SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)

mrussel1

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Merkin Baller said:

If the Dems don’t win in November I don’t think anything really matters. 

Once they have control, the GOP is going to override the filibuster & do whatever they want. 

They would have to override Biden's veto too. Unlikely. They won't have 66 senators.

They could pass a senate rule that does not require 60 votes on all court matters as long as there are justices on the bench without 60 votes from their own confirmation. Very unlikely Biden vetoes a court expansion in this climate.

The point of continually adding justices is to demonstrate the court has become an absurdist institution, where the only thing that matters is political power, which is the exact opposite of how it was setup to work. Really, what else has changed in the last five years? Maybe if Alito realizes his 6-3 majority is very short term, he scales back his political activism from the bench.

So Brian’s picture makes perfect sense.

I’ll go out in a limb and state the constitution did not set up a predetermined number of justices for exactly the types of situations that are occurring in this era.

I don't understand.  Overriding a filibuster simply means you don't need 60 votes to advance a bill to the executive for signature.  It has nothing to do with overriding a veto.  You need 2/3 in the House and Senate to override a veto.  

I misunderstood. I guess the point was Biden would veto legislation passing senate and house to expand the court. If Dems win midterms and get solid 51 votes to expand court and carve out filibuster, and Biden vetoes the bill, he probably gets primaried and loses the nomination.

That wasn't quite my point.  I am saying that if the GOP wins the midterms, that doesn't mean that a bunch of draconian anti-Roe type bills will get passed.  They wouldn't get through a veto by Biden. 

Lerxst1992

cincybearcat said:

What exactly is the reasoning behind expanding the court? Cause you don't like the current makeup of the court?  This seems like a really weird way to solve the issue. 

Didn’t the writers of the constitution want to separate the court from political influence? Why else have non elected lifetime appointments?

Regarding  the two big rulings, guns and abortion bans, has anything in the constitution changed in the last fifty years to warrant a change in interpretation, or is it a result of political activism from the bench? Is there anything more political these days than the court?

Not only is the court not operating in the design intended, it has become more powerful than congress. I recall fifty years ago, the court would reverse itself once or twice every hundred years. Now it’s happening all the time.

it’s fairly well know that the American Wild West had restrictions on carrying weapons. But if you read alito, he talks like of course the constitution wanted everyone the right to carry weapons. To hell with settle law. Not enough precedent from Tombstone, AZ.

So why keep the status quo if the court is not operating as intended? Maybe if alito realizes the court makeup is not set in stone and subject to change, he would be less interested in being emperor? 

Cropduster-80

gimmesometruth27 said:

i guess it is ok to kneel on a football field to pray, but not in silent protest.

It’s always the Cristian prayer cases. 

 I would have preferred a Muslim coach doing Muslim prayers before games and getting fired after the parents freak out and assume he is improperly using his influence to convert Christian kids to Islam and that going to the supreme court. 

they are protecting Christian prayer, not prayer generally as it doesn’t work out that way in practice unless you are a Christian 

mickeyrat

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/full-text

Article III

Section 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Now make your argument its a lifetime appt.....

to use verbiage from the very court its not EXPRESSLY stated lifetime......

HughFreakingDillon

well, you can't fire them, and there's no age limit or terms set out....ergo....lifetime. 

mrussel1

Lerxst1992 said:

cincybearcat said:

What exactly is the reasoning behind expanding the court? Cause you don't like the current makeup of the court?  This seems like a really weird way to solve the issue. 

Didn’t the writers of the constitution want to separate the court from political influence? Why else have non elected lifetime appointments?

Regarding  the two big rulings, guns and abortion bans, has anything in the constitution changed in the last fifty years to warrant a change in interpretation, or is it a result of political activism from the bench? Is there anything more political these days than the court?

Not only is the court not operating in the design intended, it has become more powerful than congress. I recall fifty years ago, the court would reverse itself once or twice every hundred years. Now it’s happening all the time.

it’s fairly well know that the American Wild West had restrictions on carrying weapons. But if you read alito, he talks like of course the constitution wanted everyone the right to carry weapons. To hell with settle law. Not enough precedent from Tombstone, AZ.

So why keep the status quo if the court is not operating as intended? Maybe if alito realizes the court makeup is not set in stone and subject to change, he would be less interested in being emperor? 

