SCOTUS further destroys separation of church and state

[ch33zw1z]

Mea culpa. I just always want to point out how vile Calvinism is. It is very unfortunate that so much of our countries values have been tainted by them. I can respect Christian values / arguments as long as they don't start with the Calvinist BS. When I was taught about the reformation in HS I was horrified when we got to Calvin.

it’s interesting, but we all get to be victims of the religious nutters.

 

[pmv]

Look at the horse shit the conservatives on the court want you to swallow

https://twitter.com/x/status/1541462264221519873

Yeah, it seems as if they've gone beyond legal sophistry (the stuff that gets refered to here as "Calvinball", but I'd call Mornington Crescent) to just making stuff up about the facts of cases, in order to reach the conclusion they want.

The Supreme Court hands the religious right a big victory by lying about the facts of a case

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District is a big victory for the religious right, but only because Gorsuch misrepresents the facts of the case.

www.vox.com

 

[Zorba]

So this basically means any school teacher can now lead their class in prayer whenever they want. The religious freedoms of the kids mean jack shit.

 

[Muse]

Looks to me like this court is not going to stop doing face plants. Trump and McConnell's little monster is raging. The nightmare, it appears, is just beginning.

 

[Muse]

So this basically means any school teacher can now lead their class in prayer whenever they want. The religious freedoms of the kids mean jack shit.

The way I saw this presented on TV news tonight seemed to make the case that because it was done out of doors (the 50 yard line) it escaped constituting a religious service in a classroom. Which I deem ridiculous. This court is off the rails, clearly insanity has taken over.

 

[KB]

So this basically means any school teacher can now lead their class in prayer whenever they want. The religious freedoms of the kids mean jack shit.

This is hard-to-know, but perhaps unlikely, based on the judges ruling:

"In his majority opinion, Gorsuch differentiated the case from past cases, pushing back on the notion that the opinion would lead to more school prayer.
He said the prayers at issue "were not publicly broadcast or recited to a captive audience. Students were not required or expected to participate."

Supreme Court rules school district cannot prohibit football coach's prayers on field

The court said high school football coach Joe Kennedy's prayers amounted to private speech protected by the First Amendment

www.cnn.com

SCOTUS (Gorsuch et al.) is saying that a classroom of students is a captive audience, so you cant pray there, but a football field after the game is not a captive audience and students aren't forced to stay and pray. Sotomayer disagreed, pointing out how much peer pressure creates a "captive audience" and I personally think the football field is a classroom and the coach is a teacher so SCOTUS is dead wrong here, but I don't think it leads to prayer in schools (well 100% not Islamic and Satanic prayer : ) ).

 

[fskimospy]

This is hard-to-know, but perhaps unlikely, based on the judges ruling:

"In his majority opinion, Gorsuch differentiated the case from past cases, pushing back on the notion that the opinion would lead to more school prayer.
He said the prayers at issue "were not publicly broadcast or recited to a captive audience. Students were not required or expected to participate."

Supreme Court rules school district cannot prohibit football coach's prayers on field

The court said high school football coach Joe Kennedy's prayers amounted to private speech protected by the First Amendment

www.cnn.com

SCOTUS (Gorsuch et al.) is saying that a classroom of students is a captive audience, so you cant pray there, but a football field after the game is not a captive audience and students aren't forced to stay and pray. Sotomayer disagreed, pointing out how much peer pressure creates a "captive audience" and I personally think the football field is a classroom and the coach is a teacher so SCOTUS is dead wrong here, but I don't think it leads to prayer in schools (well 100% not Islamic and Satanic prayer : ) ).

The thing is the dissent also provided documentary evidence that Gorsuch was lying. They were undeniably public as shown by the pictures of them. In addition the students themselves said they were coercive.

I for one am not super comforted by the claim this will not lead to more official prayer in schools considering the Supreme Court justified this one by lying about the factual record.

