Today, the voters of Wisconsin go to the polls in what may be the single most expensive and important judicial race in modern history. Both parties are spending millions with the balance of the state Supreme Court in the balance. If liberal Susan Crawford wins, the expectation is that she will vote with the Democratic majority to approve a gerrymandering of congressional districts to guarantee the loss of two Republicans and possibly flip control of the House of Representatives to the Democrats.
The raw political pitch in the election is disturbing. It assumes that both candidates will blindly support the objectives of their respective parties. The real reason to cast a vote today should be on judicial ideology. Ironically, the United States Supreme Court made that plain in an important Wisconsin case argued just the day before the state election.
The case is Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission.
In the decision below, the Democratic-controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that Catholic Charities could not benefit from a religious exemption to the state’s unemployment tax because its charitable work was not sufficiently religious.
Catholic Charities is one of the world’s oldest and most respected charities. However, the church believes that it has a duty to help people of every faith who are in need. Thus, the church does not proselytize in offering such aid and services.
A state labor commission ruled that the charity’s lack of such religious expression and prayer makes it secular, even if it has religious motivations.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed and ruled that the charity is not operated primarily for religious purposes because it does not “attempt to imbue” beneficiaries “with the Catholic faith nor supply any religious materials to program participants or employees.” In other words, the fact that Catholic Charities helps everyone and does not proselytize worked against it. The Wisconsin Supreme Court essentially argued that it needs to pray more to offer such charity as a church.
It is a disturbing ruling that would allow the state to choose between religions in weighing their relative manifestations of faith.
Even liberal justices cried foul over the standard. Justice Elena Kagan suggested it was “pretty fundamental that we don’t treat some religions better than others. And we certainly don’t do it based on the content of the religious doctrine that those religions preach.”
Kagan noted, “Some religions proselytize. Other religions don’t. Why are we treating some religions better than others based on that element of religious doctrine?” She noted that the standard “basically puts the state on the side of some religions with some doctrine versus other religions with a different doctrine.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested that the Wisconsin Supreme Court was asking the wrong questions about what it means to be an organization “operated primarily for religious purposes.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch virtually mocked the standard of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, asking if Catholic Charities have to require the people receiving their services to “repent.” He then asked: “is mandatory church attendance versus optional church attendance, that’s the line?”
Gorsuch then delivered the haymaker: “Isn’t it a fundamental premise of our First Amendment that the state shouldn’t be picking and choosing between religions, between certain evangelical sects, and Judaism and Catholicism on the other, for example?”
The case shows that there are far more important issues dividing these candidates on judicial philosophy that should drive this election. I am not a fan of state elected judges and justices precisely because of the raw political element to these contests. The Catholic Charities case shows that the Wisconsin Supreme Court is divided along more than just a party line.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
P.S.: Whoever wins, the majority should adopt a new seal for the Court. The current seal above is dreadful.
Dear Jonathan- I ask whether you will be blogging about Donald Trump’s onslaught against law firms and against visa holders targeted for First Amendment-protected speech (with administration official(s) characterizing them as pro-Hamas). My understanding is that you don’t shy away from any topic that is important to you. I would hope these issues are important to you. Thanks. Jon Katz, GWU JD 1989.
Just because a church runs something doesn’t make it religious. I have read of churches running gas stations. I don’t think that the gas stations should be exempt from state unemployment insurance.
I don’t think the test should be Catholic doctrine guides the ministry, but rather, do you have to be Catholic to work there. (This should apply to any religion.) The better comparison should be other large scale charities like Goodwill. Do they pay state unemployment insurance? Or the Salvation Army? I don’t know the answers for those two but if they did then I would say Catholic Charities should too. If they don’t, then neither should Catholic Charities.
The Catholic church and my protestant church run large parochial school systems. If the teachers and maybe the staff have to belong to the denomination to be employed, one could argue that they could be exempt from state unemployment insurance and if they don’t then perhaps they should pay state unemployment.
