleep because you've been deemed a sinner they would be compelled to follow their religious faith instead of the laws against murder, how safe would you really feel?

As for being the de facto religion, it was, simply because the overwhelming majority of the people claimed Christianity. Right or wrong, no other religion came anywhere near the influence Christianity had on the development of this country.

The same is true of every Muslim theocracy, but America was supposed to be different and was based on a constitution that attempted to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority and specifically banned any establishment of a national religion. Christians attempt to turn us into a Christian theocracy and give a privileged pedestal to Christians was and is wrong according to the constitution regardless of how large a majority of Christians there has been.

If 'evangelicals' really wanted a theocracy, we'd be one right now.

They've tried and had many small victories throughout our history. Thankfully our founders were prescient enough to keep the snake of organized religion at arms length with the establishment clause.

The meaning of the word is actually "good news" or "gospel", which also means good news

The way evangelicals seem to use it is as the "right news" as opposed to what they label "fake news" which is any fact or truth that conflicts with their already deeply held religious or partisan ideological beliefs. It's why they are so incredibly gullible and willing to accept insane conspiracy theories and justify embracing a lying pig fucker like Trump. Facts don't matter, just whisper the sweet nothing about their faith being the best, their beliefs being right regardless of facts and that their opponents will all burn in misery in a fiery hell.

In other words, there is nothing defining evangelicals as having the desire to create a theocracy of the kind you're thinking of. We do look forward to one, but that will be when Jesus returns and not before.

I think through many of these right wing conservative Christians actions they prove they are not willing to wait for Jesus and are trying to make America into their own 'safe space' theocracy where their discrimination and hate is legalized and justified.

Of course, there are some Christians who seem to want to try.

I think that number is larger than you think.

I think most of us who know the Lord we claim to follow know that if we want people to say no to things like gay marriage and the like, it can't be through government. It can only come from trying to persuade them to Christ.

I think that "persuasion" has come in the form of labeling gay persons as evil, sinners, perverts and deviants simply for the way they were born. And of course religious conservatives rejecting the idea that they were born that way is another form of ignorant bigoted 'persuasion'. It's a determination to force others to conform to conservative religious doctrine that you're trying to define as 'persuasion' and the excuse used by religious conservatives to ignore the golden rule.

There's been no breech of separation. No cracks in its foundation. Rather, a correction in the unfair application of it.

That is an opinion I do not share and a perspective that can only come from deep within the bowels of the right wing religious conservative movement who see nothing wrong with their brand of Christianity being injected into our government, schools, courthouses and public spaces that are supposed to be for all Americans regardless of race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, faith or lack thereof.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
1.1.4  Split Personality  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.1    3 months ago
For instance, turning in Native Americans to the government for extermination, should that sort of thing ever happen here, would not be something we would obey. 

Sadly, June 25th was the 146th anniversary of Custer's Last Stand. 

  Lt. Col. George Custer was once considered “the model of a Christian warrior.” In the 1870s, poets called him heroic, splendid and glorious. One magazine editor called him “chief among our nation’s knights,” and in popular opinion Custer was a martyr who fell defending the frontier. The Changing Image of George Armstrong Custer | History Nebraska

There are unfortunately too many examples of Christians looking the other way.

Third, why does "white" have anything to do with it?

Why were all of Custers men white Christians?

Why were all of the Crusaders white Christian men?

Why were all of Hitler's minions white Christian men?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.4    3 months ago
Sadly, June 25th was the 146th anniversary of Custer's Last Stand. 

Horrible war crimes.  Brutal  killing of wounded soldiers. 

Why were all of Custers men white Christians?

They weren't

hy were all of the Crusaders white Christian men?

They weren't.

Why were all of Hitler's minions white Christian men?

They weren't.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
2  Greg Jones    3 months ago

It's amazing that one guy taking a knee and bowing  his head can cause a large group of intolerant radicals that still  persist in hounding a Colorado baker because of his beliefs.....to go into hysterical fits.

