The ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of Louisiana families to challenge what it called a "blatantly unconstitutional" new state law that requires the Ten Commandments to be displayed in every classroom.
Honestly, I can’t see how SCOTUS could rule in his favour. The US constitution clearly states that there is a seperation between church and state. For SCOTUS to rule in his favour would require them overturning the constitution itself.
Separation of Church and State is not codified into law
And
1A specifically says “Congress shall pass no law respecting any religion”. They’ll say this law was passed by a state, not congress. Ipso facto, they rule in his favor.
That whole “it only applies to Congress” angle is malarkey.
303 Creative v. Elenis: The 1st Amendment bars Colorado from forcing businesses to provide service that goes against their religious beliefs.
Shurtleff v. City of Boston: The City of Boston could not reject flying a Christian flag when it had open many other groups to fly different flags for various occasions.
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District: A school board wrongfully terminated a coach for praying on the field.
These are all recent cases too. Of course, that doesn’t mean they won’t find some different bullshit reason to say this is fine.
The actual text concerning religion says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”. It’s arguable that requiring publicly funding schools to display a specific religions moral code is establishing their religious views as a standard others must follow.
The second part of that (prohibiting the free exercise thereof) is not affected. They are free to do whatever they want in their private homes and institutions. They just are not free to force those practices on others or other’s children. You don’t have the freedom to “exercise” if exercise means forcing your will on others. And anyone that thinks that should be the case is specifically calling to remove that constitutional freedom from our society.
Re: 1, the concept of church/state separation is espoused by the First Amendment, if not explicitly stated as such. But as has been made clear, Roberts’ SCOTUS has yet to miss a case dismantling that wall.
Re: 2, SCOTUS has held that amendments only apply to Congress unless they have been incorporated via the 14th out to the states. The First Amendment’s restriction on state-endorsed religion was incorporated in a case from 1947 called Everson vs. Board of Education which means that if Congress can’t create an official government religion, state legislatures can’t either. Of course, what one SCOTUS decides another can overturn, so it’s not out of the realm of possibility for Roberts’ activist Court to remove the concept of incorporation altogether.
For SCOTUS to rule in his favour would require them overturning the constitution itself.
Nah, all they’d have to do is make up a bullshit interpretation that fits the political opinions of them and their billionaire friends. That’s basically what the majority of them are there for to begin with.
The Constitution also clearly states that anyone who breaks their oath of office to commit treason against the country shall not hold political office unless cleared by 2/3rds majority in Congress. It’s time to admit that the rules are all made up and the Constitution doesn’t matter.
The SCOTUS is thoroughly corrupt. We have three sitting justices who have been exposed as accepting bribes from parties with matters before the court, and we have two that are known to have committed perjury during their confirmation hearings.
There is zero accountability or recourse. We no longer live in a country with a rule of law.
I agree with this. I dont think this one was thought through. We shall see what the illegitimate court thinks. If they agree with him that should be our final line as a people.
The Constitution is just an interpretation of the teachings of the Founding Fathers. SCOTUS is the only body that has a direct line of communication to the Founding Fathers. We can rely on them to convey to the masses what the Founding Fathers truly intended.
(I think this is sarcasm, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they used this logic)
The SCOTUS ruling on college loan forgiveness they simply said “we know the law explicitly says that you can do this but we don’t like it so, no and we’re not actually justifying this decision with any kind of criteria”
The Constitution specifically states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” which is probably going to mean SCOTUS will rule that it’s okay because it’s a STATE Congress and not the federal Congress specifically called out in the Constitution making a law respecting the establishment of a religion. This seems like a solid letter of the law but not the spirit sort of reading that christofacists want.
‘The Establishment Clause acts as a double security, prohibiting both control of the government by religion and political control of religion by the government. By it, the federal government of the United States and, by later extension, the governments of all U.S. states and U.S. territories, are prohibited from establishing or sponsoring religion.’
Honestly, I can’t see how SCOTUS could rule in his favour. The US constitution clearly states that there is a seperation between church and state. For SCOTUS to rule in his favour would require them overturning the constitution itself.
Two things:
And
Also
That whole “it only applies to Congress” angle is malarkey.
303 Creative v. Elenis: The 1st Amendment bars Colorado from forcing businesses to provide service that goes against their religious beliefs.
