quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Some thoughts:

1) SCOTUS will not base their opinion in this case on those facts [whether kids were/were not compelled]. They will base their opinion upon whether the policy was unconstitutional as written [highly likely] or as applied [less likely]. While the latter basis would include all facts, I think that the key facts would be the statements & actions of the school district not the coach. The limitation of a fundamental right has to be narrowly tailored. The fact intensive inquiry [if there is one] would likely center on the school districts actions not the coach's actions. But, again, don't think they reach that inquiry. They likely strike the policy as written for being overly broad.

2) Roe v. Wade was a horrid opinion. That reality is why it is still hotly debated a half century later. First, the fact that SCOTUS thought it could read a fundamental right into the Constitution is frightening. The "living breathing document" nonsense is terrifying. It negates the express provision on the way that the constitution can be amended. It also ignores a huge body of case law across many legal areas that holds when cases interpret documents which have lists [about anything, in this case the fundamental rights in the 1st amendment], the exclusion of anything from the list is intended. Whether the "created" fundamental right is described as Privacy or Bodily Integrity is irrelevant…..it isn't on the list. Second, there is the problem of every other case interpreting the interplay of the Police Power of the state with the express protections in the 1st Amendment. Universally, those cases allow the Police Power of the State to supersede 1st Amendment rights when (a) the action is content neutral, and (b) the situation involves a threat of imminent bodily harm or death. You have freedom of speech but can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, you have freedom of religion but that doesn't include human sacrifice, you have a right of assembly but fire marshals can limit occupancy in buildings, etc. These cases are widespread and all follow the exact same analysis. Somehow, the "created" fundamental right of Roe avoids the analysis given to the express fundamental rights. That mind boggling absence has never been explained. Finally, to make that analysis someone would have to decide when life begins because the balancing test requires the threat of harm [which necessitates life existing]. That decision on the beginning of life is not a federal issue. It is a state issue. Furthermore, it isn't a legal issue it is a political issue. Per the express terms of the constitution [as amended], the Roe case couldn't be decided without the Texas legislature first deciding when life begins in Texas.

People might agree with Roe's philosophy. But the legal underpinnings of Roe are rationally non-supportable. And Roe will never be settled law. That fight will continue in perpetuity until it goes to its correct place [state legislatures].

---

Reading a right into the Constitution is an odd phrase for a document that protects rights that were extant before the Constitution was signed. We have rights. Constitutionally protected, not created or limited.

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Some thoughts:

1) SCOTUS will not base their opinion in this case on those facts [whether kids were/were not compelled]. They will base their opinion upon whether the policy was unconstitutional as written [highly likely] or as applied [less likely]. While the latter basis would include all facts, I think that the key facts would be the statements & actions of the school district not the coach. The limitation of a fundamental right has to be narrowly tailored. The fact intensive inquiry [if there is one] would likely center on the school districts actions not the coach's actions. But, again, don't think they reach that inquiry. They likely strike the policy as written for being overly broad.

2) Roe v. Wade was a horrid opinion. That reality is why it is still hotly debated a half century later. First, the fact that SCOTUS thought it could read a fundamental right into the Constitution is frightening. The "living breathing document" nonsense is terrifying. It negates the express provision on the way that the constitution can be amended. It also ignores a huge body of case law across many legal areas that holds when cases interpret documents which have lists [about anything, in this case the fundamental rights in the 1st amendment], the exclusion of anything from the list is intended. Whether the "created" fundamental right is described as Privacy or Bodily Integrity is irrelevant…..it isn't on the list. Second, there is the problem of every other case interpreting the interplay of the Police Power of the state with the express protections in the 1st Amendment. Universally, those cases allow the Police Power of the State to supersede 1st Amendment rights when (a) the action is content neutral, and (b) the situation involves a threat of imminent bodily harm or death. You have freedom of speech but can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, you have freedom of religion but that doesn't include human sacrifice, you have a right of assembly but fire marshals can limit occupancy in buildings, etc. These cases are widespread and all follow the exact same analysis. Somehow, the "created" fundamental right of Roe avoids the analysis given to the express fundamental rights. That mind boggling absence has never been explained. Finally, to make that analysis someone would have to decide when life begins because the balancing test requires the threat of harm [which necessitates life existing]. That decision on the beginning of life is not a federal issue. It is a state issue. Furthermore, it isn't a legal issue it is a political issue. Per the express terms of the constitution [as amended], the Roe case couldn't be decided without the Texas legislature first deciding when life begins in Texas.

People might agree with Roe's philosophy. But the legal underpinnings of Roe are rationally non-supportable. And Roe will never be settled law. That fight will continue in perpetuity until it goes to its correct place [state legislatures].

---

Reading a right into the Constitution is an odd phrase for a document that protects rights that were extant before the Constitution was signed. We have rights. Constitutionally protected, not created or limited.

---

Read the text:



any judge/Justice that argues that this text includes the right to privacy and/or the right to bodily integrity is "reading in" language that does not exist. You may not like the terminology "reading in", but it correctly describes what they are doing. The language isn't in the text.

If you are saying that judges/justices can add "inalienable rights" that they believe exist into the constitution, you are triggering the other part of my comment, their acts violate Article V.



SCOTUS finding additional fundamental rights and simply adding them to the constitution violates Article V. There are processes for amending the constitution. 5 unelected judges doing it on their own isn't one of them.

As an aside, the same judges that espouse bodily integrity as a fundamental right in Roe and it's progeny then deny it is a fundamental right in COVID vaccine requirement cases. That fact clearly indicates that the bodily integrity analysis is political and not legal.

The damn thing about constitutional law…….everyone has access to the text and it isn't overly long. BSing gets caught quickly.

