Town prayer sessions upheld. SCOTUS 5-4

[Bezombia]

Shit.

[Threlizdun]

SCOTUS fails to enforce the separation of church and state again. How unsurprising.

No SCOTUS has defined this as not violating the separation of church and state.

Which is ridiculous.

[KayCee Masterpiece]

Because only atheists believe those.

I don't think that was implied... but I believe it is more common amongst the religious in America to not believe in those.

Why? because those who believe in a religion are more easily conduced to persuasion

[Neutraligon]

No SCOTUS has defined this as not violating the separation of church and state.

Which is ridiculous.

As greed mentioned there is precedent for this.

[Threlizdun]

Which is ridiculous.

As greed mentioned there is precedent for this.

There have been plenty precedents for unconstitutional acts; it is the job of the Supreme Court justices to recognize these mistakes of the past and rectify them and ensure the constitution is upheld. They have failed with this ruling.

[Wolfmanne]

Don't really care about the decision. But yeah, the US justice system is one of the most retarded in the world. They should either actually be based on proper English-inspired common law instead of this 'elect this Democrat/Republican for Judge of blah blah', or adopt civil law. It would probably remove a lot of the ideological bias everyone is complaining about.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Don't really care about the decision. But yeah, the US justice system is one of the most retarded in the world. They should either actually be based on proper English-inspired common law instead of this 'elect this Democrat/Republican for Judge of blah blah', or adopt civil law. It would probably remove a lot of the ideological bias everyone is complaining about.

Members of the Supreme Court are nominated by the President and confirmed (or not) by the Senate. There are no elections for the positions.

Anyway, this ruling is further proof that they had their fingers crossed behind their backs when they swore to uphold the Constitution.

[Murkwood]

No SCOTUS has defined this as not violating the separation of church and state.

Which is ridiculous.

You think you are better educated than the judges of SCOTUS?

[Bezombia]

Which is ridiculous.

You think you are better educated than the judges of SCOTUS?

I think I'm less blind if that counts.

[Threlizdun]

Which is ridiculous.

You think you are better educated than the judges of SCOTUS?

Better educated? No, I do not have the education they have. Have the capacity to better understand how to protect the separation of church and state? Well, for at least five of them, yes.

[Coexisting Republics]

But why would an Atheist pray? They believe prayers are useless.

Instead of praying we could give arguments for evolution, Big Bang, global warming etc.

Some Christians (such as me) believe in those things. (In fact- and I do not intend to turn this into a "Does God exist" argument- I believe the Big Bang provides a decent argument for God's existence.) The Young Earth Creationists get more airtime because they are louder and care more.

[Death Metal]

"loses". the word is "loses".

No one is forced to pray, and anyone can preach any religion. How does religious freedom lose?

Because it is still endorsement of religion.

[Risottia]

That was split 3 justices in the opinion written by Justice Kennedy said said the coercion test would be satisfied if dissidents were punished or criticized for not joining in the prayer.

Well, considering how in many other circumstances NOT joining a prayer initiated by the head of the assembly would raise some criticism, at least unofficially, I think this would be the case.

an impermissible violations of the establishment clause?

Considering the exact wording of the establishment clause, no, it's not.
Considering the spirit of it, yes it is, but you know, the spirit may be rather subject to interpretation, and given that the SCotUS is the (pen)ultimate arbiter of the spirit of the Constitution of the US (the ultimate being the Congress)...

[Wolfmanne]

Don't really care about the decision. But yeah, the US justice system is one of the most retarded in the world. They should either actually be based on proper English-inspired common law instead of this 'elect this Democrat/Republican for Judge of blah blah', or adopt civil law. It would probably remove a lot of the ideological bias everyone is complaining about.

Members of the Supreme Court are nominated by the President and confirmed (or not) by the Senate. There are no elections for the positions.

Anyway, this ruling is further proof that they had their fingers crossed behind their backs when they swore to uphold the Constitution.

Hell, that's even worse.

[Brilliant Equestria]

Members of the Supreme Court are nominated by the President and confirmed (or not) by the Senate. There are no elections for the positions.

Anyway, this ruling is further proof that they had their fingers crossed behind their backs when they swore to uphold the Constitution.

Hell, that's even worse.