Stare decisis is the concept that has historically governed the court.  But there are cases where the court reversed itself.  The most historic have been Plessy v Ferguson and Dred Scott.  I was thinking that what was unusual was that Roe was overturned only 49 years after it was 'settled' but in looking, Plessy was 1896 and Brown overturned it in 1954.  So it was a handful of years longer. 

Lerxst1992

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

i guess it is ok to kneel on a football field to pray, but not in silent protest.

Even as ridiculous I think thanking a god for a touchdown is, I honestly don't see an issue with this ruling. Now, if he's mandating all his players participate, then there is an issue. but if it's voluntary, I don't see the problem. 

And when the players who pray get to start more games or get more passes thrown their way, is it a problem then? Everything about this court is pushing the envelope until it breaks, like it just did with Roe and guns. Once upon a time, we had a saying, separation of church and state. That’s no longer a saying.

regarding your comment on retirement age/ term limits, I’d agree with you but that’s not in the constitution so it’s not a realistic talking point. But expanding the court is a constitutional option. And if they were to pass such a law, it’s the threat to the egos that I am interested more than constantly adding 2 or 3 judges every eight years. And THEN once it’s  law it could be used as leverage to get 37 states to agree to term limits. But right now, adding judges the only card in the deck.

many are “comforted” by the set number of judges. I ask why? The number is not set in the constitution, so the party getting manipulated has every right to use every rule to its advantage.

HughFreakingDillon

Lerxst1992 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

i guess it is ok to kneel on a football field to pray, but not in silent protest.

Even as ridiculous I think thanking a god for a touchdown is, I honestly don't see an issue with this ruling. Now, if he's mandating all his players participate, then there is an issue. but if it's voluntary, I don't see the problem. 

And when the players who pray get to start more games or get more passes thrown their way, is it a problem then? Everything about this court is pushing the envelope until it breaks, like it just did with Roe and guns. Once upon a time, we had a saying, separation of church and state. That’s no longer a saying.

regarding your comment on retirement age/ term limits, I’d agree with you but that’s not in the constitution so it’s not a realistic talking point. But expanding the court is a constitutional option. And if they were to pass such a law, it’s the threat to the egos that I am interested more than constantly adding 2 or 3 judges every eight years. And THEN once it’s  law it could be used as leverage to get 37 states to agree to term limits. But right now, adding judges the only card in the deck.

many are “comforted” by the set number of judges. I ask why? The number is not set in the constitution, so the party getting manipulated has every right to use every rule to its advantage.

of course that would be an issue. but the court can't rule on hypotheticals. 

no, it's not in the constitution. but in this case, what's not in it is as relevant as what is in it. it doesn't say there are limits. so that means, there are no limits. that means "lifetime" unless the judge retires. 

Cropduster-80

HughFreakingDillon said:

Lerxst1992 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

i guess it is ok to kneel on a football field to pray, but not in silent protest.

Even as ridiculous I think thanking a god for a touchdown is, I honestly don't see an issue with this ruling. Now, if he's mandating all his players participate, then there is an issue. but if it's voluntary, I don't see the problem. 

And when the players who pray get to start more games or get more passes thrown their way, is it a problem then? Everything about this court is pushing the envelope until it breaks, like it just did with Roe and guns. Once upon a time, we had a saying, separation of church and state. That’s no longer a saying.

regarding your comment on retirement age/ term limits, I’d agree with you but that’s not in the constitution so it’s not a realistic talking point. But expanding the court is a constitutional option. And if they were to pass such a law, it’s the threat to the egos that I am interested more than constantly adding 2 or 3 judges every eight years. And THEN once it’s  law it could be used as leverage to get 37 states to agree to term limits. But right now, adding judges the only card in the deck.

many are “comforted” by the set number of judges. I ask why? The number is not set in the constitution, so the party getting manipulated has every right to use every rule to its advantage.

of course that would be an issue. but the court can't rule on hypotheticals. 

no, it's not in the constitution. but in this case, what's not in it is as relevant as what is in it. it doesn't say there are limits. so that means, there are no limits. that means "lifetime" unless the judge retires. 