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
2.1  seeder  evilgenius  replied to  Greg Jones @2    3 months ago

Do you have any relevant comments on the article? 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Kavika   replied to  evilgenius @2.1    3 months ago
Do you have any relevant comments on the article? 

That would be a miracle.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @2.1.1    3 months ago

poor dude has been lost ever since his hero went bananas on local rwnj talk radio.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  evilgenius @2.1    3 months ago

NEVER

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @2.1.2    3 months ago

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Expert
2.2  epistte  replied to  Greg Jones @2    3 months ago

Bigots have always tried to hide their bigotry behind religion. The Colorado baker wasn't even original in it because he was recycling KKK ideas that were used and failed in the 1960s. Jesus wasn't a bigot but to conservative christaions they are christian. the bible in their eyes is just 1200 pages of passages to be cherry picked form obscure passage in a desperate attempt to hide their bigotry behind the first amendment as away to make it both legally and socially permissible.  If Jesus ever did return he would be arrested and jailed by all of them.

 If conservative and fundamentalist christian were required to live by the teachings of the man who they claim to be the son of god and their personal savior, as recorded in the 4 gospels of the  bible they would claim to be victims of pernicious religious persecution.  The entire lot of them are liars, hypocrites and pharisees.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @2.2    3 months ago

sounds like something  you  will need to learn  to  live  with. 

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Expert
2.2.2  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.1    3 months ago

Thsanks for admitting to being a liar a bigot and a hypocrite. Religious belief in the USA is drying at close to an exponential rate because of people like you.  Hopefully it will only be known as the plagiarized myths that appeal to the ignorant.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
2.2.3  afrayedknot  replied to  epistte @2.2.2    3 months ago

“…myths that appeal to the ignorant.”

All well and good until they expect their beliefs to determine the rule of law. A very deleterious, if not dangerous threat to true democracy. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @2.2.2    3 months ago

i really admire people  who can see stuff that isn't  there. did you come by that  talent naturally?

or did the dnc ordain you with that specialty?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
2.2.5  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.4    3 months ago
i really admire people  who can see stuff that isn't  there.

Is that the reason behind having more faith in a book with a talking snake and donkey than in our constitution and the separation of church and State?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.2.6  Drakkonis  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.4    3 months ago
i really admire people  who can see stuff that isn't  there. did you come by that  talent naturally?

It is done intentionally. The people steering our society into destruction have to have an enemy for the masses to focus on so they picked 'right wing white evangelical men', to be the ultimate Satan in their theology. They sort of had to, since Christianity is antithetical to the society they want to replace this one with. So, to get rid of it, they make them the enemy. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.7  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.5    3 months ago
Is that the reason behind having more faith in a book with a talking snake and donkey than in our constitution and the separation of church and State?

Why are you asking inane questions of me?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.6    3 months ago

What strikes me as funny is that it is usually a liberal Democrats making the claims and disparaging religious people. 

I guess they haven't realized that black Americans who are religious (some 78%) usually vote Democrat.

Seems disparaging your base is a loser to me.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.2.9  Trout Giggles  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.6    3 months ago

That's rich. The entire seed is about what some people (and let's call them right wing, white Christians) who want to dissolve the wall between church and state. These are the kind of people that won't be happy until every non-Christian is either converted or burned as a heretic.

I'll take the burning because I'm pretty certain this is isn't what Jesus intended.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3  JBB    3 months ago

original

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @3    3 months ago

Apparently the French are unaware of mifepristone and misoprostol.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1    3 months ago

But Token Thomas wants to deny access to that also

TT takes exception to everything but Loving v Virginia it appears

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.1.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.1    3 months ago

And everyone thought that he was the quiet one.  

