Justice Alito warns of dangers to free speech, religious liberty in Federalist Society address
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Religious liberty and free speech are among Americans' personal freedoms potentially imperiled along with government overreach during the coronavirus pandemic, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito warned Thursday.
“Tolerance for opposing views is now in short supply,” Alito added in a virtual keynote speech to a conference of the conservative Federalist Society , in which he referenced the current state of discourse in the nation's law schools and the “broader academic community.”
Many recent law school graduates claim they face “harassment” and “retaliation” for any views that depart “from law school orthodoxy,” Alito said.
“In certain quarters religious liberty has fast become a disfavored right,” he said. “For many today, religious liberty is not a cherished freedom. It’s often just an excuse for bigotry and it can’t be tolerated even when there’s no evidence that anybody has been harmed.”
He cited the Supreme Court cases of the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Roman Catholic nuns who were exempted from a requirement to provide birth control coverage to employees and Colorado baker who was allowed to refuse service to a gay couple for their wedding.
No employees with the Little Sisters of the Poor asked for birth control coverage and the gay couple was given a free cake by another shop and had celebrity chefs jump to their defense, he said.
“The question we face is whether our society will be inclusive enough to tolerate people with unpopular religious beliefs,” he added, saying Christians deserve the same protections as the any of the religious minority groups in cases over which has presided throughout the years.
When Alito, 70, a nominee of former President George W. Bush who was confirmed by the Senate in 2006, touched on the pandemic, he said it has “resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty” and whatever people believe about the coronavirus restrictions, the U.S. can’t allow the restrictions to stand after the pandemic has passed.
He also said that houses of worship have been treated unfairly compared to other businesses during the pandemic, like in the case of casinos in Nevada.
“Nevada was unable to provide any justification for treating casinos more favorably than other houses of worship,” he said, referring to a recent Supreme Court case. The court still deferred to the governor who favored the state’s biggest industry, he said.
“Religious liberty is in danger of becoming a second-class right,” he warned, adding concerns about free speech and the Second Amendment.
He said there was “hostility” toward “unfashionable views” before the pandemic but said that free speech on campuses and at some corporations is now in danger.
“You can’t say that marriage is a union between one man and one woman,” Alito said. “Until very recently that’s what the vast majority of Americans thought. Now it’s considered bigotry.”
“Judges dedicated to the rule of law have a clear duty” he added, saying they can’t “compromise principle or rationalize any departure from what they are obligated to do.”
He said he’s confident the court won’t do that in the years ahead.
He finally mentioned the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s belief in originalism, the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution based on its “public meaning at the time of its adoption.”
“The Covid crisis has highlighted constitutional fault lines” he said, but stressed in his 15 years on the court good work has been done to protect freedom of speech and religious liberty and “the structure of government created by the Constitution.”
He closed by saying that standing up for the Constitution and freedom is work that lies ahead for all Americans.
Tags
Who is online
67 visitors
Politics IS the new religion for many, hence the zealousness.
They say things their actual religion would not condone and go to ridiculous lengths of pretzel logic to convince themselves otherwise.
Sad to watch.
the examples of religion conjoined with party are certainly plentiful.
Well based on the article, Alito can't decide whether a church is a 'house of worship' or 'a business'. He really does have to PICK ONE for his 'argument' to hold water.
admitting that their version of religion is a business puts them in a precarious position.
Especially since 'essential businesses' pay taxes...
"admitting that their version of religion is a business puts them in a precarious position."
Too true. They're con artists. To them, god is green, and he folds.
Translation: If churches cannot allow in worshippers, they can't pass the collection plate.
Actually, I don't just consider it bigotry, I consider it an expression of religious animus that shouldn't have any bearing anyone's rights.
How so? Be specific.
The argument:
Is based purely on religion animus, i.e. an attitude based on a religious belief.
Of course, over the decades of court cases, that 'attitude' altered because it started out as
But once polygamists' tried to get into the game they added the "ONE" thingy. Of course, that's isn't supported by scripture but I digress.
So the argument began with a man and a woman and cuz god said so. When THAT didn't work, it became ONE man and ONE woman because of history. Of course, they didn't want to acknowledge that the history was based on religion but the law has a way of getting to the crux of the issue...
There are many of issues for which the same can be said. Slavery, coverture, suffrage and interracial marriage to name a few and ALL of which were argued FOR, at least in part, based on religious mandates/beliefs. It seems that Justice Alito and others are desperate to ignore that fact.
What 'days' are you claiming Alito is referring to ?
