In a blow to secularists and civil libertarians, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 in Greece v. Galloway to allow Christian prayers at a local council. The Court again left little clarity on the standard for future cases in what proved a highly fractured decision. Justice Anthony Kennedy tipped the balance in favor of the Town of Greece with Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Clarence Thomas. However, his opinion was left in pieces by a series of concurring opinions. Scalia and Thomas specifically bolted over Part II-B of Kennedy’s opinion (except as to Part II–B, concluding that the town’s prayer practice does not violate the Establishment Clause.) Alito wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Scalia. Justice Thomas also wrote a concurring opinion joined by Justice Scalia in part. Even the dissenting justices divided with a Breyer opinion for himself and a dissent by Kagan that was joined by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor. In other words, an unholy mess.
The record in the case was viewed by many as highly suspicious in how the council almost exclusively used Christian ministers while professing to be open to any faith, including atheists. The town followed an informal method for selecting prayer givers under which a town employee would call the congregations listed in local directory. That itself allowed for an obvious bias but also the town only had Christian ministers. Even Kennedy admitted that “from 1999 to 2007, all of the participating ministers were too.”
The prayers often referenced Jesus or Biblical passages:
“Lord we ask you to send your spirit of upon all of us gathered here this evening to do your work for the benefit of all in our community. We ask you to bless our elected and appointed officials so they may deliberate with wisdom and act with courage. Bless the members of our community who come here to speak before the board so they may state their cause with honesty and humility. . . . Lord we ask you to bless us all, that everything we do here tonight will move you to welcome us one day into your kingdom as good and faithful servants. We ask this in the name of our brother Jesus. Amen.” Id., at 45a.
“Lord, God of all creation, we give you thanks and praise for your presence and action in the world. We look with anticipation to the celebration of Holy Week and Easter. It is in the solemn events of next week that we find the very heart and center of our Christian faith. We acknowledge the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. We draw strength, vitality, and confidence from his resurrection at Easter. . . . We pray for peace in the world, an end to terrorism,violence, conflict, and war. We pray for stability, democracy, and good government in those countries in which our armed forces are now serving, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. . . . Praise and glory be yours, O Lord, now and forever more. Amen.”
Kennedy emphasized that the Court had long recognized a historical practice of prayers as not violating the establishment clause:
An insistence on nonsectarian or ecumenical prayer as a single, fixed standard is not consistent with the tradition of legislative prayer outlined in the Court’s cases. The Court found the prayers in Marsh consistent with the First Amendment not because they espoused only a generic theism but because our history and tradition have shown that prayer in this limited context could “coexis[t] with the principles of disestablishment and religious freedom.” 463 U. S., at 786.
Kennedy found no evidence of coercion in the use of the prayers by the Town of Greece:
Ceremonial prayer is but a recognition that, since this Nation was founded and until the present day, many Americans deem that their own existence must be understood by precepts far beyond the authority of government to alter or define and that willing participation in civic affairs can be consistent with a brief acknowledgment of their belief in a higher power, always with due respect for those who adhere to other beliefs. The prayer in this case has a permissible ceremonial purpose. It is not an unconstitutional establishment of religion.
Kennedy made clear that secular values would not replace religious values in such public meetings as a constitutional mandate and refused to require “chaplains to redact the religious content from their message in order to make it acceptable for the public sphere . . . Government may not mandate a civic religion that stifles any but the most generic reference to the sacred any more than it may prescribe a religious orthodoxy.”
This does not of course help those who do not believe in theism. I suppose, like Rome, when in Greece just learn to do as the Greeks do.
The case is Greece v. Galloway, 12-696. In my Supreme Court class, the students voted overwhelmingly to affirm by a vote of 11-1. The prediction was closer. Five of us thought that the Court would reverse the Second Circuit (which it did) and seven students thought the Court would affirm.
Here are the opinions.
I think it was about once every 4-6 weeks.
DavidM:
I have heard that women abusing men is much more prevalent than men abusing women. Men just dont report it.
I knew a guy in college whose wife hit him with a frying pan on a regular basis.
Byron – almost every guy I know has a story where either their significant other (female) or a female they dated whopped them one.
And, yes .I did vote in the Texas Republican primary last year.so I guess I have recently voted for republicans. Voted against the tea party candidates and for the regular right wingers knowing that the republicans would win in the fall.
