Ace of Spades HQ

May 05, 2014

Another Ruling: In 5-4 Vote, Supreme Court Blesses Invocation of "Non-Generic" God in Legislative Opening Prayers
— Ace

From the sidebar, but it's been a while since my last post (I'm looking, I'm looking!).

This morning the Supreme Court held in Town of Greece v. Galloway, that the townÂ’s practice of beginning legislative sessions with prayers does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It was a 5-4 decision, split along traditional right-left lines, though there is not a clear majority opinion.

It's not a clear majority opinion because while five votes support the ruling in this case, there are not five votes for any sequence of logic -- the five conservative justices alternately join, or refuse to join, each other's opinions as to why they're holding as they are.

(Note: A decision's "holding" is just who wins, who loses, more or less. The opinion is more important going forward, as that will inform lower judges how to apply the law. With no clear majority opinion, I'm not sure if any law has actually been made here.)

The dispute comes down to how a court should analyze "coercion" in such matters. While people may have the right to invoke, say, Jesus Christ in their opening legislative prayer, all members of the court seem sensitive, to one degree or another, to the possibility that specific invocations of a specific religion in official state business might "coerce" non-believers in some way.

Scalia and Thomas refuse to join Kennedy's opinion on this point, because they find that he creates an overbroad definition of "coercion" that would outlaw too many sorts of prayer.

Posted by: Ace at 10:25 AM | Comments (98)
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.

1 It's not a clear majority opinion because while five votes support the ruling in this case, there are not five votes for any sequence of logic -- the five conservative justices alternately join, or refuse to join, each other's opinions as to why they're holding as they are. (Note: A decision's "holding" is just who wins, who loses, more or less. The opinion is more important going forward, as that will inform lower judges how to apply the law. With no clear majority opinion, I'm not sure if any law has actually been made here.) I freaking hate playing the Find The Actual Ruling! game. Also *rocks* can't sleep Lemon Test will eat me. Though this is a win and there's actually a big fight in a town by me about this so hopefully that will end that litigation.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at May 05, 2014 10:27 AM (mf5HN)

2 The shocking part is how 4 Justices are willing to destroy 200 years of American tradition when it comes to public ceremonial prayer.

Maybe not shocking, just disturbing, sad and unfortunate.

Posted by: Obama Lied Jobs Died at May 05, 2014 10:27 AM (wT9UL)

3 BOOOOOOOOO!

Posted by: DNC Delegates at May 05, 2014 10:28 AM (Eflez)

4 We should open this brand new thread by bowing our heads and giving thanks to the great bounty given to us by God, Zeus.

Posted by: Stateless Infidel at May 05, 2014 10:28 AM (AC0lD)

5 Ha! Fear my corgi powers. Fear. Them.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at May 05, 2014 10:28 AM (mf5HN)

6 Gowdy named to head Bengazi probe. Should be interesting.

Posted by: maddogg at May 05, 2014 10:29 AM (xWW96)

7 I really love Milque-toast.

Posted by: Justice Kennedy at May 05, 2014 10:29 AM (N7QgG)

8 They had already ruled this way in a similar case in 1983 when the court was more liberal. This was just more crap from the left to make it reach this far to begin with.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at May 05, 2014 10:29 AM (T2V/1)

9 Shouldn't it reach the point where aetheists will have to point to an actual case of coercion, instead of saying their feelings are hurt. Can they explain why this is an afront that impacts their daily lives in the least?

Posted by: dIb at May 05, 2014 10:30 AM (bzXF1)

10 I don't as a rule like public prayers at government events. But I think people should have the freedom to do so if they wish.

Posted by: grammie winger at May 05, 2014 10:30 AM (oMKp3)

11 Soon the only "deity" who can be publicly mentioned will be Gaia. Or Islam. Depends on which of our oppressors ultimately win.

Posted by: Lauren at May 05, 2014 10:31 AM (ejehg)

12 Flying Spaghetti Monster hardest hit.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b][/u] at May 05, 2014 10:31 AM (0HooB)

13 Allah Akbar! You idiots asked for it...

Posted by: Melvin at May 05, 2014 10:31 AM (4NBwD)

14 Isn't it nice to know that Constitutional Interpretation comes down to Four Liberals, Four Conservatives, and MEEEEEEEEE!!!

