Sotomayor, Breyer, Kagan against 1A prayer

[IronsightsRifleman]

SCOTUS today ruled in favor of a public school football coach who was fired for kneeling on the field in prayer. Guess who dissented?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...1-418_i425.pdf

[spectralhunter]

I don’t understand why this case even got this far. The coach prayed after a game and I think he didn’t force anyone else to join him. What am I missing?

Those three care nothing for the Constitution. They want laws built in their own image.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Barang]

when you reject God, the truth becomes irrelevant and you become so wicked that you no longer hear your conscience.

Romans 1:26-32 nasb

26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged natural relations for that which is contrary to nature, 27 and likewise the men, too, abandoned natural relations [a]with women and burned in their desire toward one another, males with males committing [b]shameful acts and receiving in [c]their own persons the due penalty of their error.

28 And just as they did not see fit [d]to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a depraved mind, to do those things that are not proper, 29 people having been filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, and evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, [e]haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unfeeling, and unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them.

[Wordupmybrotha]

Not surprised at all, because liberals are anti-Christian. I don't understand why Christians vote for democrats.

[M76]

Send sotomayor a 50lb box of sees candies,
and kagan/breyer each a 50lb bag of d*cks.

[Vinnie Boombatz]

I am far from being a religious person, and like a previous poster don't even understand how this case was even a case. Let people pray if they want to pray! How is that during anyone? Coach never forced or even encouraged anyone (including the players) to participate and it was all voluntary. Some criticized the coach by saying he probably played favorites to the students that did pray, but he actually made a player captain who was vocal about not wanting to pray, stating he admired the kid for sticking to his guns and being an individual, which he said were leadership qualities.

I bet this would be much different if it was a muslim who was praying after each game. Wouldn't have even become a case.

People need to stop worrying about and whining about what other people are doing and worry more about themselves. It seems like people just can't bear to see other peopel happy and living their lives.

[Wordupmybrotha]

Originally Posted by Vinnie Boombatz

I bet this would be much different if it was a muslim who was praying after each game. Wouldn't have even become a case.
.

^^^this

[M76]

Originally Posted by Wordupmybrotha

Not surprised at all, because liberals are anti-Christian. I don't understand why Christians vote for democrats.

they're not Christian, especially if their "pastor" or "preacher" spouts off
about "social justice" or "systemic racism" instead of actual scripture and
they wholeheartedly believe that leftist bullsh*t posing as spiritualism.

[Wordupmybrotha]

Originally Posted by M76

they're not Christian, especially if their "pastor" or "preacher" spouts off
about "social justice" or "systemic racism" instead of actual scripture and
they wholeheartedly believe that leftist bullsh*t posing as spiritualism.

I understand your sentiment, but I wouldn't go that far. I think there are real Christians with really poor understanding of politics.

[Barang]

Originally Posted by M76

they're not Christian, especially if their "pastor" or "preacher" spouts off
about "social justice" or "systemic racism" instead of actual scripture and
they wholeheartedly believe that leftist bullsh*t posing as spiritualism.

we have that in christian world ... and then rinos in politics.

[Fastattack]

Originally Posted by Wordupmybrotha

Not surprised at all, because liberals are anti-Christian. I don't understand why Christians vote for democrats.

I hate to spill the beans, but they have infiltrated a surprising number of churches already, and warped the Word of God into their own image.

[spectralhunter]

Originally Posted by Wordupmybrotha

I understand your sentiment, but I wouldn't go that far. I think there are real Christians with really poor understanding of politics.

Sadly there are a lot who call themselves Christians who have a poor understanding of the Gospel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Barang]

Matthew 7:20-23 nkjv

20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’

23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

[socal m1 shooter]

Originally Posted by Barang

Matthew 7:20-23 nkjv

20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

[...]

Too, Psalm 14:1:

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds;
there is none who does good.

They tell themselves, ‘I shall be safe, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart.’

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by IronsightsRifleman

SCOTUS today ruled in favor of a public school football coach who was fired for kneeling on the field in prayer. Guess who dissented?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...1-418_i425.pdf

Knelling on a football field. Maybe he was merely looking for a spot on a NFL team? Oh, you did say he was praying.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by spectralhunter

I don’t understand why this case even got this far. The coach prayed after a game and I think he didn’t force anyone else to join him. What am I missing?

Did you read Sotomayor's dissent? Justice Gorsuch wrote, "He offered his prayers quietly while his students were otherwise occupied." However, as Justice Sotomayor points out, that is contrary to the factual findings of the trial court, which should be binding on every appellate court, including the Supreme Court.

The difficulty is that the line between the free exercise clause and the establishment clause is exceedingly narrow. If the true facts were that Coach Kennedy had prayed quietly while his students were otherwise occupied, then it would be a clear free exercise case and the court's ruling correct. But the factual findings of the trial court say something entirely different and what they show crosses the line into establishment clause territory. That his conduct was clearly in establishment clause territory is underscored and born out by the fact that the District received calls from Satanists who “ ‘intended to conduct ceremonies on the field after foot-ball games if others were allowed to.’ ” They clearly were not asking to quietly pray is some isolated corner. They wanted to grandstand in the middle of the field as Coach Kennedy was doing.

It appears that the court took the case to overturn Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971) which had been somewhat abandoned. Lemon had expanded the boundaries of the establishment clause to the point that it had consumed part of the free exercise clause. What is not clear is whether this case with its factual conflicts has settled anything with respect to the boundary between these clauses.

Those three care nothing for the Constitution. They want laws built in their own image.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I respectfully disagree that with respect to this case you can rightly say that the dissent cares nothing for the Constitution. Respecting the boundary between the establishment and free exercise clauses is not an easy task and reasonable people may rightly disagree where the precise boundary should lie.

[Reno-Kid]

Originally Posted by Wordupmybrotha

Not surprised at all, because liberals are anti-Christian. I don't understand why Christians vote for democrats.

That's exactly right! Had it been a Muslim with a prayer rug they would be 100% behind his so called rights.

[Cowboy T]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

Did you read Sotomayor's dissent? Justice Gorsuch wrote, "He offered his prayers quietly while his students were otherwise occupied." However, as Justice Sotomayor points out, that is contrary to the factual findings of the trial court, which should be binding on every appellate court, including the Supreme Court.

The difficulty is that the line between the free exercise clause and the establishment clause is exceedingly narrow. If the true facts were that Coach Kennedy had prayed quietly while his students were otherwise occupied, then it would be a clear free exercise case and the court's ruling correct. But the factual findings of the trial court say something entirely different and what they show crosses the line into establishment clause territory. That his conduct was clearly in establishment clause territory is underscored and born out by the fact that the District received calls from Satanists who “ ‘intended to conduct ceremonies on the field after foot-ball games if others were allowed to.’ ” They clearly were not asking to quietly pray is some isolated corner. They wanted to grandstand in the middle of the field as Coach Kennedy was doing.

It appears that the court took the case to overturn Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971) which had been somewhat abandoned. Lemon had expanded the boundaries of the establishment clause to the point that it had consumed part of the free exercise clause. What is not clear is whether this case with its factual conflicts has settled anything with respect to the boundary between these clauses.

I respectfully disagree that with respect to this case you can rightly say that the dissent cares nothing for the Constitution. Respecting the boundary between the establishment and free exercise clauses is not an easy task and reasonable people may rightly disagree where the precise boundary should lie.

Now, this looks to me like a well-reasoned and rational post. Of course, IANAL. It would be interesting to find out more about why, from a legal perspective, Sotomayor, et. al. dissented on this point, and what the trial court actually found.