 

[HomerJS]

Yeah, it seems as if they've gone beyond legal sophistry (the stuff that gets refered to here as "Calvinball", but I'd call Mornington Crescent) to just making stuff up about the facts of cases, in order to reach the conclusion they want.

The Supreme Court hands the religious right a big victory by lying about the facts of a case

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District is a big victory for the religious right, but only because Gorsuch misrepresents the facts of the case.

www.vox.com

Truth is like kryptonite to conservatives. They lie as easy as they breathe

 

[pmv]

The thing is the dissent also provided documentary evidence that Gorsuch was lying. They were undeniably public as shown by the pictures of them. In addition the students themselves said they were coercive.

I for one am not super comforted by the claim this will not lead to more official prayer in schools considering the Supreme Court justified this one by lying about the factual record.

It's remarkable though, in that it suggests this court is so desperate to remould US society that they are, in effect, making up cases to try in order to get to the ruling they want to cross off their list of policy goals.
It seems then they raced through the thing to the pre-determined conclusion while paying very little attention to the actual facts involved.

I guess they don't have enough real cases to get through their list of policy objectives, hence here they tried a different case to the one actually before them. Presumably they'll start scouring the country for suitable cases to give them the chance to make the rulings they want to make, and if they can't find exactly the right ones they'll distort the ones they do have in order to make them fit.

 

[pmv]

[double post - might as well say edit to something else here]

I wonder if, psychologically, what's going on is that the clearly entirely ideologically-motivated gang on the court - who are obviously 'on a roll' in promoting their political agenda irrespective of the law or the facts of cases - are partly driven by a perception that in the past the court was ideologically driven on the liberal side, and so are doing what they _percieved_ the 'other team' as doing previously?

That suggests maybe the same might happen with regard to the Trumpist accusations of 'electoral fraud'.

 

[fskimospy]

It's remarkable though, in that it suggests this court is so desperate to remould US society that they are, in effect, making up cases to try in order to get to the ruling they want to cross off their list of policy goals.
It seems then they raced through the thing to the pre-determined conclusion while paying very little attention to the actual facts involved.

This would suggest conservative justices have not operated this way for a long time. Justice Scalia, probably the most prominent conservative justice in a generation, famously argued in decisions only days apart that SCOTUS had no right to second guess the wisdom of Congress when it came to banning gay marriage, but then when discussing voting rights decided that Congress could no longer be trusted to act appropriately. Same thing happened this term - with abortion the opinion is filled with appeals to federalism, state sovereignty, and the right for states to make their own laws. When it came to invalidating century old gun laws state sovereignty was not mentioned a single time.

It's been this way for a very long time now, which is why I've long been of the opinion that the court is a political body and should be treated as such.

I guess they don't have enough real cases to get through their list of policy objectives, hence here they tried a different case to the one actually before them. Presumably they'll start scouring the country for suitable cases to give them the chance to make the rulings they want to make, and if they can't find exactly the right ones they'll distort the ones they do have in order to make them fit.

It doesn't exactly work that way but you aren't too far off - activist groups identify cases that push the policy objectives they want and then bring them when the makeup of the court changes to something more favorable. That's why you see this flood of right wing legislation now - groups started bringing cases as more Trump SCOTUS nominees were confirmed.

 

[Zorba]

[double post - might as well say edit to something else here]

I wonder if, psychologically, what's going on is that the clearly entirely ideologically-motivated gang on the court - who are obviously 'on a roll' in promoting their political agenda irrespective of the law or the facts of cases - are partly driven by a perception that in the past the court was ideologically driven on the liberal side, and so are doing what they _percieved_ the 'other team' as doing previously?

That suggests maybe the same might happen with regard to the Trumpist accusations of 'electoral fraud'.

I think you are right, but the court has basically always had a conservative lean to it. Just conservatives used to actually care a little bit about liberty. I read that Roe V. Wade was 7-2 and 5 of the 7 were appointed by republicans.

 

[pmv]

I think you are right, but the court has basically always had a conservative lean to it. Just conservatives used to actually care a little bit about liberty. I read that Roe V. Wade was 7-2 and 5 of the 7 were appointed by republicans.