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4  devangelical    3 months ago

I guess when attempts at creating a theocracy fail there's always a way to mandate it by legislation or thru a thumper heavy SCOTUS bench. alter the 1st? no problem. we can also make a few adjustments on the 2nd at the same time by giving it some teeth and empowering patriotic americans to help in the eradication of xtian nationalists, permanently.

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
4.1  seeder  evilgenius  replied to  devangelical @4    3 months ago

Are you saying, "When people don't learn from history they are doomed to repeat it?"

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.1  devangelical  replied to  evilgenius @4.1    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.2  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @4.1.1    3 months ago

LOL, that was quick...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @4    3 months ago

Always the tough talker.

So, how many 'thumpers' have you ever eradicated?  Are you doing your part, or just hiding behind a keyboard somewhere?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.2.1  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2    3 months ago

2 thumper arrests, 2 thumper trespassing summons, 2 missionary bikes in the duck pond, and the elimination of a local hotel conference room thumper church. all perfectly legal.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @4.2.1    3 months ago

So in other, truer words, you haven't eradicated any thumpers despite all the blustery rhetoric designed to make you look tough.

Bikes in a pond? Was that recently, or when you were like 6 or 7?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.2.3  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.2    3 months ago

3 or 5 years ago. it was hilarious watching those 2 missionaries roll up their dockers and wade into 2 feet of duck shit soup to retrieve their 10 speeds, after they got their trespassing summons.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @4.2.3    3 months ago

And did that make you feel like an adult?

Or just a super badass?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.2.5  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.4    3 months ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @4.2.5    3 months ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.8  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @4.2.3    3 months ago

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

On Reno 911 certain episodes have the deputies harrasing Jehovah's witnesses.  Hilarious

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.2.9  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.4    3 months ago
And did that make you feel like an adult? Or just a super badass?

no, it made me feel like a law abiding american, since religious solicitation falls under the local green river ordinance and my condo complex was clearly posted with no soliciting signs.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @4.2.9    3 months ago
no, it made me feel like a law abiding american, since religious solicitation falls under the local green river ordinance and my condo complex was clearly posted with no soliciting signs.

Oh, my!

How very, very impressive.

So for all your talk, you have never eradicated a thumper despite all the tough talk about it.

Got it, as expected.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.2.11  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.10    3 months ago
you have never eradicated a thumper

I did from my condo complex. what you're implying isn't legal, yet...

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
5  Snuffy    3 months ago

Oh damn, the horror.  A right-wing group wants the court to disregard part of the 1st Amendment.  

How is this any different that the left-wing groups that want Congress to disregard parts of the 2nd Amendment?  There's a process built in on how to amend the Constitution, my suggest is that this group of "highly intelligent" individuals start by writing the amendment documentation and working with Congress to get the process started.

IMO this has about as much chance of passage as the recently signed gun control law has at ending mass shootings.

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
5.1  seeder  evilgenius  replied to  Snuffy @5    3 months ago
...my suggest is that this group of "highly intelligent" individuals start by writing the amendment documentation and working with Congress to get the process started.

Why should they do that when they can just get the SCOTUS to render it moot?

IMO this has about as much chance of passage as the recently signed gun control law has at ending mass shootings.

6 months ago I would have agreed. Now not so much, on either issue. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
5.1.1  Snuffy  replied to  evilgenius @5.1    3 months ago
Why should they do that when they can just get the SCOTUS to render it moot?

I'm not a constitutional scholar so I could be completely wrong, but I don't believe that SCOTUS could do that.  What the suggestion comes down to is that SCOTUS would need to do is eliminate the Establishment clause.  The reasoning is that the ruling on Kennedy vs Bremerton was done by a weakening of that clause.  I don't believe that's right myself.  From what I understand, Bremerton attempted to use the Establishment clause to restrict Kennedy's First Amendment rights and were wrong in their attempt.  SCOTUS agreed in the ruling.