Oh, absolutely. It all-but-guarantees you'll never see a justice who isn't a partisan hack appointed to "reinterpret" things to favor whichever party picked them.

I would assume that people at the state legislature or in the US congress are both adults...I think.

Considering how much contemporary politics resembles schoolyard bickering? I wouldn't bet on it .

Which is ridiculous.

You think you are better educated than the judges of SCOTUS?

I certainly don't have my head wedged so firmly up my own posterior that I'm willing to reinterpret the Constitution because it disagrees with my politics, so I'd say that puts me ahead of them on the "impartiality" scale.

[Greed and Death]

What a surprise, another 5-4 SCOTUS decision split along purely ideological lines.


No, but you do have to learn the coercion test instead. That means they're allowed to make religion as public as they want as long as they aren't actually coercing you into practicing it. Hell, Thomas and Scalia ruled they can totally coerce you as long as they aren't legally forcing you to!

Most of these decision aren't split this way, only the news grabbing ones. When I visited the Court in 2011, they had a 7-2 decision, based on patent law.

This is important to remember the plurality if the not majority of decisions are unanimous.
In fact the court released an unanimous decision today regarding statutory interpretation.

[Caninope]

No SCOTUS has defined this as not violating the separation of church and state.

Which is ridiculous.

Separation of church and state doesn't mean no involvement of either in either.

It means that there two should generally remain separate.

[Caninope]

Hell, that's even worse.

Oh, absolutely. It all-but-guarantees you'll never see a justice who isn't a partisan hack appointed to "reinterpret" things to favor whichever party picked them.

That's not really the case, especially given life terms. In fact, given the state of the Senate Judiciary, it's impossible to get a "partisan hack" on the court- judges, these days, often lack extremely controversial decisions and are often evasive in Judiciary proceedings.

That's also presuming that ideologically motivated jurists cannot be good jurists, which is definitely not the case.

[MERIZoC]

Wow! SCOTUS makes another decision along party lines! Didn't see this one coming!

[MERIZoC]

Which is ridiculous.

You think you are better educated than the judges of SCOTUS?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
We can disagree with them all we want.

[Caninope]

Wow! SCOTUS makes another decision along party lines! Didn't see this one coming!

Pray tell, how often do you think SCOTUS makes 5-4 decisions along "party lines"?

[Caninope]

You think you are better educated than the judges of SCOTUS?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
We can disagree with them all we want.

Appeal to authority is, mind you, not always a logical fallacy when it is actually a subject in which someone is an expert.

[The Black Forrest]

Interesting. I thought government was supposed to represent everybody; not just those who believe in God.

[Threlizdun]

Which is ridiculous.

Separation of church and state doesn't mean no involvement of either in either.

It means that there two should generally remain separate.

Actively having religious messages promoted at governmental sessions being one of those tims where it should be separate.

[Brilliant Equestria]

Oh, absolutely. It all-but-guarantees you'll never see a justice who isn't a partisan hack appointed to "reinterpret" things to favor whichever party picked them.

That's not really the case, especially given life terms. In fact, given the state of the Senate Judiciary, it's impossible to get a "partisan hack" on the court- judges, these days, often lack extremely controversial decisions and are often evasive in Judiciary proceedings.

That's also presuming that ideologically motivated jurists cannot be good jurists, which is definitely not the case.

They're certainly a lot better at failing to openly-state their positions after Bork, yes. They have no such restrictions once they're confirmed.

The Roberts court has decided more cases by 5-4 than any other, about 22%. That's only a point or two higher than the Rehnquist court, but they've most likely got quite a bit more time before Roberts is replaced to widen the gap. Two-thirds of those are split along purely ideological lines; Sebelius was the only exception I can think of off the top of my head. That one was likely because Roberts is smart enough to realize, as he himself said, SCOTUS is in danger of "los[ing] its credibility and legitimacy as an institution".

The composition of the court is a problem too. It's the most conservative court since the 1930's: 4 of the 5 most conservative justices in history are serving now and only 1 of the top 10 most liberal is. Of course, it could be the opposite and we'd still be having the same problem. The whole idea behind life appointments was to protect justices from being influenced by partisan politics. Now, it's just protecting them from the consequences of that.