Examples like this is the reason that many do not take the pandemic serious. If those who are setting the safety rules/protocols for the state are blantantly disregarding the rules for favored exceptions, it is hard to take them serious.
I guess we can take the risk of more covid cases and deaths to play the slots but forbid those who want to exercise their religious rights at church. Seems the state has restricted religious liberty without cause.
Are churches businesses?
Are casinos 'other houses of worship'?
Alito is confused.
Where is the confusion?
Try to answer my questions based on Alito's comment and you'll see.
I think you are the one confused not a Supreme Court Justice.
Any thinking person that tried answer my questions would think differently.
So you agree with Alito that casinos are 'houses of worship?
He didn't say casino's are houses of worship...he said "other houses of worships".
But regardless how one chooses to understand it, Nevada could not give reason as to why a casino should be considered essential and a house of worship would not.
As I said, I am sure Justice Alito new what he was referring to more than you.
He said that casinos were being favored over other houses of worship. It's CLEAR English.
That's an ironic statement since Alito wrote the dissenting opinion in the Nevada case, which means that the way that the SCOTUS understands it is that Nevada DID give a good enough reason.
Oh and BTW, the question before the court wasn't about 'being essential', it was about religious freedom and the second case is based on freedom of speech.
I always love when people claim to have said shit they never said until they just said it...
BTW, it's pretty important for Justices to SAY and write cogent statements that 'We the People' understand clearly.
All in all, Alito's speech is an excellent example of why the SCOTUS needs to have a Code of Conduct.
So now you are interpretating what the court understood over Supreme Court Justice Alito. You do hold yourself in high regard. Watch the entire speech and you will better understand what he is conveying.
No one said it was.
I READ the fucking ruling from the Supreme Court, you should try it.
YES, when it comes to actually pursuing FACTS and understanding court documents, I DO hold myself in high regard since I WORK at it.
I READ Alito's statement in the seed and understand it just fine.
Well if you had read it, you should of known what he was conveying instead of making a big stink over semantics.
I still suggest you listen to the speech.
It always cracks me up when NT members try to insist that the meaning of words isn't important. How else are we communicating here? How else is Alito conveying his thoughts in his speech?
Ridiculous...
Again, I read Alito's statement in the seed. If you want to seed the speech, be my guest. I might stop by and read it, or not.
Again making a big deal over semantics.
Why would I seed the speech which is already in the seeded article? You would ignore that one too because you couldn’t possibly learn something.
Again, trying to insist that the meaning of words doesn't matter.
The article doesn't quote the WHOLE speech. My comments are about the content of the ARTICLE. If you want to talk about the WHOLE speech, seed it. Taking over Suz's seed is bad form.
BTFW, I haven't ignored anything.
I learned from the speech that Alito has no compunction against expressing his personal political beliefs and his bias about issues that have been before the court and will be again in the future.
It always cracks me up when NT members can't argue a substantive point and hyper focus on superficial trivialities.
IF you actually read the dissent in question, you'd know that he didn't refer to casinos as houses of worship and that has no substantive relationship to his argument.
But congrats, you've made a mountain out of a misspeak during a speech. But hey, you've derailed the thread, so good on you.
Another one that thinks that the meaning of word is trivial in a venue where words are used to communicate.
The article QUOTED Alito as saying that in his speech. Try to keep up Sean.
I pointed it out, Suz, Sunshine and YOU made a mountain out of it by not acknowledging that Alito was confused.
Nope. I started this sub-thread Sean.
BTW, how did you like my answer to your last question?
The entire speech is in the article.
Yes it is, an apology would be appreciated.
I look forward to you quoting him from the seeded speech to support this.
A VIDEO of the speech is in the article. Why post bullshit?
You're having a hard enough time holding your own Sunshine, you really shouldn't try to speak for Suz.
I already have.
Now you are not making any sense, first you want the entire speech to comment on and then you claim it is bullshit so why post it.
Again you seem to be the one confused.
Not speaking for her, it is my suggestion. If she has a problem with my post, she can talk to me directly. She doesn't need you running interference and speaking for her.
Nothing, as expected.
Try again. Context matters.
le QUOTED Alito as saying that in his speech. Try to keep up Sean.
You are the one who's behind. Why don't your read what I wrote again, and if you need help understanding the meaning of a word, I'll be happy to help because this a venue where words are used to communicate, and you seem to be struggling in your comprehension.
uz, Sunshine and YOU made a mountain out of it by not acknowledging that Alito was confused.
