Trump-Linked Legal Group Wants SCOTUS to Let States Establish Religion - Rolling Stone
Category: News & Politics
Via: evilgenius • 2 years ago • 98 commentsBy: Jon Blistein (Rolling Stone)
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
Who is online
465 visitors
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.
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".
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, I know.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
I think that number is larger than you think.
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.
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.
Sadly, June 25th was the 146th anniversary of Custer's Last Stand.
There are unfortunately too many examples of Christians looking the other way.
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?
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.
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.
Do you have any relevant comments on the article?
That would be a miracle.
poor dude has been lost ever since his hero went bananas on local rwnj talk radio.
NEVER
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.
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.
“…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.
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?
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.
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.
Apparently the French are unaware of mifepristone and misoprostol.
But Token Thomas wants to deny access to that also
TT takes exception to everything but Loving v Virginia it appears
And everyone thought that he was the quiet one.
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.
Are you saying, "When people don't learn from history they are doomed to repeat it?"
[deleted]
LOL, that was quick...
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.
Why should they do that when they can just get the SCOTUS to render it moot?
6 months ago I would have agreed. Now not so much, on either issue.
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.
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.
They gave a school (pubic) employee a right to openly use his 'faith'...
Huh? If they actually think what he was doing was quiet and personal, I have a bridge for sale.
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?
So time is a factor? Really?
Is he an employee of the school? Is he working on tax payer money?
The amount of time something is wrong should be irrelevant.
Because they people who do have an issue finally had a voice.
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.
The article covers at least one who thinks they can. The article doesn't cover their legal argument and I won't speculate.
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.
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.
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....
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.
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?
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.
Would that include radical Muslims?
When Muslim people are throwing down prayer rugs on the 50 yard line, get back to me.
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.
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]
Greed, and apathy have caused the most problems in this world.
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.
I'd like to see someone praying in a restaurant then retort..."the food isn't that bad!"
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.
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.
Good analogy because all humans are broken
They have a true believer in Boebert.
Unbelievable...
Well, it's not like she's the sharpest light bulb in the shed
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.
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.
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?
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.
The only way this could happen is if a majority of the SCOTUS says it does.
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.
Didn't 3 of the 4 most recent justices tell Congress that overturning Roe was nonsense?
Fear seems to be the basic foundation of both the current conservative & progressive populist movements.
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.
No. Not one did.
I am waiting for them to realize that their brand of Christianity was not chosen to be the government sponsored religion.
They "believe" they are the heroes of their story. Belief requires no thought.
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.
that's exactly what would happen next...
My ex-wife told be directly to my face.
This happens with all purity movements.
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.
I doubt they would care anyway.
I think the ones that are eliminated will care.
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.
Then why are you here?
[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.
You failed.
Like you answering my question.
How miserable and pathetic that must be.