|
Its just clear that this ruling is just another way to force religion into the public sphere and side step the Constitution. And I'm mad about it.
|
#
¿
May 5, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 20:17 |
|
|
I really dislike the idea of satanism type stuff as test cases because its just as silly and is swapping one silly thing for another. If they conflate atheism with satanism, they can just wave satanism in as a silly, but valid point of view and then say "what is the problem, we let EVERYONE in!" which isn't the point. The point is that no one should be "in"
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Well yeah, obviously, like with the statue they're also working with the ACLU to try to get all religious stuff removed, with the full understanding that the result they want would end up with their statue being removed as well. The point is that if you can't get religion removed entirely, then at least you get a big loving statue of Satan next to the ten commandments. It exposes how people don't want RELIGION in the public space, they want CHRISTIANITY. That much is obvious. My point is that CHRISTIANITY doesn't care. People will be upset, but so long as their favorite gets to go up, they can pooh-pooh the Satanists and still win by having a majority Christian population in congress invoke Jesus and not Beezlebub. Its still a losing situation. Granted, I think its a funny and does do a lot to highlight the problems, but it doesn't do anything to remove religion from the public sphere which should be the ultimate goal when it comes to actual legislation and on-the-clock monies going to it.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Lemming posted:I disagree, mostly because I think the only people who wouldn't care about a statue of Satan being next to the Ten Commandments are the kind of people who'd agree that religion has no place in the public sphere. Do you really think that the people who are up in arms about poo poo like the "War on Christmas" and "God shouldn't be banned from schools!!" would be cool with a literal statue of Satan? And in that case, it makes people watching the hypocrisy more likely to agree that it's inappropriate for either to be there. It's not a case of convincing the die hard religious fanatics, but it's more exposure to show how their position is unreasonable. I think most people know the position is unreasonable, they just don't care. Would it bother people? Sure, but remember, a statue is not the same as an entire invocation from a paid-from-state-coffers pastor time after time. They can tsk tsk their way into the courtroom and still start a session with Jesus. It is symbolic and that is all. I think a better method would be to require that all faiths be granted equal time and/or a rotating schedule regardless of the make up of the legislature. Go through a few hundred religions before we cycle back to a particular brand of Christianity. Green Crayons posted:How is that situation different from an elected representative going to a legislative session to ask fellow legislative representatives to address a constituent's grievance and there is a religious ceremony at the beginning? Or, we can just not do any of it at all and that side steps the entire issue. It is an unnecessary ceremony that is designed only to assist or support those that wish to participate that has nothing to do with the business of the state. For much the same reasons that churches aren't charities (they only benefit their members), a religious ceremony on state time is the same way, and as such should not be condoned. Its like only allowing one certain brand of advertising allowed at each session because everyone happens to like the local Walmart.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:I think that everyone can agree that just not doing any of it would be easier, yes. But "what's easiest" is not the standard. My point isn't what is "easiest" or "makes the least waves", its what is "easiest to follow the Constitution and not discriminate". All the presence of prayer serves at a town hall meeting is to reaffirm a majority position on a specific (sectarian!) deity that purportedly has no bearing on government work. This puts the town, and really government in general, in a tough position when we analyze the use for such prayer. Are the civic duties done at the specific behest of God? If so, how do we prove this and use this as justification for a law (Lemon test)? Most would say no, the prayer isn't done for the purpose of receiving instruction specifically from God, so then what is the purpose of sectarian prayer? Is it to reaffirm the majority opinion on the existence of God? What function does this serve in the process of government other than specifying that there IS a majority opinion and create a potential exclusionary atmosphere for all citizens? Is it just tradition? This seems the most reasonable response to me because there are many traditions that are carried out, however, in nearly every instance tradition harms people, it has been curtailed and narrowed in scope. The problem is that this particular tradition has the side effect of creating the appearance that their government does not treat all citizens equal. The problem with the argument isn't just that "boo hoo I have to stand" its "boo hoo, they all think their governmental power and decision making ability comes from a being that I do not believe exists" which places the non believer at a big disadvantage not only in social circles but even in their ability to participate in government. Its wrong for the same reason its wrong for our military folks having to stand in formation while a prayer is broadcast. Its a government establishment of religion that directly contradicts the idea of religious freedom and secular government and holds not only religion over irreligin, but Christianity over others.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:
I feel like you're missing the point, just like the justices were. The issue isn't that other people weren't invited, its that having a prayer for any kind of being, be it the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Jesus serves no purpose for any legislative, judicial, or civic act by any governmental body other than making the particular group the representative a part of feel better. Thus I don't care if the list is 1000 pages long of other people invited, not only does that establish preference of the state for religion over irreligion, it also establishes in practice preference for sectarian speakers over none at all. So yeah invite away all you like, it doesn't make the action any less objectionable when we look at the purpose of legislative actions.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
"Rather than obliterating the wall separating church and state all at once, the Roberts Court’s opinions are dismantling it brick by brick. The clear message from Town of Greece v. Galloway is that prayers before legislative sessions are allowed, no matter how much they are sectarian and from a particular religion. In fact, the practice in the Town of Greece was exactly what Justice Kennedy said could still violate the Establishment Clause: a “pattern of prayers over time” that “proselytize[d]” and “betray[ed] an impermissible government purpose.”" Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Professor at UC Irvine School of Law I know I've been all mad in this thread, but, as a layman Sociology major selling insurance, its good to feel vindicated by a ton of leading legal scholars across the country. 