Posted by: Justice Kennedy at May 05, 2014 10:31 AM (N7QgG)

15 9 Shouldn't it reach the point where aetheists will have to point to an actual case of coercion, instead of saying their feelings are hurt. Can they explain why this is an afront that impacts their daily lives in the least? Well, there's that baker and photographer. Wait, wait...that was atheists forcing christians to do things.

Posted by: DNC Delegates at May 05, 2014 10:31 AM (Eflez)

16 Any easy one is Boner Johnny appointing Gowdy to the head of the Select Committee. And some history on what those committees can and cannot do.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at May 05, 2014 10:31 AM (oFCZn)

17 Also *rocks* can't sleep Lemon Test will eat me. Time to throw a lemon party.

Posted by: wooga at May 05, 2014 10:31 AM (waJ2a)

18 Begone, sock!

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at May 05, 2014 10:32 AM (Eflez)

19 Huzzzzah!

Posted by: Republique De Banana at May 05, 2014 10:32 AM (thLL8)

20 Hmm. Suddenly the SCOTUS is all tentative and milquetoasty. Sometimes I get the feeling that the justices who know they have gotten or are getting a big win will let the other justices have a small one as a consolation prize. But that's entirely subjective.

Posted by: joncelli at May 05, 2014 10:32 AM (RD7QR)

21 You mean, let me understand this, 'cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little fucked up maybe, but I'm generic how? I mean generic like I'm a clown?

Posted by: Ahura Mazda at May 05, 2014 10:32 AM (8ZskC)

22 Shouldn't it reach the point where aetheists will have to point to an actual case of coercion, instead of saying their feelings are hurt. Can they explain why this is an afront that impacts their daily lives in the least?

Posted by: dIb at May 05, 2014 02:30 PM (bzXF1)

Chilling effect!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: The Guy Who Runs Around Screaming "Chilling Effect" [/i][/b][/s][/u] at May 05, 2014 10:33 AM (JpC1K)

23 It's not fair, Justice Kennedy gets more attention for the New york Times than I do.

Posted by: Juan McCain at May 05, 2014 10:33 AM (N7QgG)

24 "Compromise is now a dirty word." That's what George Bush's (the shittier president) granddaughter childishly lamented as she accepted a Kennedy Profile In Courage [gimme a f'n break] Award on his behalf. The stupid bullshit award was on account of Bush breaking his no new taxes promise...for the good of the country. Once again, the Democrats getting their way is a 'compromise. '

Posted by: Soothie § at May 05, 2014 10:33 AM (+/n0G)

25 Ungrateful Loaf has a new piece up at Hot Air; you could always steal that ace.

It's about a second VA center lying about waiting lists.

Posted by: GnuBreed at May 05, 2014 10:33 AM (wNF3N)

26 Kagan's dissent is the epitome of stupid.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at May 05, 2014 10:33 AM (T2V/1)

27 Ace, if you want content watch the Rick Perry interview on Meet the Press. Quite impressive. A sober studious Perry who stays on message and attacks Obama directly but also is positive. Sounded like a guy who knew he needed an image makeover and is readying himself for a serious run in 2016. Interesting.

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2014 10:34 AM (gmeXX)

28 Maybe not shocking, just disturbing, sad and unfortunate. Yeah, I'm not particularly shocked.

Posted by: HR at May 05, 2014 10:34 AM (/kI1Q)

29 2 The shocking part is how 4 Justices are willing to destroy 200 years of American tradition when it comes to public ceremonial prayer.
***

Leftist Magical Thinking:

"We've quoted Jefferson's letter for years now on the Internet so that trumps reality!"

In their minds, the actual words of the Constitution hold no power compared to their decades long public clapping for Tinkerbell. (See gun, abortion, etc.)