For instance if the University of Notre Dame employees a Jewish Physics professor, then state unemployment would be applicable, even if one had to be an ordained priest to teach religious history at Notre Dame (Note, I don’t know the employment practices of the University of Notre Dame, just making up examples). With schools, there is also the issue of employees who teach and those who don’t. No school can function without secretarial, custodial, or maintenance staff. Do they also have to be co-religionists?
The Catholic Church should be commended for having their own unemployment insurance system? But I don’t think the decision should be based on that.
Charity is a fundamental role of religion
It is not a legitimate role of government
If you are engaged in charity you have first amendment rights
Prof. Turley
Judicial appointments work no better than judicial elections
Once courts become political it does not matter how the judges get there position
The good professor says voters shouldn’t choose based on party affiliation, but principle. Those two things are hard to disentangle, and the case he relies on proves my point. It was a 4-3 decision with the Dems voting against Catholic Charities and the Republicans voting for. He clearly sides with the Republicans.
So . . . isn’t it reasonable to draw from the professor’s essay that voters should vote for the Republican today, in order to restore the court to judging by better principles?
And isn’t that that particularly true given that voters generally know little about a judicial candidate’s scholarship or judicial philosophy, and they use party affiliation as a rough proxy for the type of adjudication they want to see. Overall, then, I am not convinced of the professor’s thesis, and my skepticism is supported by the very case he references for his own support.
Isn’t it something there’s an election for judgeship and the concern is that one side of the political spectrum may want to sway the electoral process. An old definition [a Judge is a lawyer who knows the governor], adding a little humor also an OB/GYN. Supreme Court Justice Scalia felt that a good judge had three qualities: a servant to the law, neutral and objective decision maker, and an even handed representative of the law with moral character.
I’ll say if they left is/as have been described: habitual despots in pursuit absolute power, then let’s pray for their defeat.
M. Wiser wrote posted a second time: As judges, they are educated in the Judicial codes of conduct and even in matters of communication skills… People offering opinions about judges must be sure to ask themselves questions about what judges actually do and whether or not their own political assessments cast judges in an unfair light.
How about you and your opinions on judges, as you sail in on your Democrat warship with your false flag defensively flying here in Professor Turley’s blog?
As you cosplay on being an expert judges being specifically being educated on judicial codes of conduct, you’re painfully aware of the Code of Professional Conduct for the Washington DC Bar Association. And perhaps more specifically concerning members of that bar association who are also federal judges, the ethical canons for federal judges: The Code of Conduct for United States Judges.
Judge Boasberg of 2016 FISA infamy, Kevin Klinesmith infamy, and once again celebrated by your fellow Democrats for claiming the Executive Branch must seek the permission of him as a basement level District Judge to deport criminal illegal aliens.
Judge Boasberg has both a wife merching out working for Democrat opposition to Trump’s administration, and more specifically a daughter merching out a foundation which has been receiving Democrat federal benefits, being paid to obstruct and prevent Illegal Aliens being deported – an action Boasberg has allowed to be litigated in his Washington DC courtroom.
Both the Washington DC Bar Association AND The Code of Conduct for United States Judges have sections that state that Judge Boasberg MUST recuse himself when choosing to hear cases judge-shopped to him concerning Illegal Aliens. MANDATORY RECUSAL, due to the political business interests of not just one of his immediate family members, but both of them.
Boasberg has repeatedly been asked to recuse himself by the Trump administration due to those ethical family conflicts of interest. Boasberg repeatedly refuses to do that.
Since you’ve lectured on whether a political assessment either for or against a judge might be done in an unfair light… Give us you opinion on whether Boasberg is complying with the prohibitions set out for him by both his Bar Association and the Canons of Conduct for federal judges?
Do you claim he’s an honest, principled judge?
Or a blatantly corrupt lawless judge – just as he was back in 2016 when he allowed Obama to turn his FISA courts into Democrat perjury factories, removing the civil rights of THOUSANDS of Americans through felonious color of law?
