The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
FAQ    Search

Board index » Word on the Street » News & Debate




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2237 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 108, 109, 110, 111, 112  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue June 30, 2020 1:38 am 
Offline
User avatar
10Club Complaint Department
 Profile

Joined: Sun September 15, 2013 5:50 am
Posts: 17307
<Gorsuch nominated>

"LET'S PACK THE COURT!!!!!!! THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!!!! PRESERVE RULE OF LAW!!!!!! NO POLITICS IN THE SCOTUS!!!!!!!!" -progressives

<gays become protected class>

<DACA preserved>

<Abortion law struck down>

"LET'S PACK THE COURT ANYWAYS!!!!!!! RBG 4 LYYYYYFFFEEE!!!!!" -progressives

_________________
All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue June 30, 2020 2:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
 Profile

Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm
Posts: 6448
Espinoza wins.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 5_g314.pdf


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue June 30, 2020 2:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Rank This Poster
 Profile

Joined: Thu January 10, 2013 2:19 am
Posts: 5061
Location: SOUTH PORTLAND
Green Habit wrote:

“A state need not subsidize private education,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority, including the four other conservative justices. “But once a state decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”

So let's end all subsidizing of private schools.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue June 30, 2020 2:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
 Profile

Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm
Posts: 6448
Breyer's dissent is fascinating, he is trying to reconcile the Free Exercise Clause with the Establishment Clause. This goes back to my point that the two should be seen as one united Religion Clause that at its essence says that "government shall neither favor nor disfavor religion".

Sotomayor makes a good point that this case should have been dismissed on lack of standing, but if they are going to reach the merits I think it's a reasonable conclusion.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue June 30, 2020 2:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Rank This Poster
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm
Posts: 4196
Green Habit wrote:
Breyer's dissent is fascinating, he is trying to reconcile the Free Exercise Clause with the Establishment Clause. This goes back to my point that the two should be seen as one united Religion Clause that at its essence says that "government shall neither favor nor disfavor religion".

Sotomayor makes a good point that this case should have been dismissed on lack of standing, but if they are going to reach the merits I think it's a reasonable conclusion.

I've been doing more readings on religion cases lately and can't shake the thought that this is a simpler way to read the clause(s).

_________________
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle



Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue June 30, 2020 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
 Profile

Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm
Posts: 6448
Yikes, Thomas and Gorsuch going off the rails here: "Properly understood, the Establishment Clause does not prohibit States from favoring religion. "


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue June 30, 2020 2:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
 Profile

Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm
Posts: 6448
4/5 wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
Breyer's dissent is fascinating, he is trying to reconcile the Free Exercise Clause with the Establishment Clause. This goes back to my point that the two should be seen as one united Religion Clause that at its essence says that "government shall neither favor nor disfavor religion".

Sotomayor makes a good point that this case should have been dismissed on lack of standing, but if they are going to reach the merits I think it's a reasonable conclusion.

I've been doing more readings on religion cases lately and can't shake the thought that this is a simpler way to read the clause(s).
Looks like I've done my job! :) What do you think about the outcome of this particular case?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue June 30, 2020 2:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Classic B
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm
Posts: 13981
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Green Habit wrote:
Yikes, Thomas and Gorsuch going off the rails here: "Properly understood, the Establishment Clause does not prohibit States from favoring religion. "


96583UP wrote:
"LET'S PACK THE COURT ANYWAYS!!!!!!! RBG 4 LYYYYYFFFEEE!!!!!" -progressives

_________________
VinylGuy wrote:
Fuck, B was right all along?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue June 30, 2020 2:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Rank This Poster
 Profile

Joined: Thu January 10, 2013 2:19 am
Posts: 5061
Location: SOUTH PORTLAND
Green Habit wrote:
Yikes, Thomas and Gorsuch going off the rails here: "Properly understood, the Establishment Clause does not prohibit States from favoring religion. "

Oh dear lord. (pun intended).


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue June 30, 2020 2:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
 Profile

Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm
Posts: 6448
Alito, who is Catholic, wrote a concurrence that was a long historical criticism of the Blaine Amendment, of which he accuses of anti-Catholic discrimination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaine_Amendment


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue June 30, 2020 2:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Rank This Poster
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm
Posts: 4196
Green Habit wrote:
Yikes, Thomas and Gorsuch going off the rails here: "Properly understood, the Establishment Clause does not prohibit States from favoring religion. "

For Thomas this is simply because he believes that the establishment clause should not be incorporated, isn't it?

