The tyranny of the judiciary

Couple of thoughts:

1. The football field is not a classroom (students are required to attend school, but not required to go out for football), and it was outside of school hours (presumably the meaning of the comment about teachers/employees being free to pursue private business at that time?).  However, i would bet the coach gets additional pay for game time, and/or is required to be there.  As a thought experiment, what would happen if he were injured on the field just post-game?  Would the injury be covered under workers' comp? If so, does that mean he's "on the job"?  And does that mean he's representing the school to the kids and audience?

2.  The idea that the students were free not to participate is form without substance, imo, unless they want to choose not to be on the team, given the power of the coach over their athletic lives, and the influence of both the coach and the other kids.


DaveSchmidt said:

nohero said:

If the Spiers analogy seemed apt to you, too, I’d prefer to see the reasons expressed in written form. The gathering in the photo leaves distinctions with a teacher conducting a classroom that the photo does not on the face of it explain.

The phrase "distinction without a difference" comes to mind.


drummerboy said:

Is that it - the difference between a classroom and a football field?

No difference - both part of the school. As a matter of fact, doesn't this decision now make it OK for teacher's to lead prayer in classrooms? Can't see how it doesn't. Or did the decision limit it to football fields?

Your approval of the analogy is clearer to me now: The setting aside, a public prayer by a coach that some players feel pressure to join is no different from a teacher leading a classroom in prayer.

As for your second question, if you or nohero finds any legal commentary that says this ruling makes it OK for teachers to lead prayer in classrooms, I’d be interested in reading it.


I'm trying to figure out how the court can describe kneeling on the 50 yard line with dozens of students, in front of perhaps thousands of people as "private prayer."

Anyone who thinks students wouldn't feel some pressure to join the prayer probably doesn't remember high school very well. Or team sports. 


DaveSchmidt said:

As for your second question, if you or nohero finds any legal commentary that says this ruling makes it OK for teachers to lead prayer in classrooms, I’d be interested in reading it.

If it's all the same to you, I'd like to frame my own arguments, thanks.


nohero said:

If it's all the same to you, I'd like to frame my own arguments, thanks.

Frame away. I’m still interested in reading any legal commentary that suggests no difference, despite the distinctions, between this case and the Spiers analogy.

The phrase "distinction without a difference" comes to mind.


DaveSchmidt said:

nohero said:

If it's all the same to you, I'd like to frame my own arguments, thanks.

Frame away. I’m still interested in reading any legal commentary that suggests no difference, despite the distinctions, between this case and the Spiers analogy.

The phrase "distinction without a difference" comes to mind.

You only want legal commentary? Have you already read Justice Sotomayor's dissent?


This case may not directly allow praying in a classroom, but given this decision and last week's decision about school funding I really can't imagine this court drawing any lines for religious expression. Maybe it will take another case - for which I guarantee there are many people scheming on ways to bring it to court.


drummerboy said:

This case may not directly allow praying in a classroom, but given this decision and last week's decision about school funding I really can't imagine this court drawing any lines for religious expression. Maybe it will take another case - for which I guarantee there are many people scheming on ways to bring it to court.

It seems to allow any teacher to lead prayers as long as it's during an after school activity, and the students aren't "required" to participate. So the yearbook advisor can probably lead a prayer before each meeting of the staff. 


Interesting look at the Kennedy case, where the author makes the case that Gorsuch's opinion contains a lot of "false facts" regarding Kennedy's behavior. In doing so, Gorsuch has left a muddled path going forward to guide future decisions.

https://www.vox.com/2022/6/27/23184848/supreme-court-kennedy-bremerton-school-football-coach-prayer-neil-gorsuch



nohero said:

You only want legal commentary? Have you already read Justice Sotomayor's dissent?

A Supreme Court dissent counts as legal commentary in my book, and, yes, I’ve read Sotomayor’s. Unless I missed it, she gave no sign that a teacher’s leading a classroom in prayer would be an apt analogy for what the majority Kennedy opinion condones. If anything, “a non-Christian teacher in a majority Christian classroom” who “wants to lead students in non-Christian prayer” sounds to me like a fit with what Sotomayor says is the court majority’s “suggestion that coercion must be ‘direc[t]’ to be cognizable under the Establishment Clause.”


DaveSchmidt said:

nohero said:

You only want legal commentary? Have you already read Justice Sotomayor's dissent?