Inquiring fellow Democrat with honest minds want to know your political assessment of Judge Boasberg…
In the probable likelihood you are not aware of and have never read either of the codes of conduct governing a Washington DC lawyer and federal judge like Boasberg, here’s the links so you can do that before delivering your opinion:
The Code of Conduct for United States Judges
https://www.uscourts.gov/administration-policies/judiciary-policies/ethics-policies/code-conduct-united-states-judges
DC Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct
https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/rules-of-professional-conduct
From the perspective of a senior male resident who sees and has already begun criticizing Governor Evers and the State Legislature for taxing the public to unlawfully maintain and promote establishments of religion in Wisconsin, as with morality, spectator sports (KJV: Judges 16: 25-27; e.g., $700 Million in 2023 to renovate the Bucks Arena and the Brewers Stadium, minimally) and spirituality, charity is entirely within the domain of the Church; an “establishment of religion.” Administration, law enforcement and public protections and services in accordance the US Constitution are the domain of state government. Federal, state and local, all courts should base their decisions on the ‘letter of the law,’ not on politics or huge donations by Elon Musk and the voters should base their voting on which candidate/issue most closely conforms to constitutional law. I will go so far now as to state that all levels of government in the US are unconstitutional, as evidenced by the current state of affairs at each level; “res ipsa loquitur.”
Very much agreed, excellent piece. This all smacks of desperation bordering on illegality, and it has got to stop, it is absurd. I can’t vote in WI; I hope the people there lead with their consciences and a grasp of the bigger picture.
Seriously: Obama, his cohort, and his rule by fiat (phone and pen paired with gaslighting, if not straight up dishonesty) have done such tremendous damage to this country it’s tough to calculate, this is just more of that fallout. From sixteen bloody years ago, fathom that – the ripples are still rippling. We have the opportunity to course correct. Let’s not blow it.
James,
Well said. I do think we are correcting the course but the deep state is doing everything it can to stop it. Build enough momentum and they wont be able to least they do something truly desperate.
@Upstate
I do too, thanks for responding, it will just be a long, long process. At least as long as it took to dismantle things. Four years are not going to be enough. I do not remember a time, and perhaps some can chime in on that, when we were all cued in on elections in other states as we are now. Scott Jennings is right: every single election carries the survival of Western civilization with it, and some are just not capable of seeing the bigger picture. The rest of us have to pick up the slack, whether we like it or not, and as long as it takes.
James,
Soros and his group targeted six moderate democrats in my state and took them out. He is behind the bizarre DAs who let criminals loose without a need to post bail. Theft is not prosecuted and thus going to the hardware store is like jewelry shopping, everything is behind a case.
Theft Democrats are the party that hates statues, cars and laws. They are egging on the domestic terrorists, they advocate for TDA, MS-13, rapists, child molesters, and irresponsible squandering of taxpayer dollars.
They have gone off the deep end.
Chaos and the coordinated destruction of western civilization and all that is decent seems to be their objective.
“The” instead of “theft.” Sorry, freudian slip.
@E.M.
Oh, I’m aware. Shrieks of ‘oligarchy’ from these spoiled children are downright hilarious.
Looks like you blew it. Losing!
Well it is. You just cannot give in to the uncertainties of honest voting. In California we killed the beast of accuracy years ago.
@Amish
Indeed, and it’s all well and good to make that observation, but now we must move our feet in tandem. Armchair politics will not solve this. We all have to live in the world we are creating until the end of our lives. It is something to think very hard about, because it is very much that serious.
Here’s what “Pro Publica” said about REPUBLICAN gerrymandering in Wisconsin–something the election of Judge Crawford could correct. This is an inconvenient fact Turley left out of today’s purchased piece:
“In the northwest corner of Wisconsin, the 73rd Assembly District used to be shaped like a mostly rectangular blob. Then, last year, a new map drawn by Republican lawmakers took effect, and some locals joked that it looked a lot like a Tyrannosaurus rex.