Posted by: B at May 05, 2014 10:35 AM (VC56G)

30 "It's not a clear majority opinion because while five votes support the ruling in this case, there are not five votes for any sequence of logic -- the five conservative justices alternately join, or refuse to join, each other's opinions as to why they're holding as they are." I've always regarded the inability for judges to agree on matters of law as indicative that at least some of them don't know what the F*** they are talking about.

Posted by: D-Lamp at May 05, 2014 10:35 AM (bb5+k)

31 btw, I think Bush's granddaughter' s name is Lauren Bush Lauren, or something like that.

Posted by: Soothie § at May 05, 2014 10:35 AM (+/n0G)

32 26 Kagan's dissent is the epitome of stupid. Kagan's last good work (aside from having a generic Highlander villain name) was in Paul Blart: Mall Cop

Posted by: wooga at May 05, 2014 10:36 AM (waJ2a)

33 I don't think we want to live our lives based on what was written 2000 years ago.....

Posted by: John F'n Kerry at May 05, 2014 10:36 AM (l3vZN)

34 A "generic" God. Somehow I feel that just pissed God off even more than he is now.

Posted by: Soona at May 05, 2014 10:36 AM (I2drx)

35 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 05, 2014 10:36 AM (PYAXX)

36 Gabe posted at Hot Air again? An Ace post where he deals with these traitors once and for all is one I want to see!!11!

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at May 05, 2014 10:37 AM (oFCZn)

37 And the atheists wept.

Posted by: teh Wind at May 05, 2014 10:37 AM (B3WUC)

38 11 Soon the only "deity" who can be publicly mentioned will be Gaia. Or Islam. Depends on which of our oppressors ultimately win. Posted by: Lauren at May 05, 2014 02:31 PM (ejehg) The Islamists will eat the Pajama boy crowd for breakfast. On second thought, maybe not. Pork is not Halal.

Posted by: D-Lamp at May 05, 2014 10:37 AM (bb5+k)

39 32 26 Kagan's dissent is the epitome of stupid.
Kagan's last good work (aside from having a generic Highlander villain name) was in Paul Blart: Mall Cop
***

I hear her Segway was taken out behind the barn and put down.

Posted by: B at May 05, 2014 10:37 AM (VC56G)

from the link

"Still more, GreeceÂ’s Board did nothing to recognize religious diversity: In arranging for clergy members to open each meeting, the Town never sought (except briefly when this suit was filed) to involve, accommodate, or in any way reach out to adherents of non-Christian religions. So month in and month out for over a decade, prayers steeped in only one faith, addressed toward members of the public, commenced meetings to discuss local affairs and distribute government benefits."

How is Christianity ONE faith? There are hundreds of them and they used to happily slaughter each other over the differences in their 'one faith'.

Posted by: buzzsaw90 at May 05, 2014 10:37 AM (SO2Q8)

41 I, like others I'm sure, absolutely believe in G-d... except when I don't. But one has to wonder at this. I'm guessing that since "non-generic" is in quotes that it was used in the ruling? If G-d does exist, I'm sure He must be shaking His head in amused disbelief, coupled with disgust, mixed with regret for ever having created this mass of arrogant, puffed up, self important, ass hats that humanity represented by this society has become.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at May 05, 2014 10:37 AM (BZAd3)

42 27 Ace, if you want content watch the Rick Perry interview on Meet the Press. Quite impressive. A sober studious Perry who stays on message and attacks Obama directly but also is positive. Sounded like a guy who knew he needed an image makeover and is readying himself for a serious run in 2016. Interesting. Perry wants to increase the "Maximum Wage" heh heh. I quite often like the cut of Perry's jib.

Posted by: Guy Who Doesn't Give a Shit at May 05, 2014 10:38 AM (7ObY1)

43 34 A "generic" God. Somehow I feel that just pissed God off even more than he is now. Posted by: Soona at May 05, 2014 02:36 PM (I2drx) Which is one reason I'm not a fan of ceremonial prayers. Prayer isn't for show.