A Supreme Court dissent counts as legal commentary in my book, and, yes, I’ve read Sotomayor’s. Unless I missed it, she gave no sign that a teacher’s leading a classroom in prayer would be an apt analogy for what the majority Kennedy opinion condones. If anything, “a non-Christian teacher in a majority Christian classroom” who “wants to lead students in non-Christian prayer” sounds to me like a fit with what Sotomayor says is the court majority’s “suggestion that coercion must be ‘direc[t]’ to be cognizable under the Establishment Clause.”

I think discussing the actual decision is better than a back-and-forth about how apt an analogy is.

And if you "tweak" the analogy to "after the bell rings, teacher will stand at his desk and pray, and students may gather around before leaving the classroom", that would be close to what Justice Sotomayor was addressing. From page 34 of her dissent: "To reiterate, the District did not argue, and neither court below held, that 'any visible religious conduct by a teacher or coach should be deemed . . . impermissibly coercive on students.' Ante, at 28. Nor has anyone contended that a coach may never visibly pray on the field. The courts below simply recognized that Kennedy continued to initiate prayers visible to students, while still on duty during school events, under the exact same circumstances as his past practice of leading student prayer. It is unprecedented for the Court to hold that this conduct, taken as a whole, did not raise cognizable coercion concerns."


nohero said:

I think discussing the actual decision is better than a back-and-forth about how apt an analogy is.

And if you "tweak" the analogy to "after the bell rings, teacher will stand at his desk and pray, and students may gather around before leaving the classroom", that would be close to what Justice Sotomayor was addressing.

I appreciate the laugh just now, but please feel as free to stop forthing as much as you’re free to frame. My backs were replies to questions and invitations for more info.


DaveSchmidt said:

I appreciate the laugh just now, but please feel as free to stop forthing as much as you’re free to frame. My backs were replies to questions and invitations for more info.

I'm going to need that translated into normal speech.


nohero said:

I'm going to need that translated into normal speech.

Haw. You’re forthing again.


Oh no! I’ve just read: 

'Miranda' lawsuits

How did the Supreme Court rule? The outcome was 6-3, with the court's six conservatives in the majority and its three liberal members dissenting.

The Supreme Court has shielded police from the risk of paying damages for failing to advise criminal suspects of their rights before obtaining statements later used against them in court, siding with a Los Angeles County deputy sheriff.

This decision bars lawsuits against police for using evidence obtained without advising people of their rights — the 'Miranda' warnings the court mandated nearly 60 years ago that have since become the framework through which most Americans understand their rights against police intrusion.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-28/roe-v-wade-other-us-supreme-court-rulings/101189358#miranda

Drummerboy foreshadowed this a couple of weeks ago, but I kept thinking ‘surely not, it can’t be possible’… I can’t imagine the havoc this will unleash on already jammed lower courts as police launch suits to vacate earlier rulings against them. 



meanwhile, our renegade court just barrels on down the highway, wreaking havoc



drummerboy said:

meanwhile, our renegade court just barrels on down the highway, wreaking havoc


This is why the whole line that the Court is simply returning abortion to the democratic process is such an obvious lie -- this Court has been consistently hostile to democracy.


we're entering a hellscape. read the whole thread.


Very clever defense by a female Texas driver using  HOV lane, ticketed by police for being the only person in the car.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/09/texas-woman-ticket-abortion-roe-v-wade
Either her 34-weeks unborn babe counts as a person under the law, or it doesn’t. Can’t be both!  smile


joanne said:

Very clever defense by a female Texas driver using  HOV lane, ticketed by police for being the only person in the car.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/09/texas-woman-ticket-abortion-roe-v-wade
Either her 34-weeks unborn babe counts as a person under the law, or it doesn’t. Can’t be both! 
smile

Similar arguments have been brought up before. If a foetus is a person then you should be able to add the foetus as a dependent on your taxes. Or be able to get child support or be able to add the foetus as an additional family member thereby raising the families income eligibility level for social benefits.

Whereas, women who abort may be considered as murderers and may even be charged as such. And forced to give birth. 

But when it comes to benefits their story will change. Then its only a foetus and thereby ineligible for child benefits or increased family social benefits. 

Republican legislatures and their judges will have no problem treating the unborn either way. As a baby to force birth and criminalize abortions and as only a foetus when it comes to benefits. 


In this instance the babe is very close to birth, and I believe has fairly good chances of survival should it be premmie. That’s a birth different to vaguer speculation about personhood. Hence some of the comments in the above-linked article recommending Texas should re-examine implications for broader legislation.

