The Roberts Court: No Longer Just an Umpire

[n2doc]

By J.J. Goldberg
Published May 19, 2014, issue of May 23, 2014.


By now you’ve probably heard about the controversial May 5 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, letting an upstate New York town open its monthly board meetings with an explicitly Christian prayer. You probably haven’t heard its most alarming implications, though. Buckle up.

The case involves the Town of Greece, a stolidly middle-class suburb of Rochester. Back in 1999, Greece began inviting local clergy to open the town board’s public meetings with a prayer. In 2008 two residents, Susan Galloway, who’s Jewish, and Linda Stephens, an atheist, filed a lawsuit. All the invited preachers had been Christian. Having to sit through paeans to Jesus’ resurrection before participating in town meetings, the women complained, “puts coercive pressure on citizens to participate in the prayers.” The Supreme Court said it doesn’t. It’s just “ceremonial,” whatever that means.

This being the Supreme Court, the decision frees local governments nationwide to follow Greece’s lead and ask citizens to bow their heads in acknowledgement of, for example, “the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross,” before bringing their business before their elected council members.

That’s not most alarming aspect, though. We’re talking about a historic turning point in American jurisprudence. For the last 67 years, going back to Everson v. Board of Education in 1947, this nation was progressing more or less steadily toward creating a neutral public square where all citizens are treated equally, whatever their religion. For decades the Supreme Court insisted, as it ruled in Engel v. Vitale in 1962, that even the most “indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities” is unconstitutional. We were reaching the point where religious dissenters needn’t feel like guests in their own home.


Read more: http://forward.com/articles/198363/the-roberts-court-no-longer-just-an-umpire/

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. He never was. That was just one of the lies he needed

to allow all the repubs and 22 dems to help him get a lifetime appointment to impose his radical judicial views on the rest of the country.

[Romulox]

2. People here cheered his ACA and Citizens United ruling. It's all part of a single agenda. nt

[Supersedeas]

14. Big Insurance and Big Corporate Donors maintain their grip on the uneven ecopolitical playing field

It's all just a game to Roberts...and game where the winners are predetermined

[Ikonoklast]

3. But the converse of that ruling is also now true; ALL religions must be allowed

to have a representative offer up a prayer, not just the ones you agree with or the political subdivision will be in violation of the ruling.


Unless you allow a Satanist to pray to his deity, you will get sued.

And lose.



It's "All Or None", the municipalities will not be allowed to exclude *any* religion now. No picking and choosing.

My guess that after having a few meetings opened with "ALL HAIL SATAN, ALL HAIL SATAN, ALL HAIL SATAN!!!" there won't be any prayers or invocations allowed.

[onenote]

4. That overstates matters a bit.

Kennedy's opinion did not suggest that its a total free for all when it comes to public prayer. Indeed, one of the major flaws (of many) in his opinion is that it suggests that the government should not be playing a role in assessing the substance of prayers to determine which fall inside or outside a constitutional line, while simultaneously saying that is exactly what the government is allowed to do in deciding which prayers to allow or not allow. Specifically, Kennedy wrote:


"In rejecting the suggestion that legislative prayer must be nonsectarian, the Court does not imply that no constraints remain on its content. The relevant constraint derives from its place at the opening of legislative sessions, where it is meant to lend gravity to the occasion and reflect values long part of the Nation's heritage. Prayer that is solemn and respectful in tone, that invites lawmakers to reflect upon shared ideals and common ends before they embark on the fractious business of governing, serves that legitimate function. If the course and practice over time shows that the invocations denigrate nonbelievers or religious minorities, threaten damnation, or preach conversion, many present may consider the prayer to fall short of the desire to elevate the purpose of the occasion and to unite lawmakers in their common effort. That circumstance would present a different case than the one presently before the Court.

The tradition reflected in Marsh permits chaplains to ask their own God for blessings of peace, justice, and freedom that find appreciation among people of all faiths. That a prayer is given in the name of Jesus, Allah, or Jehovah, or that it makes passing reference to religious doctrines, does not remove it from that tradition. These religious themes provide particular means to universal ends. Prayer that reflects beliefs specific to only some creeds can still serve to solemnize the occasion, so long as the practice over time is not "exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief."

It is thus possible to discern in the prayers offered to Congress a commonality of theme and tone. While these prayers vary in their degree of religiosity, they often seek peace for the Nation, wisdom for its lawmakers, and justice for its people, values that count as universal and that are embodied not only in religious traditions, but in our founding documents and laws."

So if a Satanist wants to deliver an invocation, he or she will have to toe the line on the message of that invocation so that it meets what Kennedy has spelled out as the standard: a solemn and respectful invocation of Satan's assistance in providing peace for the nation, wisdom for its lawmakers, and justice and freedom for its people.

[Ikonoklast]

8. Easily done.

Asking for wisdom from their deity is part of their creed, I can see how one could easily extend that to cover those in attendance.

[onenote]

9. I agree it can be done

But my point is that the court has left wiggle room for governments to claim that a particular invocation doesn't "reflect upon shared ideals and common ends" or "universal values" -- a pretty subjective standard, IMO.

[riderinthestorm]

5. Oh it's just a little prayer!111!!

I sure remember being slapped around here for expressing dismay at Rick Warren, Myrlie Evers and Luis Leon with their "little prayers" at Obamas inaugeration ceremonies....

[CrispyQ]

6. Kick for an excellent article. --nt

[AceAcme]

7. It's now an Activist Court, Inc

Funny how Republicans ranted and raved and foamed at the mouth about alleged "liberal" activist judges and courts, and now have gone totally AWOL on the unqualified and unprincipled corporate 'coke-can' symp judges they have infested the Supreme Court with.

[riderinthestorm]

10. pm kick for an excellent article nt

[Mc Mike]

11. Excellent article on the radical agenda

of the Roberts 5. Funny how they say they're 'strict constructionists' and 'opposed to judicial activism'.

They know they're lying.

[spanone]

12. this supreme court chose to rule on this case. they changed it. it will have repercussions.

the knew exactly what they were doing.

the most dangerous supreme court i've ever seen.

[Auntie Bush]

13. I laugh out loud when they claim they are not activists.

Roberts and Aleto are not activists! MY ASS!

I remember them actually campaigning on the fact that they should be nominated because they weren't activists judges...something no one wanted.