This stuff discriminates against the non Christians and even different Christians

my wife has some crazy stories about growing up in east Texas as a catholic when everyone else was southern Baptist. As a Christian she felt attacked. She wasn’t the right kind of Christian 

prayer in school happens all the time. It’s not like this case was an isolated incident. I just don’t see why people can’t leave church at church 

Anytime you are “the other” it’s not good 

HughFreakingDillon

Cropduster-80 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Lerxst1992 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

i guess it is ok to kneel on a football field to pray, but not in silent protest.

Even as ridiculous I think thanking a god for a touchdown is, I honestly don't see an issue with this ruling. Now, if he's mandating all his players participate, then there is an issue. but if it's voluntary, I don't see the problem. 

And when the players who pray get to start more games or get more passes thrown their way, is it a problem then? Everything about this court is pushing the envelope until it breaks, like it just did with Roe and guns. Once upon a time, we had a saying, separation of church and state. That’s no longer a saying.

regarding your comment on retirement age/ term limits, I’d agree with you but that’s not in the constitution so it’s not a realistic talking point. But expanding the court is a constitutional option. And if they were to pass such a law, it’s the threat to the egos that I am interested more than constantly adding 2 or 3 judges every eight years. And THEN once it’s  law it could be used as leverage to get 37 states to agree to term limits. But right now, adding judges the only card in the deck.

many are “comforted” by the set number of judges. I ask why? The number is not set in the constitution, so the party getting manipulated has every right to use every rule to its advantage.

of course that would be an issue. but the court can't rule on hypotheticals. 

no, it's not in the constitution. but in this case, what's not in it is as relevant as what is in it. it doesn't say there are limits. so that means, there are no limits. that means "lifetime" unless the judge retires. 

This stuff discriminates against the non Christians and even different Christians

my wife has some crazy stories about growing up in east Texas as a catholic when everyone else was southern Baptist. As a Christian she felt attacked. She wasn’t the right kind of Christian 

prayer in school happens all the time. It’s not like this case was an isolated incident. I just don’t see why people can’t leave church at church 

Anytime you are “the other” it’s not good 

I agree that in schools, where a student doesn't have the option to leave, should not be allowed (I remember a classmate of my sister's had to stand outside in the hallway during the singing of Oh Canada and bible readings because of her/her parent's religion-I can't imagine how she must have felt).

even when I was in grade six, and still a christian, and my battle ax of a teacher would read a bible lesson to us every day, I didn't understand how she was allowed to do that. 

this was after a game. an unofficial, completely optional exercise. participate or don't. I agree, it probably isolates those that don't. But there's that element of life all over the place. Stick to your guns, and if it becomes an issue on the field (figuratively), then fight your fight. 

Cropduster-80

HughFreakingDillon said:

Cropduster-80 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Lerxst1992 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

i guess it is ok to kneel on a football field to pray, but not in silent protest.

Even as ridiculous I think thanking a god for a touchdown is, I honestly don't see an issue with this ruling. Now, if he's mandating all his players participate, then there is an issue. but if it's voluntary, I don't see the problem. 

And when the players who pray get to start more games or get more passes thrown their way, is it a problem then? Everything about this court is pushing the envelope until it breaks, like it just did with Roe and guns. Once upon a time, we had a saying, separation of church and state. That’s no longer a saying.

regarding your comment on retirement age/ term limits, I’d agree with you but that’s not in the constitution so it’s not a realistic talking point. But expanding the court is a constitutional option. And if they were to pass such a law, it’s the threat to the egos that I am interested more than constantly adding 2 or 3 judges every eight years. And THEN once it’s  law it could be used as leverage to get 37 states to agree to term limits. But right now, adding judges the only card in the deck.

many are “comforted” by the set number of judges. I ask why? The number is not set in the constitution, so the party getting manipulated has every right to use every rule to its advantage.

of course that would be an issue. but the court can't rule on hypotheticals. 

no, it's not in the constitution. but in this case, what's not in it is as relevant as what is in it. it doesn't say there are limits. so that means, there are no limits. that means "lifetime" unless the judge retires. 