RTrent said:

Similar arguments have been brought up before. If a foetus is a person then you should be able to add the foetus as a dependent on your taxes. Or be able to get child support or be able to add the foetus as an additional family member thereby raising the families income eligibility level for social benefits.

Whereas, women who abort may be considered as murderers and may even be charged as such. And forced to give birth. 

But when it comes to benefits their story will change. Then its only a foetus and thereby ineligible for child benefits or increased family social benefits. 

Republican legislatures and their judges will have no problem treating the unborn either way. As a baby to force birth and criminalize abortions and as only a foetus when it comes to benefits. 


I would think the intent of the HOV regulations is to encourage people to travel together who would otherwise be traveling separately -- an impossibility in this case, so outside the scope of the "two person" HOV regulation?


PVW said:

I would think the intent of the HOV regulations is to encourage people to travel together who would otherwise be traveling separately -- an impossibility in this case, so outside the scope of the "two person" HOV regulation?

Ah, counselor, but then no one without a driver’s license would count, either. Your witness.

In the meantime, I’ll be wrapping my head around the idea that an occupancy of two qualifies as high.


DaveSchmidt said:

Ah, counselor, but then no one without a driver’s license would count, either. Your witness.

In the meantime, I’ll be wrapping my head around the idea that an occupancy of two qualifies as high.

cheech & chong were two in the slow lane..


DaveSchmidt said:

Ah, counselor, but then no one without a driver’s license would count, either. Your witness.

In the meantime, I’ll be wrapping my head around the idea that an occupancy of two qualifies as high.

I actually always wondered that -- on a few occasions I've found myself on a road with and HOV lane and had children in the car and I was unsure of whether it counted. Always seemed like it shouldn't, but I imagine that's what a real lawyer would clarify.

Even if it did, though, I'd note it's the driver, who does have a license, who is being cited here, and the driver does have the option to drive alone or to take on passengers (licensed or not). A pregnant driver can't choose not to take her passenger, so she can hardly be incentivized to bring it along by HOV regulations.


PVW said:

A pregnant driver can't choose not to take her passenger, so she can hardly be incentivized to bring it along by HOV regulations.

Sounds like yet another gray legal area for Uter rides.



now the judges actually start to rule.

at some point Biden needs to simply defy the court. this would be that point.

hahahahahahaha sure he will

=====================================================

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2022/07/every-42-year-old-federalist-society-careerist-a-king

A lone hack District Court judge wants to take over federal immigration policy with no legal basis whatsoever, and all of the dudes on the Supreme Court are fine with that:

On Thursday evening, the Supreme Court handed down a brief, 5-4 decision that effectively places Drew Tipton, a Trump-appointed federal trial judge in Texas, in charge of many of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) decisions about which immigrants to target.

The decision was largely along party lines, except that Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the Court’s three Democratic appointees.

The decision in United States v. Texas is temporary, but the upshot of this decision is that Tipton will effectively wield much of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’s authority over how ICE officers prioritize their time for as much as an entire year — and that’s assuming that the Biden administration ultimately prevails when the Court reconsiders this case next winter.

At issue in this case is a perfectly standard decision Mayorkas made last September. Federal law provides that the secretary of homeland security “shall be responsible” for “establishing national immigration enforcement policies and priorities.” Pursuant to this authority, Mayorkas issued a memo to ICE’s acting director, informing him that the agency should prioritize enforcement efforts against undocumented or otherwise removable immigrants who “pose a threat to national security, public safety, and border security and thus threaten America’s well-being.”

Then-secretaries of homeland security issued similar memos setting enforcement priorities in 2000, 2005, 2010, 2011, 2014, and 2017.

[…]

This is not a close case, at least under existing law. Not only is there a federal statute that explicitly gives Mayorkas, and not Tipton, the power to establish “national immigration enforcement policies and priorities,” but Tipton’s order is also inconsistent with a legal doctrine known as “prosecutorial discretion.” That doctrine gives the executive branch discretionary authority to determine when to bring enforcement actions against individuals who allegedly violated the law.

[…]

Now, the best-case scenario for Mayorkas — and for the rule of law in the United States — is that the Supreme Court will treat Tipton’s order much like it treated Kacsmaryk’s, permitting an unlawful seizure of the Biden administration’s authority to remain in effect for only months, instead of permanently.

The “best part” is that if the Court does finally overturn Tipton’s Turning Point USA speech next year, this will be used as an example by C-list hack columnists to illustrate that the Court isn’t controlled by partisan hacks.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.