Red Mosquito

<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

Espinoza wins.

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

Green Habit wrote:Espinoza wins.

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

“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.

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.

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).

Yikes, Thomas and Gorsuch going off the rails here: "Properly understood, the Establishment Clause does not prohibit States from favoring religion. "

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?

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

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).

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

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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. "

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.

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.