This stuff discriminates against the non Christians and even different Christians

my wife has some crazy stories about growing up in east Texas as a catholic when everyone else was southern Baptist. As a Christian she felt attacked. She wasn’t the right kind of Christian 

prayer in school happens all the time. It’s not like this case was an isolated incident. I just don’t see why people can’t leave church at church 

Anytime you are “the other” it’s not good 

I agree that in schools, where a student doesn't have the option to leave, should not be allowed (I remember a classmate of my sister's had to stand outside in the hallway during the singing of Oh Canada and bible readings because of her/her parent's religion-I can't imagine how she must have felt).

even when I was in grade six, and still a christian, and my battle ax of a teacher would read a bible lesson to us every day, I didn't understand how she was allowed to do that. 

this was after a game. an unofficial, completely optional exercise. participate or don't. I agree, it probably isolates those that don't. But there's that element of life all over the place. Stick to your guns, and if it becomes an issue on the field (figuratively), then fight your fight. 

I get more concerned with the incrementalism of this stuff getting into schools etc. 

where does it end? That’s a real concern. It’s not stopping here 

certain schools don’t teach Islam in history class anymore. It’s essential to world history.  Even in the context of history, it’s not allowed.  You also can’t separate Christianity from eoropean history.  That’s ok though 

HughFreakingDillon

the incrementalism argument is the same one gun enthusiasts use and we dismiss. 

Cropduster-80

Fair point. 

tbergs

HughFreakingDillon said:

Cropduster-80 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Lerxst1992 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

i guess it is ok to kneel on a football field to pray, but not in silent protest.

Even as ridiculous I think thanking a god for a touchdown is, I honestly don't see an issue with this ruling. Now, if he's mandating all his players participate, then there is an issue. but if it's voluntary, I don't see the problem. 

And when the players who pray get to start more games or get more passes thrown their way, is it a problem then? Everything about this court is pushing the envelope until it breaks, like it just did with Roe and guns. Once upon a time, we had a saying, separation of church and state. That’s no longer a saying.

regarding your comment on retirement age/ term limits, I’d agree with you but that’s not in the constitution so it’s not a realistic talking point. But expanding the court is a constitutional option. And if they were to pass such a law, it’s the threat to the egos that I am interested more than constantly adding 2 or 3 judges every eight years. And THEN once it’s  law it could be used as leverage to get 37 states to agree to term limits. But right now, adding judges the only card in the deck.

many are “comforted” by the set number of judges. I ask why? The number is not set in the constitution, so the party getting manipulated has every right to use every rule to its advantage.

of course that would be an issue. but the court can't rule on hypotheticals. 

no, it's not in the constitution. but in this case, what's not in it is as relevant as what is in it. it doesn't say there are limits. so that means, there are no limits. that means "lifetime" unless the judge retires. 

This stuff discriminates against the non Christians and even different Christians

my wife has some crazy stories about growing up in east Texas as a catholic when everyone else was southern Baptist. As a Christian she felt attacked. She wasn’t the right kind of Christian 

prayer in school happens all the time. It’s not like this case was an isolated incident. I just don’t see why people can’t leave church at church 

Anytime you are “the other” it’s not good 

I agree that in schools, where a student doesn't have the option to leave, should not be allowed (I remember a classmate of my sister's had to stand outside in the hallway during the singing of Oh Canada and bible readings because of her/her parent's religion-I can't imagine how she must have felt).

even when I was in grade six, and still a christian, and my battle ax of a teacher would read a bible lesson to us every day, I didn't understand how she was allowed to do that. 

this was after a game. an unofficial, completely optional exercise. participate or don't. I agree, it probably isolates those that don't. But there's that element of life all over the place. Stick to your guns, and if it becomes an issue on the field (figuratively), then fight your fight. 

It just becomes easier to identify and isolate those who don't participate, but this happens in all types of situations so what's one more reason? Maybe everyone's going to Buffalo Wild Wings after the big game, but you're vegetarian or everyone is hitting up happy hour after work, but you don't drink and on and on. We get stuck on religion, but there are microcosms of established clique activities already in place for many social activities. The main focus needs to be on eliminating bias if you don't fall in to that group. We want there to be acceptance of others and their views, but at the same time seem to expect them to hide these differences when they are around you (figurative you). Yeah, I get it, separation of church and state, but unless the coach mandates prayer or any other religious activity, it won't be an issue. 

HughFreakingDillon

tbergs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Cropduster-80 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Lerxst1992 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

i guess it is ok to kneel on a football field to pray, but not in silent protest.