Annie, I think David m is channeling Phyllis Schafly who is now elderly but was even out of the mainstream in her day. Your views about politics and child rearing sound mainstream to me. Don’t move to the south or you will find yourself out of the mainstream. 🙂
Elaine
I’m not sure who is worse – Dan Loesch or Doug Powers. He writes for Malkin and Glenn.
Paul,
I have not great love for Bloomberg.
Dana Loesch???? Oh my! She’s quite a piece of fringe right-wing work.
The comments are from Bloomberg’s shill.
davidm said:
swarthmoremom, about the Amanda Hess article and her death threats, this is one of the big differences between men and women. When a woman gets threats like this, she runs to the nanny state, calls 911, the FBI, etc. and expects someone to protect her. When a man gets such threats, he is like, “oh yeah, bring it on dude. I’d like to see you try.”
*****
If men are such big heroes like Wayne LaPierre why are they so fearful of so many things in this world?
Here’s an excerpt from LaPierre’s speech at the NRA’s annual convention this year:
“We know, in the world that surrounds us, there are terrorists and home invaders and drug cartels and car-jackers and knock-out gamers and rapers, haters, campus killers, airport killers, shopping-mall killers, road-rage killers, and killers who scheme to destroy our country with massive storms of violence against our power grids, or vicious waves of chemicals or disease that could collapse the society that sustains us all.”
*****
I’m a woman and I don’t fixate on such things. I’m not fearful like Wayne.
Let’s talk about the fearful shills for Bloomberg using armed security.
Michael Bloomberg’s gun control team happy to take your questions … if you can get past armed security
Share
By Doug Powers • April 27, 2014 12:36 PM
**Written by Doug Powers
Shannon Watts of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, which is heavily funded by the self-proclaimed heaven-bound Michael Bloomberg, was in Indianapolis at the same time the NRA was holding an event.
Dana Loesch caught up with Watts and tried to ask her a question about a claim she’d made. Watts didn’t exactly take advantage of what would have been a golden opportunity to put one of her critics in her place (video via The Blaze and Right Scoop):
“Shannon, would you like to clarify or retract when you said I was a paid employee of Magpul?”
Bloomberg had better start a microphone-control push as well, because it looks like those are just as feared as guns.
Watts had some fairly beefy looking people around too. Gun control advocates wouldn’t be using armed guards, would they? Well, if you were expecting a large amount of hypocrisy from a group funded by a global warming alarmist with eleven homes and a private jet, give your instincts a pat on the back.
The communications director for Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Hypocrisy Safety (which, as her bio notes, includes Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Moms Demand Action) confirmed the group uses armed security. Check out this attempt to dodge hypocrisy.
In other words, Everytown for Gun Hypocrisy Safety pretty much agrees with the NRA? If so, what’s Michael Bloomberg’s fuss all about? I’m going to go try to sort this out over a large sugary soda, bag of pork rinds and a smoke.
David,
Do you go to the movies?
David m, I am certainly glad that women have the opportunity to call on what you refer to as the “nanny” state when they are being abused. The police were not very responsive to the calls until the latter part of the twentieth century. Now, doctors are being trained to look for the signs of domestic abuse.
SWM – and finally police are being trained to look for both sides of domestic abuse. There are a lot of men who are physically abused by their partners and it goes unreported and unpunished.
David: “Reproductive choice involves many rights, including the rights of a man and of the unborn.”
A man, the unborn, and going further, society, have limited rights in relation to a woman’s reproductive rights. These are competing interests; the woman’s interest is superior in this regard; the Republican Party wants to limit a woman’s right, or curtail it entirely, in some cases.
I’ll leave it to the lawyers to explain the principle of limited rights and interests and how they operate in these cases.
If a man really wants to reproduce that badly, then perhaps he should choose to have sexual relations with a partner that shares his goal.
“‘(S)exual freedom’ is not so important as to trump the right to life of the unborn…. Once she chooses to have sexual relations, she takes upon herself duties and obligations that limit her freedom and right to choose.”