Posted by: grammie winger at May 05, 2014 10:38 AM (oMKp3)

44 I've always regarded the inability for judges to agree on matters of law as indicative that at least some of them don't know what the F*** they are talking about. I've looked upon it as an inability to recognize Principle, which is sad.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b][/u] at May 05, 2014 10:38 AM (0HooB)

45 "Ha! Fear my corgi powers. Fear. Them. Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at May 05, 2014 02:28 PM"

Most excellent corgi post from the last thread, Empress. Improved Monday afternoon measurably. Added points for the use of 'cromulent.'

Posted by: RedMindBlueState at May 05, 2014 10:38 AM (knoK7)

46 In b4 Ace says "Give it a rest!"

Posted by: Soothie § at May 05, 2014 10:38 AM (+/n0G)

47 Wait wait wait. So a prayer opening a legislative session is somehow... "coercive?" How? Let's say, as a "for instance," some jaggoff invites Mohammad Mohammed Mohommod, the local Imam, to give the invocation. Even if M3 says something along the lines of, "And let everyone know that Allah will destroy all these infidels!" How is that "coercive?" I guess what I'm asking is- how can a single prayer be "coercive?"

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 05, 2014 10:39 AM (PYAXX)

48 What I found interesting is that if a pryaer is invited, the government doesn't get to play editor over the content of the prayer. That the court is saying no administrator is competent to do that is, to me quite fascinating as a rebuke to overreach.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Wash and Wax Your Wroth at the Outrage Outlet! at May 05, 2014 10:39 AM (hLRSq)

49 In my view, the First Amendment specifically elevates and protects religious speech above all others. If, in the same context, someone can spout about the glories of socialism or the wisdom of Marx, then an expression of a more realistic faith should be permitted. I don't like regular ceremonial prayers at public events either. I think tying religion to the state profanes religion. Then again, I don't think "unconstitutional" is synonymous with "bad idea".

Posted by: AmishDude at May 05, 2014 10:39 AM (1UzRc)

50 What I don't get about why Christians want to evoke God in public meetings, is that they are being bound not to evangelize. That hinders their freedom of speech. How is this a victory?

Posted by: Melvin at May 05, 2014 10:39 AM (4NBwD)

51 There's also that little thing about North Korea having missile ready nuclear warheads (note the plural) and an ICBM capable of reaching any point in the US -- that seems kinda important:

http://tinyurl.com/oxm3qmy

(Washington Free Beacon)

Posted by: GnuBreed at May 05, 2014 10:40 AM (wNF3N)

52 If G-d does exist, I'm sure He must be shaking His head in amused disbelief, coupled with disgust, mixed with regret for ever having created this mass of arrogant, puffed up, self important, ass hats that humanity represented by this society has become. I imagine he's ripshit about the using babies for fuel thing. There's something about wrath, fire, and swords when you hurt children in the Bible.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at May 05, 2014 10:40 AM (Eflez)

53 Our generic Father Who art in heaven, or any generic non-earthly realm Hallowed be thy generic name, whataver that may be

Posted by: Guy Who Doesn't Give a Shit at May 05, 2014 10:40 AM (7ObY1)

54 "....but it's been a while since my last post (I'm looking, I'm looking!)." Here you are scrambling to post something interesting while Ana Marie Cox is knocking down mid-six figures opining on CNN and MSNBC. All because she knew how to mix ass fucking with politics. Makes you wish you could turn the clock back, doesn't it?

Posted by: jwest at May 05, 2014 10:40 AM (u2a4R)

55 Perry wants to increase the "Maximum Wage" heh heh. ---- Its kind of corny line, but if you hear the interview in which he gives it he is talking about growth policies. The interview is pretty impressive. If that Perry had shown up in 2012, he might have won. It will be interesting to see how he does. He has an opportunity to come across as an elder statesman.

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2014 10:40 AM (gmeXX)

Chilling effect!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

Great, a global warming defense.

Posted by: buzzsaw90 at May 05, 2014 10:40 AM (SO2Q8)

57 "The stupid bullshit award was on account of Bush breaking his no new taxes promise...for the good of the country."

I won't contaminate the blog with the detailed math, but just a reminder here:

Bush broke his "no new taxes" pledge in a deal with Democrats. A combined policy package to raise taxes, cut spending and reduce deficits. There was a specific numerical target for the amount the deficit was supposed to come down in the five subsequent fiscal years.