The advent of the “T. rex” precipitated dark times and perhaps extinction for local Democrats.
The new map bit off and spit out a large chunk of Douglas County, which tended to vote Democratic, and added rural swaths of Burnett County, which leans conservative.
The Redrawing of Assembly District 73
The Assembly seat had been held by Democrats for 50 years. But after the district lines were moved, Republican Angie Sapik, who had posted comments disparaging the Black Lives Matter movement and cheered on the Jan. 6 rioters on social media, won the seat in November 2022.
The redrawing of the 73rd District and its implications are emblematic of the extreme gerrymandering that defines Wisconsin — where maps have been drawn in irregular and disconnected shapes over the last two decades, helping Republicans seize and keep sweeping power.
That gerrymandering, which stands out even in a country where the practice is regularly employed by both major parties, fuels Wisconsin power dynamics. And that has drawn national attention because of the potential impact on abortion rights for people across the state and voting policies that could affect the outcome of the next presidential election.
The new maps have given Wisconsin Republicans the leeway to move aggressively on perceived threats to their power. The GOP-controlled Senate recently voted to fire the state’s nonpartisan elections chief, Meagan Wolfe, blaming her for pandemic-era voting rules that they claim helped Joe Biden win the state in 2020. A legal battle over Wolfe’s firing now looms.
The future of a newly elected state supreme court justice, Janet Protasiewicz, also is in doubt. Her election in April shifted the balance of the court to the left and put the Wisconsin maps in peril. Republican leaders have threatened to impeach her if she does not recuse herself from a case that seeks to invalidate the maps drawn by the GOP. They argue that she’s biased because during her campaign she told voters the maps are “rigged.”
“They are rigged, period. Coming right out and saying that. I don’t think you could sell to any reasonable person that the maps are fair,” she said at a January candidates forum.
She added: “I can’t ever tell you what I’m going to do on a particular case, but I can tell you my values, and common sense tells you that it’s wrong.”
Given the usually staid campaign statements associated with state-level judicial races, her comments stood out.
But, by any number of measurements made by dispassionate researchers, the maps have, in fact, proven to be extreme.
The Gerrymandering Project at Princeton gives the Wisconsin redistricting an F grade for partisan fairness, finding Republicans have a significant advantage, as do incumbents. “Wisconsin’s legislative maps are among the most extreme partisan ones in the country,” the project’s director, Sam Wang, said in an email to ProPublica.
Wang argues that Wisconsin’s GOP has gone further than most states and engineered “a supermajority gerrymander” in the Senate. Republicans control 22 of 33 Senate seats, giving them the two-thirds required to override a gubernatorial veto. (In the Assembly, the GOP is still two seats short of a supermajority.)”
Gigi thinks Pro Publica has as much credibility and trust here at Professor Turley’s blog as she does!
For once, just this once, she’s right!!!!