Sure. he was confused in the same way Obama was when he referenced 57 states.
do you really feel good about making this ridiculous argument? Sad.
Well we did have a religious gathering at a casino a few months ago and the governor tried to treat the event at the casino as if it were at a church to limit it to 10 people instead of 50% capacity allowed at a casino. That proved the double standard the governor tries to enforce and the point Alito made about religious liberty becoming a 2nd class right.
Nope. YOU are the one who keeps insisting that only by watching the full speech can garner what Alito was 'conveying'. I have said more than once that my comments are based on the content of the quotes in the seed. JUST STOP.
You didn't make a suggestion, you made a statement.
I stated my own opinion.
I can point you to the comment, I can't understand it for you.
Alito didn't say a damn thing about California churches Xx.
Alito sits on a court stacked with young conservative Catholics, a few Jews and zero persons on no faith. The President Elect is famously a practicing Catholic. Religion is not under attack in America. What is under attack is the principle that everyone is equal under the law. Alito plainly does not believe we are!
A casino is not an essential business. It should be shut down if everything else is shut down.
That is not my comment.
And I agree, a casino is not an essential business.
Sorry about the comment confusion. That is actually Sean's quote from 6
Alito nails probably the dominate theme in American public life this century, the closing of the American mind. The left, over the last 50 some years, has done a complete 180, from the free speech movement at Berkley to their current embrace of using violence to shut down dissenting views on campus. They've collectively deiced the correct morals for America, and through their positions controlling large corporations, universities, the media, entertainment etc.. they rigidly enforce them.
This country needs to depoliticize and learn tolerance if it's going to thrive. There's no viable long term path forward when citizens are afraid to speak for fear of losing their livelihood. It's okay for people to believe different things, they shouldn't have to fear losing their job because of them.
While I am all for freedom of speech, once someone puts something out there to the general public ( ie through the internet), then it falls into the public domain. Yes, you are free to say it, but if what you are saying is against, or for example, the rules of employment, then that is on the speaker.
The big issue here is that it seems that there is a trend to just being offended.
The big issue as I see it is that people seem to think that with the right to free speech comes an immunity from consequences. Criticism of the content of one person's free speech has an equal right to free speech.
You have a right to say:
Marriage is a union between one man and one woman.
I have the right to say:
I think that's a bigoted statement based on your religious animus.
Agreed
Yet the LGBTQ community deal with just that on a daily basis and in all too many cases the 'reason' is based on 'religious liberty'.
I would just take note that the few thousand assholes in Portland or Berkley do not
and never have represented the 75 million voters who voted for Biden.
Total agreement.
and add that a few thousand people who belong to Qanon or the Prous Boys represent
any of the 71 million who voted for Trump.
If a Christian feels they have the right to refuse service to a gay customer, then they should support the rights of other businesses to deny service to Christians.
Treat others as you wish to be treated.
If you think ridiculing gays, Muslims, atheists, unwed mothers, transgender Americans or those of different faiths or cultures is your right, then you are explicitly giving everyone else the right to ridicule you.
Just because, as Alito points out, there is “hostility” toward “unfashionable views” doesn't mean any of those with the now unfashionable views are being discriminated against.
When Christians can show that they've been refused tenancy or been fired from their jobs simply because their landlord or boss found out they were Christian, then they will have something legitimate to bitch about.
Religious liberty is not in "danger of becoming a second-class right", it's just more and more people recognize the hostility towards others that has been long accepted from the religious right is no longer "fashionable" and thus is showing those who continue to ridicule and discriminate against those their faith has deemed "sinners" are truly the ones who have no class. And the more and more people who recognize this, the more the classless religious conservatives scream and rage about how unfair it is that they're now treated like the "sinners" they've long ridiculed and disrespected.
I have yet to see anyone explain or demonstrate how religious liberty is threatened or even prohibited in any way. Last I checked, everyone is free to believe and worship however they want.
What consequences? That would probably depend on the circumstances.
And yet, Samuel Alito, a Catholic, sits on the US Supreme Court and Joseph Biden, also a Catholic, will soon be in the White House. In business or public life it remains very hard for a person not if faith to succeed. Persons of faith run pretty much all of our institutions.
Frankly, I think that your fears are overblown.
Trump loyalists will be replaced by Biden loyalists in the new administration which is their right. Just as it was Trump's right. If those Trump loyalists never do work again then there must be something else at play. I certainly do not see Joe Biden as a villain.
Justice Alito represents the fulcrum of the ideology that has prevented justice, fair play, honesty and social progress in our government and society.