_________________
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle



Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue June 30, 2020 2:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
 Profile

Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm
Posts: 6448
4/5 wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
Yikes, Thomas and Gorsuch going off the rails here: "Properly understood, the Establishment Clause does not prohibit States from favoring religion. "

For Thomas this is simply because he believes that the establishment clause should not be incorporated, isn't it?
Yup, and he goes even more radical than that:

Clarence Thomas wrote:
As I have explained in previous cases, at the founding, the Clause served only to “protec[t] States, and by extension their citizens, from the imposition of an established religion by the Federal Government.”
Emphasis on "Federal" is his.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue June 30, 2020 3:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Rank This Poster
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm
Posts: 4196
Green Habit wrote:
4/5 wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
Yikes, Thomas and Gorsuch going off the rails here: "Properly understood, the Establishment Clause does not prohibit States from favoring religion. "

For Thomas this is simply because he believes that the establishment clause should not be incorporated, isn't it?
Yup, and he goes even more radical than that:

Clarence Thomas wrote:
As I have explained in previous cases, at the founding, the Clause served only to “protec[t] States, and by extension their citizens, from the imposition of an established religion by the Federal Government.”
Emphasis on "Federal" is his.

Two thoughts: It's incredible how successful that originalists have been defining cases in those terms and what a strange way to frame the first amendment as protecting primarily states and only "by extension" individual citizens.

_________________
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle



Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue June 30, 2020 3:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar
The Master
 Profile

Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm
Posts: 36757
Location: Different mountains than Strat.
Not at all surprised. I have not had a chance to read the opinion yet, But based on the posts above I’m concerned that this will be used to set broader precedent than I had originally thought it would


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue June 30, 2020 3:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
 Profile

Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm
Posts: 6448
tragabigzanda wrote:
Not at all surprised. I have not had a chance to read the opinion yet, But based on the posts above I’m concerned that this will be used to set broader precedent than I had originally thought it would
What specific broader precedents are you concerned about?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue June 30, 2020 3:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar
The Master
 Profile

Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm
Posts: 36757
Location: Different mountains than Strat.
The wording on the part about the Establishment Clause. At first blush, seems like something that could be cited in all manner of future decisions.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue June 30, 2020 3:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Rank This Poster
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm
Posts: 4196
Green Habit wrote:
4/5 wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
Breyer's dissent is fascinating, he is trying to reconcile the Free Exercise Clause with the Establishment Clause. This goes back to my point that the two should be seen as one united Religion Clause that at its essence says that "government shall neither favor nor disfavor religion".

Sotomayor makes a good point that this case should have been dismissed on lack of standing, but if they are going to reach the merits I think it's a reasonable conclusion.

I've been doing more readings on religion cases lately and can't shake the thought that this is a simpler way to read the clause(s).
Looks like I've done my job! :) What do you think about the outcome of this particular case?

I haven't gotten to read anything yet, but just based off what you've posted it seems reasonable. Like Ellis said I'd prefer states not to fund private schools at all, but I think a reasonable argument can be made that allowing state money to go any school as long as it isn't religious could be seen as inhibiting religious groups. It sounds similar to the logic that students can start clubs on campus for just about any hobby or interest they want, so to deny students the right to start a religious club would be infringing on their rights as opposed to the school actively promoting religion by allowing the club.

_________________
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle



Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue June 30, 2020 3:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Rank This Poster
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm
Posts: 4196
tragabigzanda wrote:
The wording on the part about the Establishment Clause. At first blush, seems like something that could be cited in all manner of future decisions.

I think that was from a concurring opinion. If this is what you're talking about.
Green Habit wrote:
Yikes, Thomas and Gorsuch going off the rails here: "Properly understood, the Establishment Clause does not prohibit States from favoring religion. "

_________________
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle



Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue June 30, 2020 3:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
 Profile

Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm
Posts: 6448
tragabigzanda wrote:
The wording on the part about the Establishment Clause. At first blush, seems like something that could be cited in all manner of future decisions.
That depends on whether that view can get more votes. For now, it's a ways away, only Thomas and Gorsuch expressed that opinion.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue June 30, 2020 3:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
 Profile

Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm
Posts: 6448
4/5 wrote:
I haven't gotten to read anything yet, but just based off what you've posted it seems reasonable. Like Ellis said I'd prefer states not to fund private schools at all, but I think a reasonable argument can be made that allowing state money to go any school as long as it isn't religious could be seen as inhibiting religious groups. It sounds similar to the logic that students can start clubs on campus for just about any hobby or interest they want, so to deny students the right to start a religious club would be infringing on their rights as opposed to the school actively promoting religion by allowing the club.
:thumbsup:


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2237 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 108, 109, 110, 111, 112  Next

Board index » Word on the Street » News & Debate


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: McParadigm, oasisfan35 and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
It is currently Sat July 04, 2020 12:44 am