In the end, the District’s case hinges on the need to generate conflict between an individual’s rights under the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses and its own Establishment Clause duties—and then develop some explanation why one of these Clauses in the First Amendment should “ ‘trum[p]’ ” the other two. 991 F. 3d, at 1017 ; App. 43. But the project falters badly. Not only does the District fail to offer a sound reason to prefer one constitutional guarantee  over another. It cannot even show that they are at odds. In truth, there is no conflict between the constitutional commands before us. There is only the “mere shadow” of a conflict, a false choice premised on a misconstruction of the Establishment Clause. Schempp , 374 U. S., at 308 (Goldberg, J., concurring). And in no world may a government entity’s concerns about phantom constitutional violations justify actualviolations of an individual’s First Amendment rights. See, e.g. , Rosenberger , 515 U. S., at 845–846; Good News Club , 533 U. S., at 112–119; Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist. , 508 U. S. 384 , 394–395 (1993); Widmar , 454 U. S., at 270–275. 8

V

 Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse Republic—whether those expressions take place in a sanctuary or on a field, and whether they manifest through the spoken word or a bowed head. Here, a government entity sought to punish an individual for engaging in a brief, quiet, personal religious observance doubly protected by the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment . And the only meaningful justification the government offered for its reprisal rested on a mistaken view that it had a duty to ferret out and suppress  religious observances even as it allows comparable secular speech. The Constitution neither mandates nor tolerates that kind of discrimination. Mr. Kennedy is entitled to summary judgment on his First Amendment claims. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is

Reversed.

So from the link it says to me that the school, court and appeals court were wrong in attempting to state that the need of the school as per the Establishment Clause as there was no conflict but a false choice made by the school.  I don't think that same argument could be used to eliminate the Establishment clause as from what I understand it was not overridden by this ruling.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.2  Ender  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.1    3 months ago

They gave a school (pubic) employee a right to openly use his 'faith'...

individual for engaging in a brief, quiet, personal religious observance

Huh? If they actually think what he was doing was quiet and personal, I have a bridge for sale.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
5.1.3  Snuffy  replied to  Ender @5.1.2    3 months ago
 Joseph Kennedy began working as a football coach at Bremerton High School in 2008 after nearly two decades of service in the Marine Corps. App. 167. Like many other football players and coaches across the country, Mr. Kennedy made it a practice to give “thanks through prayer on the playing field” at the conclusion of each game. Id. , at 168, 171. In his prayers, Mr. Kennedy sought to express gratitude for “what the players had accomplished and for the opportunity to be part of their lives through the game of football.” Id. , at 168. Mr. Kennedy offered his prayers after the players and coaches had shaken hands, by taking a knee at the 50-yard line and praying “quiet[ly]” for “approximately 30 seconds.” Id. , at 168–169.

 Initially, Mr. Kennedy prayed on his own. See ibid. But over time, some players asked whether they could pray alongside him. 991 F. 3d 1004 , 1010 (CA9 2021); App. 169. Mr. Kennedy responded by saying, “ ‘This is a free country. You can do what you want.’ ” Ibid. The number of players who joined Mr. Kennedy eventually grew to include most of the team, at least after some games. Sometimes team members invited opposing players to join. Other times Mr. Kennedy still prayed alone. See ibid . Eventually, Mr. Kennedy began incorporating short motivational speeches with his prayer when others were present. See id. , at 170. Separately, the team at times engaged in pregame or postgame prayers in the locker room. It seems this practice was a “school tradition” that predated Mr. Kennedy’s tenure. Ibid . Mr. Kennedy explained that he “never told any student that it was important they participate in any religious activity.” Ibid . In particular, he “never pressured or encouraged any student to join” his postgame midfield prayers. Ibid .

 For over seven years, no one complained to the Bremerton School District (District) about these practices.

