Every right has a limit. We have historically decided that when you are acting as an agent for the state, your speech can’t include the endorsement of specific religions. That violates the establishment clause.
Again, every right has limits. The SCOTUS is just decided that the 2A has fewer acceptable limits when compared to other rights. Also, the Heller decision simply created the right for private gun carrying.
The case centered on the limits of school vouchers offered by the state of Maine, which had disallowed the vouchers to be used to pay for religious-based private schools. In a 6–3 decision the Court ruled that Maine’s restrictions on vouchers violated the Free Exercise Clause, as they discriminated against religious-backed private schools. The minority opinions argued that the decision worked against the long-standing principle of the separation of church and state, since state governments would now be required to fund religious institutions.
Maybe its semantics, but state/local governments have always been restricted on what they could do around religion and the line between protecting practice of religion and preventing establishment of religion isn’t always clear. I don’t think SCOTUS defining or clarifying that line is really an expansion or contraction of legislative powers.
Overturning Roe and stating no innate right to privacy seems clear expansion of state legislative power.
EPA ruling seems clear on restricting executive power (and in-turn expanding legislative).
I’d generally agree with the statement that the current court is letting things get handled (or not) legislatively/locally more than past courts have.
The “right to pray on a football field” decision is bound to be exploited some day.
This particular coach noted that when two of his players decided not to join in, he made them captains for it.
More control-freak-minded coaches might put them on the bench, cuz fuh-baw and religion (but mostly control).
Most kids join in the prayer circle (even though not explicitly invited or demanded) because they’re scared of the consequences, cuz they know their coach. Gotta do it or else.
This is certainly true. But it’s not consistently true because it’s not what’s motivating their decisions. I would argue that it’s not what’s motivating their decisions, either. It’s just that their preferred ideologies of rolling back rights has the side effect of giving more power to legislatures.
Yes. I think everyone here fully supports the right for every individual to pray or practice their religion. I certainly do, and I’m not aware of any modern era case of a student/teacher being unable to pray individually. It’s teachers/coaches/administrators of public schools deciding to indoctrinate those under their influence in their particular religious beliefs that I find objectionable.
I imagine if Nick’s kids wound up with a satanist teacher/coach, he would not be so happily celebrating that teacher’s right to instruct Nick’s kids on the beauty of lucifer. It’s only a matter of time before this gets tested in another case if this decision stands IMO.
I think it’s straightforward. Other courts would have let the school board make the decision. This one overruled the school board. They didn’t “expand the powers” of local government. I gave two more examples where they overruled state/local governments. You may prefer these decisions, but I can’t see presenting them as expanding the powers of the very parties they are overruling.
I don’t see that at all. I see them ruling for the legislature when they dislike prior SC decisions, and expanding the power of the SC when they don’t like legislative decisions.
School board thought they had to take an action due to perceived constitutional violation.
SCOTUS said they didn’t (and their action was actually a constitutional violation).
I don’t think they have any more or less power after this decision than they did before this decision. They still have to protect freedom of religion. They still have to enforce the establishment clause. They just did it wrong in this case.
The Maine school district is the same thing. Maine can’t do what they wanted to with tuition assistance. Some states might want to provide funding for religious school but didn’t, thinking it would violate establishment clause. When there conflicting constitutional rights, regardless of what gets overruled, I don’t think there is really any increase or decrease in overall authority.
They no longer have an option. Previously they had decided to do differently. This is the definition of taking power away from somebody.
You are essentially claiming that back when Roe was originally decided, it didn’t take any power away from the states to regulate abortions because it simply pointed out that their previous laws were unconstitutional.
Are you sure that, absent some belief about what the SC would rule, the state gov’t and the school board would have allowed it? Also, note that this one ruling establishes a precedent for all 50 states and all school boards. I’m confident that some of them would have decided on the other side if the SC just stayed out of it.
But, I can see your argument that the SC has always claimed it could draw the line between “free” and “establish”, so they’ve simply moved it. Some states got the power to do what they wanted while other states lost power. But, that doesn’t “expand local control”, as claimed. It just makes it seem more arbitrary.
Note that the gun carry issue is not the same. There some states lost power and no states gained power. It’s a net loss.
The tuition for religious schools is interesting, in that case at least three states MT, ID, and WY have constitutional prohibitions on state aid. So the SC is overruling state constitutions, not just state legislatures.
After the case returned to the District Court, the parties engaged in discovery and eventually brought cross-motions for summary judgment. At the end of that process, the District Court found that the “‘sole reason’” for the District’s decision to suspend Mr. Kennedy was its perceived “risk of constitutional liability” under the Establishment Clause for his “religious conduct” after the October 16, 23, and 26 games.
I grew up in the neighboring town to where this took place, and i do not believe that coercing students into joining religious activities are consistent with that religiously diverse area.
Yes, so I’m a bit confused why a school fired a football coach for praying after football games. Seems like praying cost him his job. That doesn’t sound like separation of church and state that sounds like the state mandating someone not practice their religion.
I am not sure I disagree here either. The whole point of a voucher program is so that parents can choose where their kids go to school right? Why should the state pick and choose where the parent wants to send their children if the intent of the law is to give parents choice? It’s a big stretch to conclude that this is endorsing a specific religion.
Also local control only applies to things not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. No locality has the option to override the Constitution. They never have and never will. Guess where that is spelled out? The Constitution.
LOL Whether you agree with the decision or not it sounds like you are intentionally trying to not understand the arguments and the reality of an authority figure leading a prayer session.