Someone really needs to do a forensic psychological examination of MAGATs to find out how American oligarchs who set up alternative media managed to convince so many people to set aside the truth, reality and our American values so as to delusionally become members of the Cult of Trump. What tactics have they employed to get people to believe: 1. that mainstream media that adheres to journalistic standards cannot be trusted; 2. that Donald J. Trump is not a lying criminal sociopath misogynistic xenophobic racist who cares only about obtaining power, attention and adulation as a fix for his sick ego; that the did a terrible job pretending to be president, that despite numerous members of his former administration saying so, he really isn’t stupid, lazy, ignorant of American history, ignornant of world history, that everything he does isn’t transactional, that he cannot and will not listen to people who know more than he does, especially about things like tariffs and international relations, and that he really doesn’t care about anything other than the attention, adulation, power and glory of the US Presidency; that for the sake of his sick ego, he enjoys bullying people he thinks cannot fight back–like Zelenskyy, federal employees and migrants; 3. that the only facts that are worthy of belief are those that come from Trump, the Republican Party or MAGA media; anything else should be rejected outright, especially if it amounts to criticism of Trump, Republicans and MAGA; 4. that scientists, educational institutions, and experts in infectious disease are lying, they are on the take, are politically-motivated and are hiding cures for things like cancer, COVID and other conditions. Also, that, no matter what studies say about the efficacy and safety of vaccines, we should be skeptical–anyway, they lied about COVID causing so many deaths, lied about Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine being effective cures for COVID because they are on the payroll of Moderna and Pfizer. They also lied about COVID being biological warfare deliberately released by the Chinese. Therefore, Dr. Fauci, Dr. Birx and other physicians at the CDC should go to prison; 5. that most people who work for the federal government are lazy and their work does not benefit the American people; therefore, they all should be fired; 6. that when anything bad happens, like the DC plane crash–it is the fault of DEI. In fact, if any black person or woman is in a position of authority, such as being a judge, physician, or executive, they didn’t earn the position–they were given it because of DEI; 7. that migrants are all bad people–rapists, criminals, murderers, that they steal pets and eat them; therefore, they deserve to be mistreated; they are pushing Americans out of their jobs, and were let into this country by Biden just to vote Democratic and replace white Americans; in fact, according to MAGA, migrants voted illegally by the millions in 2020; 8. that Trump really won in 2020, and that Democrats cheated him out of his “presidency”; that Russian hackers didn’t help Trump cheat in 2016; 9. that Trump didn’t take the successful economy he inherited from Obama and turn it into the worst recession since the Great Depression; 10. that Trump can force China, Mexico and Canada to pay his tariffs, which won’t be passed on to the American consumer.
These are just some examples of the group delusions of MAGA, which really needs to be studied–just like social scientists have studied how Hitler got Germans to go along with his mass murder of Jews, who, before Hitler, had been their neighbors, family doctors, musicians, scientists, teachers and friends.
Somebody needs to tell Gigi that her life in the Soviet Democrat Borg is not where real, normal Americans live.
They should explain to her that she MIGHT be able to make a living doing something other than performing here as an amoral liar, still attempting to win the 2024 presidential election.
+100
Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble!
– Gigenius unpaid troll
@Anonymous
No doubt. Why would any sane person do what Gigi does everyday for free? Privileged and bored, yes. Salient and sane, no, not especially.
@Gigi
Here’s what I have to say to Gigi:
Pbbbbbblllltt. 😛😛😛
This, just like his maintaining D’s try to pack the SCOTUS, is just another example of a standard Turley tactic…in this case, R’s screaming about gerrymandering on the heels of their own gerrymandering efforts…
Turley seems to be the right’s go to with this disingenuous trick. Total hypocrisy.
Trying to get ahead of Dennis McIntyre showing up to post whatever he chooses to claim as today’s Victory Lap against Trump:
Illegal Aliens Infiltrated Voter Rolls,Committed Medicaid Fraud After Obtaining SSNs without IDs
https://thepopulisttimes.com/exposed-illegal-immigrants-infiltrated-voter-rolls-exploit-medicaid-after-obtaining-ssns-without-ids/
The number of illegal aliens with fraudulent social security numbers surged more than sevenfold from 270,000 in 2021 to a whopping 2.1 million in 2024. In total, more than 5 million illegal aliens collect benefits funded by hardworking American taxpayers, with some finding their way into the voter register.
“We found 1.3 million of them already on Medicaid as an example. On every benefit program we went through, we found groups from this particular group of people, 5.5 million people in those benefit programs”
Besides directly infiltrating voter registers, illegal immigrants influence redistricting, giving liberal states more congressional seats and expanding their control over the legislature. Therefore, Democrats have more ways than one of politically benefiting from illegal immigration, thus explaining why they encourage or tolerate it.
We should be grateful and feel secure that Dennis McIntyre and George have assured us that there is no voter fraud and Illegal Aliens aren’t in fact Guest Democrat Voters who actually vote!