So he did this for seven years and nobody had any problems with it thru that time.  He did it alone at the start and when some players asked to join he stated that it was a free country and they could do what they wanted.  The simple issue that this went on for seven years without any problems and only after an employee from another school commented on it positively to the Bremerton's principal that the Superintendent found out about it and jumped into action.  This to me is like the issues that cropped up about Nativity scenes in public spaces.  For years nobody had any problems with them and then some people started to push back.  Why is the need to be offended so strong in some people?  

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.4  Ender  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.3    3 months ago

So time is a factor? Really?

Is he an employee of the school? Is he working on tax payer money?

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
5.1.5  seeder  evilgenius  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.3    3 months ago
he did this for seven years and nobody had any problems with it thru that time.

The amount of time something is wrong should be irrelevant. 

This to me is like the issues that cropped up about Nativity scenes in public spaces.  For years nobody had any problems with them and then some people started to push back.

Because they people who do have an issue finally had a voice. 

Why is the need to be offended so strong in some people? 

I don't know, nor do I know why the need to thrust one's religion in the public sphere so strong in some people. I mean when a school puts "Holiday" on a schedule and a group melts down and sends out death threats because they want "Christmas" we have a problem.

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
5.1.6  seeder  evilgenius  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.1    3 months ago
I'm not a constitutional scholar so I could be completely wrong, but I don't believe that SCOTUS could do that.

The article covers at least one who thinks they can. The article doesn't cover their legal argument and I won't speculate.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
5.1.7  Snuffy  replied to  evilgenius @5.1.5    3 months ago

I agree that the amount of time is meaningless, but it does kind of play into the process in that for years people just ignored it.  And more recently people are not ignoring it.  Why?  People have always had a voice.  I believe the bigger reason is that more people are more open to being offended and are pushing their "religion" over any other beliefs.  And I believe that atheism is just another belief system.

I mean when a school puts "Holiday" on a schedule and a group melts down and sends out death threats because they want "Christmas" we have a problem.

Kind of like how people melted down when it was originally "Christmas" and they sent out threats because it wasn't "inclusive" enough.  As I said, I believe more and more people are just more willing to be offended these days and are more open to pushing their beliefs on other people.  If I don't want to join in a prayer circle I don't join. If I don't like a TV show I change the channel.  It's my choice and for me life is too short to be offended over everything I don't like.  But I also don't try to push my views over on to someone else, they have just as much right as I do in their personal choices.

As to the comment that he was an employee of the school working on tax payer money,  the prayer was after the game when players were congratulating each other.  He was not actively coaching so it's not a big deal to me.  Simple fact that the school allowed other employees to engage in secular activities on school property according to the link so why single out this individual?  It truly seems to me there was more to this story than just what came out.

But I'm confident that we won't agree on this topic.  I feel this ruling was the right one and I do not believe that it's a slippery slope that will end in the dismantling of our Constitution.  I don't place any more belief that this group that wants SCOTUS to eliminate the Establishment clause will have any success than I do for MAD being able to outlaw alcohol.  They are just another group that will howl to the sky while they push to raise money for their "partisan" efforts and will grift money like all these organizations seem to do.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.8  Ender  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.7    3 months ago

I would agree except for the simple fact we have a SC justice basically inviting people to bring lawsuits and saying rulings need to be overturned. People can brush that off yet I heard a republican down here say yesterday, that these items need to be brought forth and looked at. He wants same sex marriage overturned.

I know you may brush this off as conspiracy yet the republicans plan and have been planning and actually succeeding in putting people on benches across the spectrum. Mostly from the heritage foundation.

Imo we all messed up when we let them take away the 60 vote threshold.

Then again, we have become so partisan that no one would ever be seated....

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
5.1.9  seeder  evilgenius  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.7    3 months ago
...it does kind of play into the process in that for years people just ignored it.  And more recently people are not ignoring it.  Why?  People have always had a voice.  I believe the bigger reason is that more people are more open to being offended and are pushing their "religion" over any other beliefs.  And I believe that atheism is just another belief system.

