if you think this is definitely going to be held unconstitutional, please note that in 2019 the Supreme Court held that a giant cross on public land did not violate the Constitution
If you want laws that make sense, sure. But Thomas will say 2A creates an individual right, so it's incorporated. Just like he said the free expression clause creates an individual right, so it's incorporated while the establishment clause *in the same amendment* should not be.
Hey, the only thing that stops a bad lawyer with shitty theories of constitutional interpretation is a good lawyer with sensible theories of constitutional interpretation!
I mean fundamentally the core competency of the GOP justices is “working backwards to a legal-ish rationale for whatever the right wants”; it’s calvinball.
95% of people who’ve gone to law school hate this shit, there’s just massive affirmative action in the form of judicial appointments for the freaks who don’t.
The 2nd doesn’t create anything. It affirms a congenital and individual right. Unless you’re honestly suggesting that it’s the one time in the entire Constitution that “the people” doesn’t actually mean “the people?”
Our rights do not come from government. Full stop. Government is instituted to protect the rights we already have. Scalia’s take on any number of things was wrong, including this.
That might be what keeps it away from SCOTUS. If the LA courts rule it's unconstitutional as an affront to the denominations that recognize only their own version of the 10C, I don't think SCOTUS would touch it.
They won’t rest until any sane or decent person will be suppressing a feeling of nausea at any religious symbol, word or idea. They’re doing more for atheism than 100 atheist subreddits ever could.
My guess is that’ll be a concurrence and the majority will be Roberts copy/pasting Rehnquist’s Stone v Graham dissent claiming the Ten Commandments are secular.
The best argument for this Court is that Louisiana has chosen a distinctly Protestant form of Establishment, which obviously and invidiously discriminates against Catholics
No, you see, it’s only on the wall for its general Western cultural relevance. It’s a benign acknowledgment of the role played by monotheism in American history.
Yes, this is the play. The creche plus santa plus menorah, public school version. BUT...the mistake was to make the other junk optional and the commandments required
And the application to university classrooms makes it hard to claim a "history, man" defense too -- what function is the 10 commandments serving in a dance studio or astronomy classroom or Chinese history class?
Well whatever purpose it is it certainly won’t be a coercive one to Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas. Very curious where the other three conservatives go on this with Lemon cut out from under Stone and McCreary County.
Maybe but some of those three think the establishment clause protects against favoring a particular religion. And for some of them, this is not the religion they favor
I wouldn’t bet on how this will shake out, but a state explicitly signing into statute a statewide policy strikes me as significantly harder for the justices to spin & mischaracterize than the football coach’s pregame prayers
www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDo...
It's just good advice for everyone regardless of religion. Are you saying it's wrong to teach kids not to steal, or murder, or covet, or worship any other god but the Judeo-Christian God? What's specifically religious about any of that?
Also more recently ordered funding has to go religious schools, and also gave its blessing to mandatory school prayer (albeit in that case they did it by lying their asses off and saying the mandatory school prayer they were allowing wasn't happening).
Can’t wait for Thomas, writing for the majority, explaining that at the time of the founding, there were no laws against this sort of thing and really, one can simply look away if they’re offended.