Even as ridiculous I think thanking a god for a touchdown is, I honestly don't see an issue with this ruling. Now, if he's mandating all his players participate, then there is an issue. but if it's voluntary, I don't see the problem. 

And when the players who pray get to start more games or get more passes thrown their way, is it a problem then? Everything about this court is pushing the envelope until it breaks, like it just did with Roe and guns. Once upon a time, we had a saying, separation of church and state. That’s no longer a saying.

regarding your comment on retirement age/ term limits, I’d agree with you but that’s not in the constitution so it’s not a realistic talking point. But expanding the court is a constitutional option. And if they were to pass such a law, it’s the threat to the egos that I am interested more than constantly adding 2 or 3 judges every eight years. And THEN once it’s  law it could be used as leverage to get 37 states to agree to term limits. But right now, adding judges the only card in the deck.

many are “comforted” by the set number of judges. I ask why? The number is not set in the constitution, so the party getting manipulated has every right to use every rule to its advantage.

of course that would be an issue. but the court can't rule on hypotheticals. 

no, it's not in the constitution. but in this case, what's not in it is as relevant as what is in it. it doesn't say there are limits. so that means, there are no limits. that means "lifetime" unless the judge retires. 

This stuff discriminates against the non Christians and even different Christians

my wife has some crazy stories about growing up in east Texas as a catholic when everyone else was southern Baptist. As a Christian she felt attacked. She wasn’t the right kind of Christian 

prayer in school happens all the time. It’s not like this case was an isolated incident. I just don’t see why people can’t leave church at church 

Anytime you are “the other” it’s not good 

I agree that in schools, where a student doesn't have the option to leave, should not be allowed (I remember a classmate of my sister's had to stand outside in the hallway during the singing of Oh Canada and bible readings because of her/her parent's religion-I can't imagine how she must have felt).

even when I was in grade six, and still a christian, and my battle ax of a teacher would read a bible lesson to us every day, I didn't understand how she was allowed to do that. 

this was after a game. an unofficial, completely optional exercise. participate or don't. I agree, it probably isolates those that don't. But there's that element of life all over the place. Stick to your guns, and if it becomes an issue on the field (figuratively), then fight your fight. 

It just becomes easier to identify and isolate those who don't participate, but this happens in all types of situations so what's one more reason? Maybe everyone's going to Buffalo Wild Wings after the big game, but you're vegetarian or everyone is hitting up happy hour after work, but you don't drink and on and on. We get stuck on religion, but there are microcosms of established clique activities already in place for many social activities. The main focus needs to be on eliminating bias if you don't fall in to that group. We want there to be acceptance of others and their views, but at the same time seem to expect them to hide these differences when they are around you (figurative you). Yeah, I get it, separation of church and state, but unless the coach mandates prayer or any other religious activity, it won't be an issue. 

exactly

Cropduster-80

tbergs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Cropduster-80 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Lerxst1992 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

i guess it is ok to kneel on a football field to pray, but not in silent protest.

Even as ridiculous I think thanking a god for a touchdown is, I honestly don't see an issue with this ruling. Now, if he's mandating all his players participate, then there is an issue. but if it's voluntary, I don't see the problem. 

And when the players who pray get to start more games or get more passes thrown their way, is it a problem then? Everything about this court is pushing the envelope until it breaks, like it just did with Roe and guns. Once upon a time, we had a saying, separation of church and state. That’s no longer a saying.

regarding your comment on retirement age/ term limits, I’d agree with you but that’s not in the constitution so it’s not a realistic talking point. But expanding the court is a constitutional option. And if they were to pass such a law, it’s the threat to the egos that I am interested more than constantly adding 2 or 3 judges every eight years. And THEN once it’s  law it could be used as leverage to get 37 states to agree to term limits. But right now, adding judges the only card in the deck.

many are “comforted” by the set number of judges. I ask why? The number is not set in the constitution, so the party getting manipulated has every right to use every rule to its advantage.

of course that would be an issue. but the court can't rule on hypotheticals. 

no, it's not in the constitution. but in this case, what's not in it is as relevant as what is in it. it doesn't say there are limits. so that means, there are no limits. that means "lifetime" unless the judge retires. 