As you've already agree to this is all legally irrelevant, but I think it's a good discussion. It isn't that people ignored it. It's that for many decades people were segregated. These issues are but growing pains of diversity. It is a simple fact that, for the most part, hundreds of thousands of Americans never went any further than their own neighborhoods. The public offices were run by white male Christians and their word was law for decades. We still hear the same bogus arguments of "tradition" today. 

A simple history lesson on how tradition changes -

Christmas was rejected by the founding Puritans as it was celebrated in their native England with drunken debauchery as a cooption of the Roman celebration of the birth of Mithra. Then again during the American Revolution New Englanders brought out new Anti-Christmas sentiment as a rejection of royal rule.  

Alabama was the first state to declare it an official holiday in 1836. In New England schools held classes as normal on Dec 25th until the 1850s. Longfellow wrote in 1856 - "The old Puritan feeling prevents it from being a cheerful, hearty holiday; though every year makes it more so,". Christmas didn't become a federal holiday until 1870 under President Grant.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
5.1.10  Drakkonis  replied to  evilgenius @5.1.5    3 months ago
The amount of time something is wrong should be irrelevant. 

Completely agree, which is why I don't understand why people and the media keep on about how Roe v Wade has been established precedent for fifty years has anything to do with anything. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
5.1.11  seeder  evilgenius  replied to  Drakkonis @5.1.10    3 months ago
Completely agree, which is why I don't understand why people and the media keep on about how Roe v Wade has been established precedent for fifty years has anything to do with anything. 

Can you not tell the difference between tradition and legal precedent?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6  Ender    3 months ago

Religion has caused the most problems in this world. Religious people tend to be the most bigoted, the most selfish, the most greedy, the most depraved people around.

I think the next time I see someone 'praying' in public, I am going to start blowing an airhorn.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
6.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Ender @6    3 months ago

Would that include radical Muslims?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Ender  replied to  Greg Jones @6.1    3 months ago

When Muslim people are throwing down prayer rugs on the 50 yard line, get back to me.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
6.1.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Greg Jones @6.1    3 months ago
Would that include radical Muslims?

Of course it does. Islamic extremists are really no different from Christian evangelicals. Neither should be given a privileged platform in America where our founders created a separation of Church and State.

Our government should be blind as to the brand of faith applying for anything. There should be no difference in ruling that a Christian coach should be allowed to gather public school students after a game for a public prayer in front of the family, friends and attendees of the game and a Muslim coach doing the same. Neither should be allowed, but of course right wing Christian evangelicals disagree because they expect to have extra rights, they extra privilege here in what they imagine as "their" America.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
6.1.3  Thrawn 31  replied to  Greg Jones @6.1    3 months ago

For me, fuck yes. It includes anyone who is a big enough douche to display their religion in public. And if you are an even bigger douche and want to force others to adhere to your religious views, [deleted]

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
6.2  seeder  evilgenius  replied to  Ender @6    3 months ago
Religion has caused the most problems in this world. 

Greed, and apathy have caused the most problems in this world.

Religious people tend to be the most bigoted, the most selfish, the most greedy, the most depraved people around.

Bigoted yes. Selfish, greedy and entitled can be demonstrably shown to be a human failing with or without religion. It's only because the non-religious are a very small minority that it seems this way. It's those fucked up few people that use $$Religion to justify their greed and depravity that are truly dangerous.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.3  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @6    3 months ago
I think the next time I see someone 'praying' in public, I am going to start blowing an airhorn.

I really admire your innate tolerance.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ender @6    3 months ago

I'd like to see someone praying in a restaurant then retort..."the food isn't that bad!"

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
7  Nerm_L    3 months ago

This is surprising why?  Autocratic institutions of government wield absolute power absolutely.  It's far easier to focus limited resources on to an autocratic institution than it is to achieve any goal through democratic consensus.  Controlling absolute power is straightforward, certainly less messy, and provides quick gratification of political desires.  Manipulating a few autocrats to control the many is an old, old story in human history.