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You picked a good one to quote, too- Chemerinsky's name is on maybe three of my law books, including the Constitutional Law one. He's arguably the biggest name on that list of big names. I'm reading through all of the posts after the ruling and I'm really intrigued at this. Even those that do not question the Marsh ruling are still scratching their heads as to why Kennedy and Alito give such twisted rulings and why history is being used as such a strong arbiter in this case, when compared to things like say, the Voting Rights Act. The doublespeak is really heavy here, and the more I read, the more frustrated I become. "Its always been this way, so prayer is OK. Why? Because its always been this way as described by Marsh v Chambers. Except when it isn't." Yet when the VRA was handled, they essentially said a lot of the history is meaningless because we need to devise new ways to weigh legislation. Why are the 2nd amendment and religios issues so important to maintain tradition and historical literalism, but literally everything else is up to how the Justices' feel that day? Edit: Another good point: if the prayers are wrong if they are proselytizing, why do the prayers need to be said at all? Is a prayer not proselytizing in and of itself if it is compulsory, public, and orated? Why not do it in public to satisfy Kennedy, Scalia, and Alito's test?
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:To push back a bit, remember that you're seeing the writing of legal academics on SCOTUSBlog- the coverage from opinion writers in particular is going to lean politically Democratic. Why? Their reasoning seems solid.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
I'm late to the game here, and admittedly, I'm only really kind of looking at it because I don't like a lot of the more recent rulings, but.... Is the Supreme Court a good idea? It seems that not only today, but throughout history there have been examples of justices using the bench to shape the United States not in a spirit of the Constitution, but in their own personal biases and agendas. For example, even going back to Dredd Scott, it is clear that the Court was less interested in doing what was in the spirit of the Constitution, and more in line with what they felt should or should not be. Should we have additional checks on SCOTUS? Should justices be for life? I'm sure these questions have been asked and answered before, but the corruption really seems to be a lot more visible as technology and general understanding of law increases.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
All good points, all good points. There ARE positive aspects of SCOTUS as well. It just seems to me, even with the good decisions we've seen, that they could easily have gone the other way based on who happened to be on the bench at any given time. Especially recently, look at all these 5-4 decisions coming down and how our Republic would look very different if Reagan and George H. W. Bush never had the opportunity to appoint the justices they did. To me this seems less an "independent branch to adjudicate the Constitution" and more "I'm in power, so my ideology is going to be represented on the bench for things that have never even been considered before, for the next 60 years". The same goes for Obama and whoever else is elected next. I just feel like it could have been helpful and would be helpful today to have some kind of check against blind partisan and /or revisionist opinions. We should know which way a Justice is going to rule based on their interpretation of the law, not based on who appointed them. We look at Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. We read their opinions and they are often contradictory or nonsensical, or even invalidate previous opinions they have penned. I'm sure other Justices I agree with have done the same as well. Shouldn't there be some way to check against them pushing an ideology in favor of actual interpretation of the Constitution? Also Dapper Dan has good ideas.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
That is a very interesting opinion by Thomas regarding P&I and it seems quite strange that it opens a window for him to pick and choose which rights are and are not protected under the Constitution. It seems it allows him to reject pretty much anything written after 1800 on the grounds that it isn't in the Constitution, so it is up to his interpretation. Is that right?
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
I was wrong to throw in Thomas with Scalia, but I still find his reasoning to be very...how do I want to put it...."reality be damned." I read some of his stuff and it seems that he thinks X should be X. Someone says "whoa hey there, X will allow Y to happen which we all know is unconstitutional!" and he'll say "yeah, maybe, but I'm only ruling on X so X is fine and you guys can deal with Y".
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
Just popping in to say that yes, this is one of the worst decisions SCOTUS could have handed down. The gymnastics these Conservative justices deploy is quite stunning, really.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
Activist judges indeed. Just such a lovely, lovely ruling. Scalia and Thomas can't die/step down soon enough. As far as the case stuff though, why do they still cover vasectomies, but not womens birth control? Why is that allowed for Hobby Lobby? Why wasn't this brought up in the case? Also what is a "closely held" corporation? How does that differ from another?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
A closely held corporation has 50% of its stock held by 5 people or 50 stock? Because, like....a lot of major companies have a few shareholders with majority stakes. Does that make them closely held?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
Thanks for clarifying the "closely held" part. It seems that a lot of companies could be considered "closely held". Aren't companies like Wal Mart and Best Buy owned by very few people with a relative minority of stock actually owned and traded by other people? Would this law apply to them? Would a case that found taxes against their religion hold traction with this ruling and be correct in refusing to pay taxes? Also it bothers me that this court is so lovely and we refer to this court as "The Worst". RBG, Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomoyer have had outstanding dissents in many of these recent cases and are everything right with judicial analysis. The Supreme Court is terrible, but those 4 are pretty kick rear end, particularly RBG.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Far and away most of these 90% are less than 50 employees, but still Right, but even large corporations with tons of employees...aren't the stocks held either directly or indirectly through a very small cadre of shareholders? SO if there is a massive spike in the price, day traders can make money, but the high ups rake in most of the benefit since they are majority shareholders between them? I only ask because if that is the case then companies like Hobby Lobby slip through, but so would Walmart, Best Buy, etc. Other LARGE companies could begin to exempt themselves from parts of the law.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 20:17 |
|
|
I read Justice Scalia's dissent. Its an angry screed of an increasingly irrelevant section of America that needs to die out as soon as possible. He blasts the Supreme Court for not having any Westerners "(California doesn't count!)", and blasts them for changing the understanding of marriage. His account is that the justices have no place applying the law in such a different way (though he conveniently ignores the part where they overturned inter-racial marriage the same way), and thinks its unfair there isn't an evangelical Christian on the Court. Scalia needs to be impeached, and we can be extremely happy that Justice prevailed, and that he did not carry the day
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 15:32
|
|