This stuff discriminates against the non Christians and even different Christians

my wife has some crazy stories about growing up in east Texas as a catholic when everyone else was southern Baptist. As a Christian she felt attacked. She wasn’t the right kind of Christian 

prayer in school happens all the time. It’s not like this case was an isolated incident. I just don’t see why people can’t leave church at church 

Anytime you are “the other” it’s not good 

I agree that in schools, where a student doesn't have the option to leave, should not be allowed (I remember a classmate of my sister's had to stand outside in the hallway during the singing of Oh Canada and bible readings because of her/her parent's religion-I can't imagine how she must have felt).

even when I was in grade six, and still a christian, and my battle ax of a teacher would read a bible lesson to us every day, I didn't understand how she was allowed to do that. 

this was after a game. an unofficial, completely optional exercise. participate or don't. I agree, it probably isolates those that don't. But there's that element of life all over the place. Stick to your guns, and if it becomes an issue on the field (figuratively), then fight your fight. 

It just becomes easier to identify and isolate those who don't participate, but this happens in all types of situations so what's one more reason? Maybe everyone's going to Buffalo Wild Wings after the big game, but you're vegetarian or everyone is hitting up happy hour after work, but you don't drink and on and on. We get stuck on religion, but there are microcosms of established clique activities already in place for many social activities. The main focus needs to be on eliminating bias if you don't fall in to that group. We want there to be acceptance of others and their views, but at the same time seem to expect them to hide these differences when they are around you (figurative you). Yeah, I get it, separation of church and state, but unless the coach mandates prayer or any other religious activity, it won't be an issue. 

Ha

i can’t send my kids to school with peanut butter and birthday treats must include vegan/ gluten free options.  Or anything that doesn’t exclude a kid.

no idea what happens if one kid is a Jehovah’s Witness who can’t celebrate birthdays.  I presume you can’t bring anything 

it does drive me crazy.  So I get the resistance to having to accommodate everyone. 

mace1229

gimmesometruth27 said:

the court ruled today that a public school official has the right to lead students or student athletes in prayer on public school grounds.

seriously. what the fuck are we doing here?

I haven’t followed this that closely, but from what I’ve heard I see nothing wrong with it. Sounds like the coach would kneel and pray after a game and offered students to join, wasn’t mandatory.
School officials were worried that students would feel pressured into participated in this optional prayer, so they shut it down.
But I don’t see how you can keep someone from praying by themselves. Which is what they were trying to do.

mace1229

Lerxst1992 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

i guess it is ok to kneel on a football field to pray, but not in silent protest.

Even as ridiculous I think thanking a god for a touchdown is, I honestly don't see an issue with this ruling. Now, if he's mandating all his players participate, then there is an issue. but if it's voluntary, I don't see the problem. 

And when the players who pray get to start more games or get more passes thrown their way, is it a problem then? Everything about this court is pushing the envelope until it breaks, like it just did with Roe and guns. Once upon a time, we had a saying, separation of church and state. That’s no longer a saying.

regarding your comment on retirement age/ term limits, I’d agree with you but that’s not in the constitution so it’s not a realistic talking point. But expanding the court is a constitutional option. And if they were to pass such a law, it’s the threat to the egos that I am interested more than constantly adding 2 or 3 judges every eight years. And THEN once it’s  law it could be used as leverage to get 37 states to agree to term limits. But right now, adding judges the only card in the deck.

many are “comforted” by the set number of judges. I ask why? The number is not set in the constitution, so the party getting manipulated has every right to use every rule to its advantage.

If you want to ban that because maybe some kids might feel pressured, how is that different than banning LGBT clubs when a kid says he feels pressured to participate or be labeled homophobic?

Cropduster-80

Essentially it’s a free speech issue according to the court and  less of a direct ruling on  separation of church and state. His prayer amounted to private speech, he isn’t forcing anyone to do it.

flag burning is also free speech. If he decided to burn a flag before every game i doubt  the people cheering this ruling would have the same opinion of that.  If he kneeled before the anthem again, free (private) speech 

if it’s free speech, then  look at speech you find offensive and then if you can support that then ok support this .  Most of these people would want him fired if it was anything but a prayer 

there are plenty of schools who will kick a student off the team for kneeling the anthem 

cutz

gimmesometruth27 said:

the court ruled today that a public school official has the right to lead students or student athletes in prayer on public school grounds.

seriously. what the fuck are we doing here?

WOW!