Yes, the current lot are obviously much more hard-core-ideological than most previous Republican appointees. So much so that they don't seem to even be bothering to pretend that it's anything other than an exercise in raw power.

Heh, it's like one of those horror or disaster movies, with a multi-act structure - just when you think the scary monster has been seen off and the crisis resolved, it becomes apparent it left behind an even greater threat...

 

[hal2kilo]

It's remarkable though, in that it suggests this court is so desperate to remould US society that they are, in effect, making up cases to try in order to get to the ruling they want to cross off their list of policy goals.
It seems then they raced through the thing to the pre-determined conclusion while paying very little attention to the actual facts involved.

I guess they don't have enough real cases to get through their list of policy objectives, hence here they tried a different case to the one actually before them. Presumably they'll start scouring the country for suitable cases to give them the chance to make the rulings they want to make, and if they can't find exactly the right ones they'll distort the ones they do have in order to make them fit.

What do you think the empowerment of the "shadow docket" is all about. Pure judicial activism.

 

[HomerJS]

Gorsuch has just said out loud what most of us have been saying. These conservatives want a white christian country. They don't give a shit about respecting other religions.

Neil Gorsuch to Non-Christian Kids Who Don’t Want Prayer in Public School: Get Over It (msn.com)

 

[Gardener]

Truth is like kryptonite to conservatives. They lie as easy as they breathe

How can you tell if a conservative is lying?

They are breathing.

 

[UNCjigga]

Meanwhile, in Boebertstan:

https://wapo.st/3I2A0Pk (no paywall)

“The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our Founding Fathers intended it.”

She added: “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.”

Apparently someone’s never properly read the First Amendment—she went straight to the Second.

 

[hal2kilo]

Meanwhile, in Boebertstan:

https://wapo.st/3I2A0Pk (no paywall)

“The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our Founding Fathers intended it.”

She added: “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.”

Apparently someone’s never properly read the First Amendment—she went straight to the Second.

And she is a representative in our congress.

 

[Pens1566]

Meanwhile, in Boebertstan:

https://wapo.st/3I2A0Pk (no paywall)

“The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our Founding Fathers intended it.”

She added: “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.”

Apparently someone’s never properly read the First Amendment—she went straight to the Second.

In her defense, maybe she can't read?

 

[HomerJS]

So this basically means any school teacher can now lead their class in prayer whenever they want. The religious freedoms of the kids mean jack shit.

Can't wait till a Muslim teacher has his students face Mecca. Whitey will lose their fucking mind.

 

[HomerJS]

In her defense, maybe she can't read?

Like Gorsuch the quiet part out loud

 

[uclaLabrat]

Meanwhile, in Boebertstan:

https://wapo.st/3I2A0Pk (no paywall)

“The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our Founding Fathers intended it.”

She added: “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.”

Apparently someone’s never properly read the First Amendment—she went straight to the Second.

There is no plausible way she reads 🤣

 

[Gardener]

Gorsuch has just said out loud what most of us have been saying. These conservatives want a white christian country. They don't give a shit about respecting other religions.

Neil Gorsuch to Non-Christian Kids Who Don’t Want Prayer in Public School: Get Over It (msn.com)

Hail @HomerJS

Conservative evangelicals define religious freedom as follows:

1. America is a christian country.
2. Religious freedom is your right to attend the church of your choice.

 

[Meghan54]

The largest American evangelical sect, the Southern Baptist Convention, was created in 1845 specifically in support of slavery.

Also remember the support for slavery in their Constitution wasn’t removed until the 1990’s…and even then it was only after the Sou Baptists were put under a lot of pressure.

 

[Ajay]

The largest American evangelical sect, the Southern Baptist Convention, was created in 1845 specifically in support of slavery.

They are not Evangelicals.


Sorry, they weren't of the current crop of fundamentalist evangelicals that formed in the early 1900s. My bad.