Skip to comments.Tempers flare at Supreme Court over religious liberty case
Posted on 04/20/2017 1:51:22 PM PDT by ForYourChildren
Arguments in a high-profile religious liberty case caused tempers to flare on both sides of the Supreme Court's ideological divide Wednesday.
The high court waited for several months to hear Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer, and did so with a full nine-justice court bolstered by the addition of Justice Neil Gorsuch, who joined the court this month. At issue in Trinity Lutheran is whether Missouri violated the Constitution in its decision to bar a church-operated daycare and preschool from a state program that provides funding to nonprofits to resurface playgrounds. Missouri's Constitution includes a provision that prevents public funds from directly or indirectly assisting any church, sect or religion.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, for whom Gorsuch formerly clerked, kicked off questioning at the oral arguments without providing many signals about how he might decide. Kennedy asked David Cortman, the lawyer for Trinity Lutheran Church, whether there are any "instances when religious status can be used to deny benefits" from the government.
Before Cortman could finish answering that he could not think of any such example, the court's left-leaning justices pounced. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg interrupted first, followed by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
This outta get good.
With Gorsuch on the court, the leftists members are gonna hate it.
If Trump can get one more nominated, real quick, then we will see the leftists members go berserk as their level of cognitive dissonance reaches breaking levels. It will be fun to watch.
We will win and win and win.
And they will lose their sanity.
We are seeing it today with the Opposition Party leftists, the msm, the democrats, the academia, the snowflakes, etc. They are all losing it.
....mmmm,mmmm,mmmm, BARACK INSANE OBAMA...
If you take the left’s arguments to the limit of absurdity they would forbid use of police or fire personnel from responding to a church.
Besides, the freedom of religion clause in the constitution was to prevent support of a state mandated religion such as the Church of England has and was also present in European states at the time of our founding.
Read the entire article, and I wonder if Sotomayor objects to federal funds being given to churches to fund Meals on Wheels for the elderly.
No matter what the church says or does, these 2 are already predisposed to there decision.
I am ALWAYS afraid Roberts will stab the USA in the back again.
I will retire in a few years and collect social security. Will the government deny me social security benefits because I might give some of them to the church I attend????
How could any sane person describe a religiously-neutral project with a secular purpose as an “establishment of religion”? Well, maybe an anti-religious bigot could.
The program at issue funded safety features and upgrading playgrounds at schools, including private schools.
The school at question a non-profit associated with a church.
Not sure why a church school should be discriminated against just because it’s a church school.
It still irritates the heck out of me that weak spined republicans didn’t put up a fight against Sotomayor and Kagan.
There were valid reasons to mount strong opposition to both nominations.
Especially Sotomayor who was so openly racist that it was obvious she never intended to make fair and unbiased judgements.
The democrats still have the information they used to blackmail him on the Obamacare decision.
He will always be there for them when they need him.
Fantasizing here....we win, they become disgruntled and discouraged and then they resign....to be replaced by another DJT justice. Proving the theory, if you can never win, it’s best just to give up trying. If it were only possible we might find ourselves in position to replace the majority of SC justices. Just dreaming.
More to the point, Missouri should deny you funds because you are a religious person. Just like they deny funds to a group of people because they’re religious. Only agnostics should be eligible for government funds.
I can’t believe this nonsensical, unconstitutional discrimination hasn’t been overturned already.
The same RINOs that won’t overturn Obamacare will pass any judge the Dems put up. That’s why we lost nothing by going nuclear on Gorsuch. They were always going to have 60 votes for their judges no matter how extreme left they were. They already put the most extreme leftists up there easily. When’s the last a Democrat SCOTUS judge was blocked, if ever?
There’s no way Roberts would go wobbly on this case.
I’m afraid that Gorsuch will go wobbly but, likewise, I’m sure this won’t be one of them. He may be long to a weird religion, but he is religious at least.
Trump should nominate Bill O’Reilly. Be worth it just to see their heads explode. Bill could agree to serve 2 years so Trump could replace him with someone younger later and he still gets to pad his resume. Harvard and the Supreme Court.
IMHO, the problem here is not about religious schools vs public schools. The question here is should the Fed or State government, be funding playgrounds? Books, classrooms, teachers, computers.
Sports, music, playgrounds.....have a bake sale, beg from rich people. It is a local issue.
Churches should be leery of asking government benevolences on something that they wouldn’t want to see done for, say, Islam.
Hard cases make bad law.
If there is one ultimate freedom that churches should sacrifice all else for, I’d say it is freedom of speech. Let Caesar do favors only for the world. But let the gospel have as much space as any other talk.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.