Not sure this tracks, David. You seem to making the assumption that sexual freedom is part and parcel of reproduction. These are two separate issues and a women should not have to forgo an important aspect of the human experience in order to preserve her right to choose. The manner in which you frame the issue fails to take into account the passionate aspect which encompasses sex; choices are not made with the same rationality that go into buying a car. Motherhood is celebrated in recognition of the tremendous burden and sacrifice required of a woman when she commits to it, so it seems tremendously inequitable to enforce that level of commitment upon a woman as the price for surrendering to urgency of human passions while men aren’t faced with the same burdens.
Plus, you seem to be ignoring the fact that many times women don’t choose to have sexual activity. Abortion must be allowed as a matter of right for women who are victims of rape and incest.
“I do not support abstinence only approaches to sex education. We really are not that far apart on this issue.”
Are you in favor of ready availability of contraceptives?
Which states want to allow unfettered access to abortion across the board?
“I think it is far more noble for men to speak up for women’s rights.”
Kinda like I’m doing right now. Unfortunately, I haven’t been elected to congress or the state legislatures in places like Indiana, Texas, North Dakota, oklahoma, and Kansas where it seems that women are required to stand up and state their cases more explicitly.
Whatever about all them biblical characters who may or may not have existed, or done the things they claim. In the here and now world of everyday reality, the Christian nuts are insisting on the inferiority of women as a tenet of natural law. For that reason alone, I’d never vote for a Fundamental or the other pack of nuts.
RTC wrote: “A man, the unborn, and going further, society, have limited rights in relation to a woman’s reproductive rights. These are competing interests; the woman’s interest is superior in this regard; ”
You don’t even believe this. You yourself said that you do not believe in late term abortions. That means that you believe a point is reached before birth where the right to life of the unborn becomes superior to the woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy.
And if you believe in equal rights for men and women, what makes the woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy superior to the man’s right? Both contribute the same amount of genetic material for creating this new person.
RTC wrote: “the Republican Party wants to limit a woman’s right, or curtail it entirely, in some cases.”
No, the Republican party affirms the right of women to have control over her own body. However, the Republican Party also recognizes the right to life of the unborn, just like you do for late term abortions. It is not the Republican party that limits rights of women, but the choice of the woman to engage in reproductive activity that limits her rights. Republicans just better articulate the rights of everyone in this case, while the emotional Democrats only scream about the woman’s right to choose in order to garner votes.
RTC wrote: “You seem to making the assumption that sexual freedom is part and parcel of reproduction. These are two separate issues and a women should not have to forgo an important aspect of the human experience in order to preserve her right to choose.”
I make the assumption that sexual activity as a reproductive effect. That is the natural use of sexual relations, and even when people try to circumvent it, their birth control methods are not 100% effective.
One of the reasons I am against the homosexual agenda is exactly what you display here, a societal consciousness that sees no connection between sexual activity and reproduction, and a sense that somehow sexual activity without reproductive consequences is some kind of right of humanity. The response to someone who points out the duties and responsibilities that go along with sexual activity becomes one of accusing them of tyranny, authoritarianism, of telling them that they have no right to tell them what they can or can’t do with their body in private with someone who consents to it. They also start accusing them that they are trying to deny them their rights to free sex. When people engage in sexual activity, the responsible perspective is to understand what it means in regards to reproduction as well as sexually transmitted diseases.
All sex education classes should discuss options of abstinence, the benefits of marriage for raising a family, as well as birth control methods and why some people object to them on moral grounds. Abortion also should be talked about, the different methods of abortion, and the various philosophies about its morality and legality.
RTC wrote: “The manner in which you frame the issue fails to take into account the passionate aspect which encompasses sex; choices are not made with the same rationality that go into buying a car.”
I don’t know. Some people can get pretty passionate about a car. LOL Seriously though, these issues can be considered rationally before a person is in a passionate situation. Rational decisions can be made beforehand concerning it. This is why many people choose not to put themselves into that kind of situation until after they have married. It also is a reason why in some cultures, marriages are arranged beforehand by the parents. If you use the excuse of passion for people to engage in sexual relations, then it sounds like you would also excuse adultery for the same reason. I’m not sure that is a valid argument.
RTC wrote: “Motherhood is celebrated in recognition of the tremendous burden and sacrifice required of a woman when she commits to it, so it seems tremendously inequitable to enforce that level of commitment upon a woman as the price for surrendering to urgency of human passions while men aren’t faced with the same burdens.”
