Posted on 05/31/2005 7:45:34 AM PDT by AntiGuv
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the constitutionality of a federal law requiring state prisons to accommodate inmate religions.
Justices unanimously sided with Ohio inmates, including a witch and a Satanist, who had claimed they were denied access to religious literature, ceremonial items and time to worship.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the 2000 law, which was intended to protect the rights of prisoners, is not an unconstitutional government promotion of religion.
"It confers no privileged status on any particular religious sect, and singles out no bona fide faith for disadvantageous treatment," Ginsburg wrote.
The law requires states that receive federal money to accommodate prisoners' religious beliefs unless wardens can show that the accommodation would be disruptive.
Opponents of the law had argued that inmate requests for particular diets, special haircuts or religious symbols could make it harder to manage prisons.
"We do not read (the law) to elevate accommodation of religious observances over an institution's need to maintain order and safety," wrote Ginsburg. "We have no cause to believe that (the law) would not be applied in an appropriately balanced way, without sensitivity to security concerns."
Justices left open the door for a future challenge, on grounds that the law as applied overburdens prisons.
Tuesday's decision overturns a ruling by the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had struck down part of the law, called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, on grounds it violated the separation of church and state.
The Ohio case is Cutter v. Wilkinson, 03-9877.
Oh crap. What a bad week this is going to be with the court handing down new laws ... oops, sorry, interpreting the constitution.
Hey, thanks Bubba, for the idiot on the bench.
USA WAITS FOR NEW SUPREME COURT RULINGS... MEDICAL POT? INTERNET DOWNLOADS? TEN COMMANDMENTS?... DEVELOPING...
http://www.drudgereport.com/
This is the Supreme Court's way of slapping two important political groups at once, namely those of faith, and those who want tougher sentencing.
The Supreme Court gives criminals more rights, and the rest of us will have to pay for it. The Supreme Court expands religious freedoms, but only for those in prison, who should not enjoy the same rights the rest of us have anyway.
The Johnnie Cochran free-speech ruling was issued today as well, but I don't know what it was yet. I just know that it reversed the lower court (but I don't know what the lower court had ruled).
The case involved a disgruntled client who had been ordered to stop picketing Johnnie Cochran's offices.
Problem for the Satanist crowd, though, is the other inmates may take away their dildoes and do evil things to them.
The mullahs and their lawyers will go crazy with this.
I remember the case, I think the lower court said the guy had to pay Cochran and leave him alone.
"The Supreme Court gives criminals more rights, and the rest of us will have to pay for it. The Supreme Court expands religious freedoms, but only for those in prison, who should not enjoy the same rights the rest of us have anyway."
I think this will benefit schools. Have you can have institutialized religion in one section that the taxpayers finance but not another.
This will turn into pandoras box. If little Johnny wants to bring a bible to school and read it, the ACLU better be prepared to take religion out of prisons.
"The Supreme Court expands religious freedom"
How? Congress wrote the law, not the court. The Court simply upheld it.
While I yeild to no one in my disdain for Judicial Activisim, I think my of what we call Judicial Activism, is legislative activism.
Of course it is.
What part of "...shall make no law..." doesn't Ginsburg understand?
We get saddled with these idiot judges, who make laws from the bench, and our Congressmen look the other way when something like this happens.
If y'all want to criticize someone, why don't you criticize Congress? They are the ones who passed the law as a pander to the religious right. The Supreme Court merely ruled that it's not unconstitutional for Congress to pass the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act , and that's correct IMO.
Court ping.
Thanks. Two down.
It would be nice for Congress to once in a while start thinking about the implications of the laws that they pass, instead of proceeding with the usual thought ('if there's anything wrong with this, the courts can just clean it up').
This will turn into pandoras box. If little Johnny wants to bring a bible to school and read it, the ACLU better be prepared to take religion out of prisons.
Nah, no Pandora's box here. Little Johnny has other forums in which to practice his religion. Prisoners don't.
When it is the Supreme Court and it is unanimous then they were probably correct in their interpretation. I'll defer to their wisdom and understanding even if some of them are as liberal as they come.
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.