Politics Justice Thomas got it right again!

[MarAzul]

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/20/supreme-court-peace-cross-1373201

"Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch also ruled against the cross’s challengers, but on other grounds that would have avoided the court diving into the details of the church-and-state fight. Thomas stood by his longstanding view that the Establishment Clause doesn’t apply to state and local governments or their offshoots, like the Maryland commission that maintains the memorial."


It is amost odd that only two Justices can grasp what the Constitution says!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof;"

Congress!!! Nothing in there about States or any other organization.

While the SCOUS overruled the lower court, only Thomas and Gorsuch seem to actually care what the Constitution actually says.

 

[dviss1]

Fuck that piece of shit and all the people who put him on the SCOTUS.

 

[MarAzul]

Fuck that piece of shit and all the people who put him on the SCOTUS.

He gets it right more often than most, ranking right in there with Scalia.
Now come on! Every time you disagree with me, you blame it on me being a racist. It is you're turn again, carry on with the track record.

 

[dviss1]

He gets it right more often than most, ranking right in there with Scalia.
Now come on! Every time you disagree with me, you blame it on me being a racist. It is you're turn again, carry on with the track record.

Clarence Thomas is a misogynistic piece of shit. He's a horrible human and the main reason why I'm voting for someone other than Joe Biden.

I can say what I want about him, without you making up bullshit.

 

[dviss1]

Well you can make up shit about him all you want for all I care. But this won't may you right, or smart. Perhaps it could qualify you for fool, or even a perverted racist in you're own way.

I don't need to qualify my feelings for that horrible man. I can hold my view and am not required to worry about what others think of said viewpoint.

 

[MarAzul]

I don't need to qualify my feelings for that horrible man. I can hold my view and am not required to worry about what others think of said viewpoint.

By all means!
Carry on.

 

[dviss1]

By all means!
Carry on.

 

[oldmangrouch]

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/20/supreme-court-peace-cross-1373201
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/20/supreme-court-peace-cross-1373201
"Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch also ruled against the cross’s challengers, but on other grounds that would have avoided the court diving into the details of the church-and-state fight. Thomas stood by his longstanding view that the Establishment Clause doesn’t apply to state and local governments or their offshoots, like the Maryland commission that maintains the memorial."


It is amost odd that only two Justices can grasp what the Constitution says!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof;"

Congress!!! Nothing in there about States or any other organization.

While the SCOUS overruled the lower court, only Thomas and Gorsuch seem to actually care what the Constitution actually says.

So, if Oregon establishes a state religion other than christianity you would be OK with that? Pull the other one.

Allowing states to take away right granted to all US citizens by the US Constitution renders the Constitution meaningless.

 

[barfo]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof;"

Congress!!! Nothing in there about States or any other organization.

True. However the courts have held that the due process clause in the 14th amendment extends the establishment clause to the states.

The past 200 years of our history matters, not just those first few years at the end of the 18th century.

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

So, if Oregon establishes a state religion other than christianity you would be OK with that? Pull the other one.

I suppose such a move would cause about as much ruckus as establishing a Carbon tax, perhaps more But that would be and Oregon problem, I wouldn't look to a prohibition on Congress as a curb. Nor was it every intended to be. It would have never passed
at the time it did and if it were to say, the states nor Congress shall... I don't think anyone would be please if anybody, Congress or a State established Christianity as the official religion. What Church would that Be? There is no such thing.

Allowing states to take away right granted to all US citizens by the US Constitution renders the Constitution meaningless.

I don't see a right taken away when the state does anything not prohibited in the Constitution. Congress is prohibited here, explicitly, the States are not. At the time of the amendment most States had a population that did indeed belong to a church that differed from their neighboring States. Having the Federal government attempt to establish one church over another even though it would have been of the Christian faith, would never have passed in Congress. It doesn't mean though that some states did have a right church.

 

[MarAzul]

True. However the courts have held that the due process clause in the 14th amendment extends the establishment clause to the states.

They do exceed their capacity from time to time. Extending to the the states what was explicitly prohibiting Congress to do might be just another over step. I believe this area is one where the convention of the States propose and amendment, not to establish a religion, but to lock down the free exercise of.

Oh, I do think the 14th would extend the "practice there of" to the States. The establishment clause probably should be amended to clarify the whole issue. An amendment would be so much better that leaving it to judges to piece together.

 

[oldmangrouch]

The free exercise clause cannot coexist with an official state religion. Period.

 

[MarAzul]

The free exercise clause cannot coexist with an official state religion. Period.

I think you might be right.
Does this mean you think a judge ought to correct the prohibition more to your liking, even though the legislature probably could not pass the law, if written to match the re-interpretation?

I suppose a state like the Vatican might be ok with it as written.