What the DOGErs Keep Finding at Social Security Explains the Democrat Spasms
https://hotair.com/tree-hugging-sister/2025/03/31/what-the-dogers-keep-finding-at-social-security-explains-the-progressive-spasms-n3801328
It’s not just the fact that 2.1 million Social Security Numbers were issued to non-citizens in FY2024. It’s the trend line. The number was doubling every single year of the Biden presidency. This is not a mistake Biden and his administration made one year.
“So we actually just took a sample and looked at voter registration records and we found people here registered to vote in this population. Yes. Who did vote? We found some by sampling that ACTUALLY DID VOTE.
We have referred them to prosecution at the Homeland Security Investigation Service. Yeah. Already, already. That is already happening right now. The truly disturbing thing though, I just want you to know this, a truly disturbing thing to me, and the darkest thing about this, to me, the voter fraud is terrible.”
Whistleblower Explains How Biden Coordinated Signing Illegal Aliens Up For Permanent Social Security Disability Benefits Upon Their Arrival
https://x.com/i/status/1906532530834329732
This was not Biden supposedly being asleep at the switch and not realizing this.
The Biden strategy was to create lifetime government dependency at American taxpayer’s expense. Staffers were instructed to identify and document minor health issues like “recurring headaches” or “lower back problems” that would qualify migrants for long-term disability payments that would continue for life.
Gigi goes for two instances of being right for once – in one day! Gigi proclaims that “Medium” has just as much credibility and trust here as she does. Just as she earlier claimed “Pro Publica” ALSO has as much credibility and trust here as she does.
Gigi, Pro Publica, and Medium: all with exactly the same amount of credibility and trustworthiness from Professor Turley’s audience here. Who will she add next? CNN? The View?
Oh… and as much as Biden, who Gigi still defends to this day did NOT know the names or meet with any of his ChiCom and Russian customers!
Lose your tax exempt status for not proselytizing and wanting to help all those in need? How bizarre is that?
Upstate Farmer-
To quote a recent song, “How Bizarre, How Bizarre”
Upstate, I think the issue is greater than that. I’ll take one example, should the church be able to own billions of dollars in commercial real estate and not be taxed?
I am very much in favor of ending virtually all tax exemptions except for the specific a clearly designed place of worship. I would only permit a charity deduction for the percentage of money that made it to the recipient.
Helping everyone regardless of their religious affiliations has always been the standard for all charities. Now Wisconsin punishes a charity for not being more religious? Do they want the charity to be more sectarian? Really? This is a horrible decision.
“…A state labor commission ruled that the charity’s lack of such religious expression and prayer makes it secular, even if it has religious motivations. …”
Today Religion(s) have been reduced to a Brand and an Economic Institution. As they always have been.
Religious ‘patronage’ is the same as ‘consumer dedication and brand affiliation’. The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed with this notion.
” … The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed and ruled that the charity is not operated primarily for religious purposes because it does not “attempt to imbue” beneficiaries “with the Catholic faith nor supply any religious materials to program participants or employees.” …”
I marvel, Wisconsin boasts the fourth-largest Amish population in the US, What would the SCOTUS say to Their proclivity had it arisen by them.
Should the Amish Vote at all, how would They vote?
Madison & Milwaukee, will fall to the Democrats.
But People of rural communities tend to attend Church, particularly in the Midwest.
Consider this:
I worship 𝕏 , Elon Musk is my Pope, I worship routinely at the alter of the Super Charger Stations. And I pray to the stars that I might reach the Heavens on a Space𝕏 rocket. … I put my faith in this Brand.
Now is that any different than:
Being Catholic, being a Follower of the Pope, worshiping at Catholic services, I pray to God that I may reach Heaven. … I put my faith in this Brand.
Both Institution do exceedingly well – Financially (Tesla Corp / Vatican Bank) People ‘invest’ in both – Mentally and Financially.
Brand Loyalty vs Religious Patronage
re·li·gion
/rəˈlij(ə)n/
noun
noun: religion
• the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods.