The late 20th century and entire 21st century political effort has been directed toward strengthening autocratic government institutions.  Congress has abrogated its responsibilities to delegate autocratic bureaucracy to govern in its stead.  Autocratic courts have replaced the governing authority of representative democracy.  The Constitution as a check on autocratic government has been weakened. 

We know the Constitution is a bulwark against autocratic use of absolute power because so many fringe groups are constantly demanding a rewrite and reinterpretation of the national charter.   These fringe groups focus their attention on manipulating the autocratic absolute power of the SCOTUS to achieve their goals.  Control the court, control the country.

The motivation for AFL isn't any different than the motivation for FFF.  Both these fringe groups are seeking absolute power to impose their limited worldview onto the country.  And they are uncompromising in their quest for control over absolute power.  These incidents are symptomatic of central government becoming more autocratic and less democratic.  That should serve as a warning to the people of the United States.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.1  devangelical  replied to  Nerm_L @7    3 months ago

meh, heaven is like a junkyard, there's bound to be some missing or damaged pieces on some of the wreckage that ends up there.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
7.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  devangelical @7.1    3 months ago
meh, heaven is like a junkyard, there's bound to be some missing or damaged pieces on some of the wreckage that ends up there.

Doesn't matter as long as heaven is run by an autocrat.  Control God, control the universe.

Those seeking control over absolute power are only trying to create heaven on Earth, after all.  You'll like it or be damned.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
7.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  devangelical @7.1    3 months ago

Good analogy because all humans are broken

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
8  Kavika     3 months ago

They have a true believer in Boebert. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
8.1  Ender  replied to  Kavika @8    3 months ago
"The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not meant to direct the church. That is not how our founding fathers intended it.

"And I'm tired of this separation of church and state junk, that's not in the Constitution. It was in a stinking letter and it means nothing like what they say it does."

She then received a round of applause from the congregation.

Unbelievable...

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ender @8.1    3 months ago

Well, it's not like she's the sharpest light bulb in the shed

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
9  Buzz of the Orient    3 months ago

RBG must be turning over in her grave that she didn't survive long enough to prevent ACB from being appointed, and the fact that the result is a court declaration that is so contrary to the dictates of her religion.  The court decision is an affront to and a denial of the religious beliefs of the vast majority of Jews, other than the miniscule minority of those who still live as if in the Middle Ages, which is where the SCOTUS is now doing its best to send America. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
10  Thrawn 31    3 months ago

Because Afghanistan is SOOOOOO awesome! I keep saying it, Christians extremists and Muslim extremists are exactly the same and everything they touch turns into a shit heap because they fucking suck at everything except being giant assholes. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @10    3 months ago

Far too many people appear to think that any adherent to any religion is an extremist.

Pretty sad, actually.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
10.1.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1    3 months ago

When you believe your religious beliefs should be law, then yeah, you are in that category.

Pretty sad you don't get that. Actually.

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @10.1.1    3 months ago
When you believe your religious beliefs should be law, then yeah, you are in that category.

Not being Congress, they can not make laws.

You are worrying over nothing.

Pretty sad you don't get that. Actually.

I got it all right, the 'argument' is pretty shallow. Actually.

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
10.1.3  seeder  evilgenius  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.2    3 months ago
Not being Congress, they can not make laws.

Some of these nutbags ARE in Congress. Others are doing their best to make it there.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  evilgenius @10.1.3    3 months ago

Democrats are the majority in Congress.

There may be one or two nutbags in Congress, but to think they have enough pull to pass anything at all is incredibly naive.

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
11  Revillug    3 months ago

The amendment itself says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,..."

Is there another place in the constitution that guarantees that states can't take away rights granted by the constitution?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
11.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Revillug @11    3 months ago

The 14th amendment incorporates the bill of rights against state governments.

The only way this could happen if you believe the constitution is a living document with no fixed meaning.