Which is why many cultures teach men that the responsible thing to do is not to enter into sexual relations until marriage, and then to accept the responsibility of raising the children with the mother. Your approach to thwart nature through scientific means of birth control in order to allow women to have sex without reproductive consequences creates other negative societal consequences. It seem so much more rational to simply cooperate with nature rather than constantly fighting nature and trying to change nature.
RTC wrote: “Abortion must be allowed as a matter of right for women who are victims of rape and incest.”
I don’t know that it must be allowed, but as part of a pluralistic society, I acknowledge that it probably should be legal in such situations if there are any individuals that wish to make use of that option. I think it should be done as early as possible, perhaps in many cases being as simple as a doctor giving the girl a shot of estrogen. There should be concern about dishonesty involved here. For example, Norma McCorvey aka Jane Roe falsely claimed she had been raped when filing her case in the infamous Roe v. Wade case. The truth came out later after the SCOTUS decision that she made up the story solely for the legal case to be brought. In any case, most Republicans seeking pro-life changes to the law allow for exceptions of rape and incest. This was George Bush’s position. There are critics of this position by some extreme pro-life people, but most legislators take the exception position.
RTC wrote: “Are you in favor of ready availability of contraceptives?”
Yes, I am in favor of the availability of contraception, but I disagree about tax supported contraception. Those who want it should pay for it themselves, just like they pay for cigarettes. Non-profit charities also can collect money to pay for it for the poor if they like, but nobody should be forced to violate their conscience to fund contraception or abortions. That is not right.
RTC wrote: “… the Christian nuts are insisting on the inferiority of women as a tenet of natural law. For that reason alone, I’d never vote for a Fundamental or the other pack of nuts.”
I don’t know any Christians insisting on the inferiority of women. From my historical perspective, Christians have done more to liberate women than any Democrat. If it were not for Christians, our society would be treating women like the Islamic Republics do. If you classify any religious group as being unqualified for your vote, and therefore unqualified for office, you are displaying religious bigotry. You might want to reconsider that anti-constitutional position.
DavidM:
I would also buy a big bad dog and a bigger handgun and shotgun.
If sweeping generalizations were negotiable currency, this thread would have produced several new millionaires.
By the way
For those who care (and the good Professor should be able to back this up) – the convention is for Police to acquire military weaponry (including machine guns).
Turns out that our Constitution prevents the Army from arming America; but there’s no such restriction on local Police. Hence, you supply the locals with everything the military would need – WHEN – that FEMA executive order permits them to commandeer the roads, cars, your farm – etc!
Homeland Security is greatly visible!
Paul;
This week there’s are weapons supply convention in D.C. and I have a couple of persons for me – snooping around there. One of them was in a luncheon today that included some hard right wings and Heritage Foundation members.
It will bug you to know that those higher ups have great disdain for Condi.
Discussion of Rice issues were just as paramount as Benghazi.
Go figure!
Laser – there is just no pleasing some people.
Mr. Keebler:
Do you have any Samoas? Or as you call them Coconut Dreams. Arent you ashamed of yourself for copying a Girl Scout cookie?
Swarthmore Mom:
who called you a feminazi? I dont remember that.
from my experience with the medical profession, you have to watch nurses and residents like hawks, they will kill you quicker than you can say lickety split.
Good nurses are hard to find and worth their weight in gold; bad ones really are terrible.
Swm,
If I recall lottak kinda told you to stop it as well as AY.
Elaine,
Isn’t it amazing that the only past some folks want to remember is the other persons. They will relieve any one else’s but there own.
Otteray;
As always, your manner and decorum is exceptional.
The Science guy is cool.
Nurses are favorite people is also extraordinary.
(Though I was with an 84 year old friend yesterday – as a patient – who would????)
As for the strong woman reflection, I find there’s more to that subject that meets any eye; and would do much to prod you to do a thread on such.
Woman staying at home is – arguably – draconian;
but the media pundits don’t like men doing the same either.
When we see the reality of the abuse woman put up with due to the (purported) theory of them being a weaker sex, I get enraged (as anyone would arguing that a short person, non-Caucasian etc., is not up to par – would also upset me).
Diversity serves humanity well – as it would be terrible to see everyone a clone.
Be that as it may, as much as I agree strong women are wonderful;
I wonder what you would say about your wife being Ann Coulter.
(Or worse, Bachmann or Palin).
Dare ye entry the fray – Otteray?