What happened then? After Bush raised taxes, Democrats openly laughed in his face over what a sucker he was, and they completely reneged on their promise to cut spending. Average deficits in the five years following were actually HIGHER than before.

So, yeah, Poppy deserves that prize, since it's a prize Democrats hand out to people they approve of, and Democrats always approve of gullible twits who they can easily take to the cleaners in fake "deals".

Posted by: torquewrench at May 05, 2014 10:41 AM (noWW6)

58 The stupid bullshit award was on account of Bush breaking his no new taxes promise...for the good of the country. Once again, the Democrats getting their way is a 'compromise. ' Posted by: Soothie Â§ at May 05, 2014 02:33 PM (+/n0G) It was not for the good of the country. As a matter of fact, I would have a difficult time pointing out anything which he could have done which would have been worse for the country. That boneheaded move handed the Presidency to Bill Clinton, and it's the reason why we have some of these fucked up 5-4 majorities.

Posted by: D-Lamp at May 05, 2014 10:41 AM (bb5+k)

59 Its kind of corny line, but if you hear the interview in which he gives it he is talking about growth policies. The interview is pretty impressive. If that Perry had shown up in 2012, he might have won. It will be interesting to see how he does. He has an opportunity to come across as an elder statesman. I did hear the interview, and I wasn't mocking him. That's why I said I like the cut of his jib.

Posted by: Guy Who Doesn't Give a Shit at May 05, 2014 10:41 AM (7ObY1)

60 What I don't get about why Christians want to evoke God in public meetings, is that they are being bound not to evangelize. That hinders their freedom of speech. Hmmm.......We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Posted by: eleven at May 05, 2014 10:42 AM (GXZgZ)

61 >> Gabe posted at Hot Air again?

Actually he has *two* posts up there today.

Posted by: GnuBreed at May 05, 2014 10:42 AM (wNF3N)

62 26 Kagan's dissent is the epitome of stupid. Posted by: Vic at May 05, 2014 02:33 PM (T2V/1) As is, I would assume, the opinions of everyone on her side. Truly not worth the trouble to even read.

Posted by: D-Lamp at May 05, 2014 10:42 AM (bb5+k)

63 There's something about wrath, fire, and swords when you hurt children in the Bible. Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at May 05, 2014 02:40 PM (Eflez) You said a mouthful there. For those who remember what evil used to be, it is truly breathtaking what we've come to accept.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at May 05, 2014 10:43 AM (BZAd3)

64 26 Kagan's dissent is the epitome of stupid. Posted by: Vic at May 05, 2014 02:33 PM (T2V/1) I thought -- compared to Breyer, Sotomayor and Ginsburg -- Kagan would be the intellectual powerhouse of the liberal group. Breyer's a dimwit who passionately believes in whatever he heard some fashionable law professor say. Sotomayor is an imbecile who will rule for whatever side she is on personally. Ginsburg is a radical who never deviates from the party line. Kagan is just a hollow dimwit. Anyone who does not make a negative correlation between Harvard Law and intellect is a fool.

Posted by: AmishDude at May 05, 2014 10:43 AM (1UzRc)

65 I think Perry is probably a stronger candidate than many think. If Cruz is too far right and Jeb too much of a centrist, and if Walker either doesn't run or can't get traction because of personality, Perry has an opportunity to be a bridge candidate - no? Probably no use thinking about it. Let's get through 2014 first. I just thought it was an entirely different Perry. Not just the retail politician, but came across as someone who has clearly thought through policy and also sounded empathetic. He closed by saying that he is most worried about the 90MM no longer working.

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2014 10:44 AM (gmeXX)

66 Yeah, it is dangerous to mention God the creator where it looks like the government might believe in him. I mean if we don't check it we could end up with people writing dangerous things like

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Posted by: 18-1 at May 05, 2014 10:45 AM (78TbK)

67 Whatever happened to the concept of suffering actual damages before you could file a lawsuit? Also, without a clear opinion here, I don't think this is controlling law. But I don't have a degree in teh. asshole, so the actual lawyers will have to address that.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at May 05, 2014 10:45 AM (c9dXE)

68 Raising the taxes on rich white men was a COURAGEOUS decision by Bush. I really really hate the word compromise. There is Right, Wrong, and Compromise, which is also wrong.