Shurtleff v. City of Boston: The City of Boston could not reject flying a Christian flag when it had open many other groups to fly different flags for various occasions.
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District: A school board wrongfully terminated a coach for praying on the field.
These are all recent cases too. Of course, that doesn’t mean they won’t find some different bullshit reason to say this is fine.
Man if they rule that states can discriminate based on religion, I look forward to all the left leaning states going in the total opposite direction.
They’ll just agree with the lie that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values and anything Christian is simply embracing our history.
The actual text concerning religion says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”. It’s arguable that requiring publicly funding schools to display a specific religions moral code is establishing their religious views as a standard others must follow.
The second part of that (prohibiting the free exercise thereof) is not affected. They are free to do whatever they want in their private homes and institutions. They just are not free to force those practices on others or other’s children. You don’t have the freedom to “exercise” if exercise means forcing your will on others. And anyone that thinks that should be the case is specifically calling to remove that constitutional freedom from our society.
It’s un-American… by definition…
but but but it’s an historical document, not religious at all [wink wink to stage left]
Wouldn’t the combo of the first amendment and the supremacy clause pretty neatly dismantle the new Louisiana law?
That would be correct in my opinion but nothing this court does can surprise me anymore, legal or not.
Re: 1, the concept of church/state separation is espoused by the First Amendment, if not explicitly stated as such. But as has been made clear, Roberts’ SCOTUS has yet to miss a case dismantling that wall.
Re: 2, SCOTUS has held that amendments only apply to Congress unless they have been incorporated via the 14th out to the states. The First Amendment’s restriction on state-endorsed religion was incorporated in a case from 1947 called Everson vs. Board of Education which means that if Congress can’t create an official government religion, state legislatures can’t either. Of course, what one SCOTUS decides another can overturn, so it’s not out of the realm of possibility for Roberts’ activist Court to remove the concept of incorporation altogether.
Nah, all they’d have to do is make up a bullshit interpretation that fits the political opinions of them and their billionaire friends. That’s basically what the majority of them are there for to begin with.
The Constitution also clearly states that anyone who breaks their oath of office to commit treason against the country shall not hold political office unless cleared by 2/3rds majority in Congress. It’s time to admit that the rules are all made up and the Constitution doesn’t matter.
I read that in his voice.
The SCOTUS is thoroughly corrupt. We have three sitting justices who have been exposed as accepting bribes from parties with matters before the court, and we have two that are known to have committed perjury during their confirmation hearings.
There is zero accountability or recourse. We no longer live in a country with a rule of law.
I agree with this. I dont think this one was thought through. We shall see what the illegitimate court thinks. If they agree with him that should be our final line as a people.
The Constitution is just an interpretation of the teachings of the Founding Fathers. SCOTUS is the only body that has a direct line of communication to the Founding Fathers. We can rely on them to convey to the masses what the Founding Fathers truly intended.
(I think this is sarcasm, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they used this logic)
I only acknowledge direct lines to dead ppl if they got stupid hats and a custom made vehicle and I don’t see any supreme mobiles.
Thomas’ RV was custom made by the guy who bribed him with it.
You’ve made me recall Willie the Wimp (and his Cadillac coffin).
Haven’t they already done that by using stuff that’s in the constitution or any law?
Maybe youth weren’t paying attention to the Dobbs decision where they ignored the 9th amendment entirely and half of the 14th.
The SCOTUS ruling on college loan forgiveness they simply said “we know the law explicitly says that you can do this but we don’t like it so, no and we’re not actually justifying this decision with any kind of criteria”
Why would Robert’s Supreme Court care about the Constitution?
The Constitution specifically states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” which is probably going to mean SCOTUS will rule that it’s okay because it’s a STATE Congress and not the federal Congress specifically called out in the Constitution making a law respecting the establishment of a religion. This seems like a solid letter of the law but not the spirit sort of reading that christofacists want.
Unfortunately, I don’t believe you’ll find that wording in the constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
deleted by creator
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause
‘The Establishment Clause acts as a double security, prohibiting both control of the government by religion and political control of religion by the government. By it, the federal government of the United States and, by later extension, the governments of all U.S. states and U.S. territories, are prohibited from establishing or sponsoring religion.’
You should read this, it answers your question.
Is a state congress not congress?