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
11.1.1  seeder  evilgenius  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1    3 months ago
The only way this could happen if you believe the constitution is a living document with no fixed meaning.

The only way this could happen is if a majority of the SCOTUS says it does. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
11.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  evilgenius @11.1.1    3 months ago

Exactly. If you have 9 justices who say the text of the Constitution is meaningless absolutely anything is possible.   While Sotomayor may agree with that, I doubt she would believe the Constitution "evolved" in this direction. 

So there are currently  zero justices who would entertain this nonsense, even if by some miracle it managed to make it to the Supreme Court.  

But fearmongering is always popular. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
11.1.3  seeder  evilgenius  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.2    3 months ago
So there are currently  zero justices who would entertain this nonsense

Didn't 3 of the 4 most recent justices tell Congress that overturning Roe was nonsense?

But fearmongering is always popular. 

Fear seems to be the basic foundation of both the current conservative & progressive populist movements. 

 
 
 
Veronica
Masters Expert
11.1.4  Veronica  replied to  evilgenius @11.1.3    3 months ago

And their biggest fear & scare tactic: 

"Democrats want to come and take away our guns" - even though that HAS NOT happened even when Democrats are in charge... and they call this shit that is happening fearmongering.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
11.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  evilgenius @11.1.3    3 months ago
Didn't 3 of the 4 most recent justices tell Congress that overturning Roe was nonsense?

No. Not one did.

 
 
 
Veronica
Masters Expert
12  Veronica    3 months ago

I am waiting for them to realize that their brand of Christianity was not chosen to be the government sponsored religion.

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
12.1  seeder  evilgenius  replied to  Veronica @12    3 months ago
I am waiting for them to realize...

They "believe" they are the heroes of their story. Belief requires no thought.

 
 
 
Veronica
Masters Expert
12.1.1  Veronica  replied to  evilgenius @12.1    3 months ago

But ask some of them about other sects.  Especially about Catholics.  There are people here that do not believe that Catholics are Christians & have come right out & said so.  I can easily see them turning on each other until only one brand of Christ following exists.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
12.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Veronica @12.1.1    3 months ago

that's exactly what would happen next...

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
12.1.3  seeder  evilgenius  replied to  Veronica @12.1.1    3 months ago
There are people here that do not believe that Catholics are Christians & have come right out & said so.

My ex-wife told be directly to my face. 

I can easily see them turning on each other until only one brand of Christ following exists.

This happens with all purity movements. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
12.1.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  evilgenius @12.1.3    3 months ago

Europe was almost torn apart because of the sectarian wars. Calvinists against Lutherans, Anabaptists against Catholics. And the Puritans in England against anybody who wasn't a Puritan.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
12.2  Gordy327  replied to  Veronica @12    3 months ago

I doubt they would care anyway.

 
 
 
Veronica
Masters Expert
12.2.1  Veronica  replied to  Gordy327 @12.2    3 months ago

I think the ones that are eliminated will care.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
13  Jeremy Retired in NC    3 months ago

The church has been trying to do this for decades.  There are even morons around the country that believe the US is a Christian nation.  Now I'm supposed to set my hair on fire and run in circles because somebody linked a few people to the former POTUS?  

Just another Trump freak out article all over nothing.

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
13.1  seeder  evilgenius  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @13    3 months ago
Just another Trump freak out article all over nothing.

Then why are you here?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
13.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  evilgenius @13.1    3 months ago

[deleted]  And to ask why people are freaking out over something that has been going on for decades.  Not like I'd get a straight answer.

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
13.1.2  seeder  evilgenius  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @13.1.1    3 months ago
Just to piss you off. 

You failed. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
13.1.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  evilgenius @13.1.2    3 months ago
You failed.

Like you answering my question.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
13.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @13.1.1    3 months ago

How miserable and pathetic that must be.  

 
 

Who is online

Revillug


22 visitors