Posted by: Soothie § at May 05, 2014 10:45 AM (+/n0G)

69 I've looked upon it as an inability to recognize Principle, which is sad. Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit at May 05, 2014 02:38 PM (0HooB) Same thought, better put.

Posted by: D-Lamp at May 05, 2014 10:45 AM (bb5+k)

70 So, yeah, Poppy deserves that prize, since it's a prize Democrats hand out to people they approve of Nope. They always -- always -- give it to somebody who defies the will of the people in favor of liberal policies.

Posted by: AmishDude at May 05, 2014 10:46 AM (1UzRc)

71 No comment on the ruling other than to note that because everyone got the vapors when Nina Totenberg "reported" that Judge Ginsburg had toked AND inhaled a few times back in the '60s, we now have Justice Hand-Me-A-Coin-To-Flip Kennedy to endure. Bah.

Posted by: Furious George at May 05, 2014 10:46 AM (yFb77)

72 Good. I would hate to stop the morning headline evocation that starts every day here at AoShq: O, Great Ewok! Awake From Your Stupor! For Today Is Another Shitty Day!

Posted by: Pugs of Zion at May 05, 2014 10:46 AM (8c12T)

73
I imagine he's ripshit about the using babies for fuel thing.
___
Hey its what the cool people are doing. Do you really want to be a bunch of squares?

Posted by: Moloch at May 05, 2014 10:47 AM (78TbK)

>>>A "generic" God. Somehow I feel that just pissed God off even more than he is now.

Ever been to Greece, NY? Sprawl city, d00d

Posted by: Bigby's Fudge Finger at May 05, 2014 10:48 AM (3ZtZW)

75 Kagan's dissent is the epitome of stupid. Posted by: Vic at May 05, 2014 02:33 PM (T2V/1) Poor Justice Kagan doesn't have the benefit of being enlightened by the authentic cultural experience (not to mention the extensive library of authentic Hispanic recipes) of a Wise Latina, so she just does the best she can.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at May 05, 2014 10:48 AM (8ZskC)

What I don't get about why Christians want to evoke God in public meetings, is that they are being bound not to evangelize. That hinders their freedom of speech.

Hmmm.......We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Posted by: eleven at May 05, 2014 02:42 PM (GXZgZ)

--------------------------------------------

You'll notice that atheists come out in force on threads like this. I, for one, will welcome the prayers prior to public events. I'm hoping that it'll spread to public schools next.

Posted by: Soona at May 05, 2014 10:48 AM (I2drx)

77 Should be unanimous.Nobody is trying to establish a fucking religion!

Posted by: steevy at May 05, 2014 10:49 AM (zqvg6)

78 This sounds very much like a tax to me.

Posted by: akula51[/b][/i][/s] at May 05, 2014 10:49 AM (my0dy)

79 We have decreed that the peasants may have another god before us.

For now.

Posted by: 12 Black Robed Figures From Atop Olympus at May 05, 2014 10:49 AM (5ikDv)

80 Speaking of 2014, tomorrow is NC-pocalpyse, when we nominate either an establishment toady or a Cliven Bundy-style firebrand, at least according to the local editorial pages. Another guy, Mark Harris, actually made a good impression on me recently and I wish I'd heard of him earlier. If nobody gets 40%, there will be a runoff, I believe.

Posted by: Lincolntf at May 05, 2014 10:50 AM (ZshNr)

Just remember, that non-generic God will cost double the prayers of the generic version.

So consider switching today...

Posted by: Generic God manufacturers of America at May 05, 2014 10:50 AM (SO2Q8)

82 Nood

Posted by: nnptcgrad at May 05, 2014 10:51 AM (Dvfyi)

83 I see the "keep Gawd in the public square!" stuff as a colossal squirrel. Swine like Huckabee love to roll around in that crap. It keeps them from having to justify, you know, actual policy. On the Dem side, again, they use the "CHRISTO FASCISM!!tenplusone!" screeching to scare (stupid) single women into the polls. And it keeps them from having to explain why there are no good men around and why women STILL can't get anywhere at work. Harrumph.

Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at May 05, 2014 10:51 AM (N+d9q)

84 In my view, the First Amendment specifically elevates and protects religious speech above all others.
***
In the famous letter where Jefferson evokes a wall of separation between church and state he is doing so to specifically argue that the secular authorities cannot punish religious groups they view as "extremists" (the Danbury Baptists at the time).

In other words his argument is essentially the opposite of how his phrase is now used where it is argued that religious people should be excluded from the public policy sphere.

Of course if we are going to take stuff Jefferson wrote that have nothing to do with the actual text of the Constitution and just make it part of the Constitution I vote that we go with the whole state nullification thing.

Posted by: 18-1 at May 05, 2014 10:51 AM (78TbK)

Nobody is trying to establish a fucking religion!

---

What a GREAT IDEA

Posted by: Hugh Hefner at May 05, 2014 10:51 AM (SO2Q8)

>>>Generic God manufacturers of America

You make those Buddy Jesus lawn figures, right?

Posted by: Bigby's Fudge Finger at May 05, 2014 10:52 AM (3ZtZW)

87 Most excellent corgi post from the last thread, Empress. Improved Monday afternoon measurably. Added points for the use of 'cromulent.' Posted by: RedMindBlueState at May 05, 2014 02:38 PM (knoK7) Corgis do improve most things, yes. Also is that not just the perfect visual depiction of the Horde pounding on the F5 key?

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at May 05, 2014 10:53 AM (mf5HN)

God walks into a bar and orders a beer.

The bartender tells his atheist friend later that night, " you'll never believe who came into the bar today"

Posted by: polynikes at May 05, 2014 10:55 AM (m2CN7)

89 Then again, I don't think "unconstitutional" is synonymous with "bad idea". I really need a tank.

Posted by: HR at May 05, 2014 10:57 AM (/kI1Q)

90 >>> The shocking part is how 4 Justices are willing to destroy 200 years of American tradition when it comes to public ceremonial prayer. We aren't calling on one specific religion only to to do the invocationsÂ—not only Catholics, or only Lutherans, or only Jews, or only spaghetti monsters. So those who oppose opening invocations of a higher power to provide widsomÂ—whatever direction that wisdom may come from for each individual personÂ—can suck it. Heaven forbid we look to a power greater than the state and our all knowing civic leaders for guidance! Blasphemy! Oh and afternoon all! Happy Cinco de Quatro. Or Quatro de Cinco. How does it go again Mr. Preezy?

Posted by: LizLem at May 05, 2014 10:57 AM (yRwC8)

91 Growing up, I went to Catholic school for about half my early education. There were several non- Catholic kids that went there as well because their parents preferred exposure to a different religion over the war zones and crappy, teacher's union limited education of public schools. The whole school went to church sometimes. The kids that weren't Catholic went too, but didn't participate. They just stood by respectfully; just as I did when I went to different churches/ synagogs/ etc. for friends weddings/ funerals/ etc. These days, I consider myself something close to atheist/ agnostic. I still go to Christmas parties with friends, weddings, funerals, etc. I've been to sports events, political rallies, and other public functions where people pray. I simply stand by respectfully. I exchange gifts on Christmas sometimes because it's fun. Over the years, I've had friends actively try to convert me to their religion. None have succeeded. In all cases, however, I wasn't offended. I took it in the spirit it was intended. They feel that their beliefs offer me a better life or afterlife and want me to be more involved with their community. How is that bad or offensive? I'm flattered but I simply don't share their beliefs. Like all other rights enshrined in the Constitution, freedom of religion does not need interpretation. The answer to every question is simple: Shut up, grow up, and stop being offended by stupid shit. You know what offends me? Obama. I hate the man and everything he stands for, but if he came to my house in his capacity as POTUS, I'd welcome him in and be respectful to the office and the fact that 52% of the population voted for him while I vigorously disagreed, debated, and did everything possible to oppose his policies and hold him accountable for his failures, lies, and actions.