“ideas about the relationship between science and religion”
•a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions
“the world’s great religions”
•a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
“consumerism is the new religion”
—
Brand Loyalty
brand
/brand/
noun
noun: brand; plural noun: brands
• a type of product manufactured by a particular company under a particular name.
“a new brand of detergent”
loy·al·ty
/ˈloi(ə)ltē/
noun
noun: loyalty
• the quality of being loyal.
“her loyalty to her husband of 34 years”
• a strong feeling of support or allegiance.
plural noun: loyalties
“fights with in-laws are distressing because they cause divided loyalties”
Definition: Brand loyalty is the degree to which a consumer consistently purchases the same brand within a product class.
Behavior: It’s characterized by a consumer’s preference for a particular brand, leading to repeated purchases and potentially positive word-of-mouth advocacy.
Significance: Brand loyalty is valuable for businesses as it reduces marketing costs associated with acquiring new customers and fosters customer retention.
Factors: Customer satisfaction, brand trust, and perceived value play a crucial role in building and maintaining brand loyalty.
–
Best practices: the SCOTUS adhere to a ‘Separation of Church (Brand) and State’.
Losing My Religion posted on behalf of his own religion, the theology of Marx and Communism: The Rock Fairy Religion Of Atheism.
Best practices: the SCOTUS adhere to a ‘Separation of Church (Brand) and State’
That isn’t in the First Amendment, nor in the Constitution. That’s the pronouncement of FDR’s fellow Kluxxer and Racist, Justice Hugo Black – who hated Catholics and Jews almost as much as he loathed black Americans like Olympic champion Jesse Owens.
One of the articles of faith for vicious cult members of the Rock Fairy Faith Of Atheism is to repeatedly claim that “Separation Of Church And State” can be found and read in the First Amendment.
But it’s not there – just like the other clause they claim exists in the BoR: The Right To Taxpayer Funded Elective Birth Control Abortions.
“… Losing My Religion posted on behalf of his own religion, …”
On behalf of his own Reality (not religion).
You love to put Words into Others mouths.
You must live in a world of pain. God has a place for You Son.
You love to put Words into Others mouths. You must live in a world of pain. God has a place for You Son.
You loved attempting to claim that SCOTUS can find Justice Black’s “Separation Of Church And State” in the First Amendment – if they just look hard enough. But without deceit, how else could communist atheists like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc persuade Useful Idiots to be their disciples and prophets?
The world that Marx promised you if you just tear down the load bearing pillars of the American republic is nothing but the Democrat Marxist Borg, Tovarisch. Your place will be a serf, with your life to be spent toiling for your communist masters.
The fact that you have ‘Faith’, dose not juxtapose you to a submissive role to the rule of God. God has a good plans for you, conversely the Devil has but one and you ain’t gonna like it.
“You loved attempting to claim that SCOTUS can find Justice Black’s “Separation Of Church And State” in the First Amendment …”
The Wisconsin Supreme Court stuck to the ‘Lemon Test’.
James Madison, the principal author of the First Amendment, explicitly warned against taxpayer funding of religion, including religious education, because it would be the first step in allowing the government to force citizens to conform to the preferred faith of those in power.
Many people of faith, including Christians and adherents of minority faiths, strongly support the separation of church and state as a core component of religious liberty. They recognize, as did James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and other of our nation’s founders, that religious freedom thrives best when government officials don’t tip the scales toward their favored religious beliefs.
In regards to the First Amendment:
Establishment Clause:
The first clause of the First Amendment, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This prevents the federal government from supporting an official religion and sets the United States apart from many European nations, which provide official government support for a national, or “established,” church.
Free Exercise Clause:
The second clause of the First Amendment, which prevents the federal government from interfering with its citizens’ religious beliefs and practices. The Supreme Court has upheld some limits on religious practices that conflict with secular laws, such as religious drug use or polygamy.
Lemon Test: A test to determine whether a law violates the establishment clause devised by the Supreme Court in the 1971 case Lemon v. Kurtzman. Based on the Lemon test, laws are constitutional only if they have a legitimate secular purpose, neither advance nor inhibit religion, and do not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.