Posted by: Damiano at May 05, 2014 10:58 AM (j0wOO)

92 Kagen? I like her.

Posted by: Lou Costello at May 05, 2014 11:00 AM (thLL8)

93 I think Perry is probably a stronger candidate than many think. If Cruz is too far right and Jeb too much of a centrist, and if Walker either doesn't run or can't get traction because of personality, Perry has an opportunity to be a bridge candidate - no?

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2014 02:44 PM (gmeXX)

Rick Perry is a very strong candidate when he's not stoned on painkillers. I understand why he did it, but Perry's decision to run for president in 2012 immediately after undergoing major back surgery showed a marked lack of judgement. However, given the choice between Perry and, say, Jeb Bush, I'd go with Perry every time.

Actually, I'd go with anybody over Jeb Bush. He's a pudgy little nobody whose last name is Bush, a paragon of mediocrity whom the Republican Establishment has evidently designated Next In Line.

No. No way. Not doing it. I don't give a damn if the Democrats nominate zombie Boss Tweed. To paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt, when it comes to Jeb Bush, I could carve a better man from a banana.

Posted by: troyriser at May 05, 2014 11:05 AM (2jF2B)

94 Hey, guess what. When George Washington was inaugurated, he and the Representatives and Senators at the time which were about to begin the US Govt. attended a CHURCH service(aghhh), and then said in his inaugural address the following words "it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence."

Posted by: Jen at May 05, 2014 11:21 AM (I+pAz)

95 and then at the end of the address, said this "Having thus imparted to you my sentiments as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend."

Posted by: Jen at May 05, 2014 11:22 AM (I+pAz)

96 Dear something (we're not sure what) but we don't want to use the word "father" because that might trigger something in people who grew up with abusive fathers. Who is someplace-but we don't want to call it "heaven" and thus make people think of the word that begins with an h and ends in an l, and thus give the impression there is a place where anybody is excluded. "Hallowed' sounds all old fashioned and stuff so let's just use "Thumbs up" be your name-whatever it is-Just call yourself whatever makes you feel comfortable. Your Kingdom sounds all military hierarchical and like so let's use "Kindom" come, Your will be done-as long as it's just what we thinks is just, peaceful and inclusive. On earth. Isn't that a tad exclusive?!!. Can't we say Universe? As it is in the place were not sure exists but if it does everybody is welcome no matter what they believe as long as they were what we perceive to be nice. Give us our GMO free bread and forgive us "whatever" as we forgive those who really deserve to be forgiven. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil of being exclusive or right wing or judgmental. For yours is the happy place where power is equally shared and we're all like little gods. Forever and ever. Amen

Posted by: Rev. I believe anything that's good at May 05, 2014 11:43 AM (XyM/Y)

"It's not a clear majority opinion because while five votes support the ruling in this case, there are not five votes for any sequence of logic -- the five conservative justices alternately join, or refuse to join, each other's opinions as to why they're holding as they are."

Not quite true. The only point of contention is over whether the prayers are unconstitutionally coercive. Justices Thomas and Scalia believe states are not constitutionally forbidden from establishing religion, so they dissent from the part of Kennedy's that should, in their view, be constitutionally irrelevant.

As far as reasoning for allowing the prayers, the majority straightens out the reading of Marsh and reasons why sectarian prayers are permissable. This precedent undercuts much of the liberal argument.

Thus the matter left open by this decision is whether a particular expression of religion is unconstitutionally coercive - but Kennedy, Alito, and Roberts all accept in the orphaned section of the opinion that certain expressions can be unconstituoinally coercive. And Thomas and Scalia do believe states are forbidden from infringing the free exercise of religion (just that establishment doesn't qualify de jure). So I do think the non-majority part of the opinion is quite narrow.

Posted by: Crispian at May 05, 2014 12:17 PM (n9Zp5)

98 Next step, a little call & response with the audience http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSmYRKBcgTM

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at May 05, 2014 04:55 PM (5xmd7)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled.

124kb generated in CPU 0.1098, elapsed 0.335 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.3146 seconds, 226 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.