Nondenominational Prayer:
Prayer that does not advocate the beliefs of a specific religion but that acknowledges the existence of a divine being.
Secular:
Nonreligious or unaffiliated with religion.
“Wall of Separation” between church and state:
A phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson in an 1802 letter, which described his view that there should be complete separation between the government and religion.
—
The New Twist: Carson v. Makin | Kennedy v. Bremerton School District
The Supreme Court’s rulings in Carson and Kennedy lead “us to a place where separation of church and state becomes a constitutional violation.”
https://www.aclu.org/news/religious-liberty/the-supreme-court-benches-the-separation-of-church-and-state
—
My original point was: Religions have gone Commercial. Hence the Courts viewing them as economic enterprises and separating the proselyting-activities from the business-activites is part and parcel of the decision, because of the First Amendment. Jimmy Baker & Tammy Faye would disagree, but there again, They were only looking for a 100% Tax Free lifestyle.
“Evil People”: Organized ‘Bankrupt Tesla’ Group Tied To Formerly USAID-Funded Disinfo Queen
By: Tyler Durden ~ Apr 01, 2025
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/evil-people-organized-bankrupt-tesla-group-tied-formerly-usaid-funded-disinfo-queen
❤️ Guitars, Tesla’s, and Hillbilly Music ❤️
Agreed on the idea the Wisconsin election should turn on principle, ideally speaking. And that’s why Elon Musk is trying to buy his way around principle in order to install a judge that will smile favorably on the Tesla related case before the Wisconsin court….
So, your schill for Elon aside, let’s all hope for the principled jurist –Crawford–getting a resounding win and thereby setting back the unprincipled efforts of Musk to buy the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Party on, Turls!!
Let me tell you how life works – You are a white person, and you have been caught embezzling money from the Poor Little Orphans Charity. You are going to prison. You are a nice person, otherwise, and educated. But when you get to prison, you have to decide whether you are going to join the Aryan Brotherhood. You are not a white supremacist, or racist, but you either join the Brotherhood or get shivved on a regular basis. This is a pretty easy choice, because “principles” are not an issue here. It is simply a matter of survival.
This is the choice people face when it comes to voting. You either vote Republican, or you vote for the perverted, crooked, freakish, lying Democrat Party – who let millions of illegal aliens invade the country, who stole trillions of dollars over the years to funnel to their cronies, who hid a demented President’s dementia, and who will support boys beating the shlt out of girls in sports. It is simply a matter of national survival.
All judgeships are political appointments. ALL!
“All judgeships are political appointments. ALL!”
They NEVER elect Wisconsin Supreme Court judges. NEVER!
ESPECIALLY NOT TODAY!
M. Weiser says: April 1, 2025 at 10:47 AM
In litigation judges evaluate, hear arguments and make decisions on the evidence presented. They have to make determinations on relevance and admissibility during the course of preliminary motions and up to and including trial. They are limited to the rules of evidence and the interpretations of counsel before them. It goes without saying that controlling procedure as well as substantive matters is a requirement. As judges, they are educated in the Judicial codes of conduct and even in matters of communication skills. They may also receive training in specialized areas such as criminal procedure.
But the goal is to maintain objectivity within the limits of the law by fairly evaluating the evidence before them and making logically sound judgments based on that legally evaluated evidence. This applies all the way from administrative law to the appellate levels. It is important to be watchful when evaluating judges in that their formulated judgments are not always a matter of personal preference but rather is directed by the evidence before them. People offering opinions about judges must be sure to ask themselves questions about what judges actually do and whether or not their own political assessments cast judges in an unfair light.
Perhaps I’m mistaken but courts don’t draw congressional districts. Legislatures do. Still, the idea that judges run political campaigns to get on the bench seems absurd on its face. They should stay in their lane; opine on the cases that come before them and nothing more. What are they adding to the cheese in Wisconsin?