---

Could not disagree more, for the exact reason I just gave: we possess rights that are constitutionally protected, not created.

---

Truly terrifying. Our entire society hinges on an accepted written social compact [a contract].

---

What did our society hinge on before the 1780s? There was judge-made law long before there was a Constitution.

---

Important Note: before the Constitution [and the revolution that lead to it] our society was based upon a monarch who abused the populace to a point that it lead to a revolution. So basing an argument on the abusive society that lead to the revolution [judges or no judges] that created our current form of government may not be your best argument.

---

If society was "based on a monarch," on what basis did we declare our independence?

---

Are you off of your meds?

---

Did we have any rights prior to the Constitution? If so, did they disappear when the Constitution took effect? What do you make of the 9th Amendment?

---

You seem intent to argue.

No one has Constitutionally protected rights when the Constitution didn't exist. The prior societal form of organization had its own forms of rights and redresses. We started over via revolution.

The 9th Amendment recognizes that state specific fundamental rights exist and clarifies that a national constitution [creating federal fundamental rights] does not wipe them away. The concept of state specific fundamental rights was addressed by SCOTUS in the Slaughter-House & Hurtado opinions [but it also recognizes that if adopted by all 50 states state fundamental rights become federal (Obergefell opinion)].

Not going to play fetch the bone with you. You are arguing the same nonsense that Cardozo & Stevens argued for decades and EVERY SINGLE VERSION OF SCOTUS, liberal or conservative SCOTUS, has roundly rejected. They are correct, it violates separation of powers. It violates Article V.

Run along little loony lefty.

---

No one said that we had constitutionally protected rights before the constitution. We had, you know, lets call them, I don't know, searching for the right words...maybe, hey try this: "unalienable rights." Yeah, that has a ring to it,

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

All the nut jobs are out this morning.

"Wannabe Confederate states"? Living in the past? Hey, let's disparage an entire section of the country as a clever argument…….

The left never changes. You can't vote your policies into being, you try to sneak them in through the courts. You get called on your nonsense, you claim gloriously superior morality.

Men peeing in a women's restroom isn't a fundamental right. Try getting voters to recognize it as one. They won't. Hence your love of judicial activism and nonsense arguments about ever growing fundamental rights.

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

All the nut jobs are out this morning.

"Wannabe Confederate states"? Living in the past? Hey, let's disparage an entire section of the country as a clever argument…….

The left never changes. You can't vote your policies into being, you try to sneak them in through the courts. You get called on your nonsense, you claim gloriously superior morality.

Men peeing in a women's restroom isn't a fundamental right. Try getting voters to recognize it as one. They won't. Hence your love of judicial activism and nonsense arguments about ever growing fundamental rights.

---

Notice you did not respond to the actual analysis.

People have rights regardless of the Constitution. The Constitution is how the government protects those rights. If it is a right for any citizen, it is a right for all citizens.

Its not that difficult.

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

All the nut jobs are out this morning.

"Wannabe Confederate states"? Living in the past? Hey, let's disparage an entire section of the country as a clever argument…….

The left never changes. You can't vote your policies into being, you try to sneak them in through the courts. You get called on your nonsense, you claim gloriously superior morality.

Men peeing in a women's restroom isn't a fundamental right. Try getting voters to recognize it as one. They won't. Hence your love of judicial activism and nonsense arguments about ever growing fundamental rights.

---

Notice you did not respond to the actual analysis.

People have rights regardless of the Constitution. The Constitution is how the government protects those rights. If it is a right for any citizen, it is a right for all citizens.

Its not that difficult.

---

First, that isn't analysis it is a proposition. Dictionary: try one.

Rights don't exist without recognition. Without recognition they are simply wishes.

Examples:

You: I have the right to count my boyfriend as a dependent for tax purposes.

IRS: no, you don't.

Reality: you don't have that right and you get audited.

You: I have the right to shoot fireworks in my own backyard inside the city limits.

Police: no, you don't.

Reality: you don't have that right and you get a ticket.

You: I have the right to walk into the restroom of the opposite sex and urinate next to small children.

Police: no, you don't.

Reality: you don't have that right and you are convicted as a pedophile.


Claiming rights does not equal having rights. Recognition is required.
You & your leftie buddies love citing that one phrase from the DOI……but the reality is that the only reason that the DOI didn't result in hangings was forced recognition via revolution.

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

All the nut jobs are out this morning.

"Wannabe Confederate states"? Living in the past? Hey, let's disparage an entire section of the country as a clever argument…….

The left never changes. You can't vote your policies into being, you try to sneak them in through the courts. You get called on your nonsense, you claim gloriously superior morality.

Men peeing in a women's restroom isn't a fundamental right. Try getting voters to recognize it as one. They won't. Hence your love of judicial activism and nonsense arguments about ever growing fundamental rights.

---

Notice you did not respond to the actual analysis.

People have rights regardless of the Constitution. The Constitution is how the government protects those rights. If it is a right for any citizen, it is a right for all citizens.

Its not that difficult.

---

First, that isn't analysis it is a proposition. Dictionary: try one.

Rights don't exist without recognition. Without recognition they are simply wishes.

Examples:

You: I have the right to count my boyfriend as a dependent for tax purposes.

IRS: no, you don't.

Reality: you don't have that right and you get audited.

You: I have the right to shoot fireworks in my own backyard inside the city limits.

Police: no, you don't.

Reality: you don't have that right and you get a ticket.

You: I have the right to walk into the restroom of the opposite sex and urinate next to small children.

Police: no, you don't.

Reality: you don't have that right and you are convicted as a pedophile.


Claiming rights does not equal having rights. Recognition is required.
You & your leftie buddies love citing that one phrase from the DOI……but the reality is that the only reason that the DOI didn't result in hangings was forced recognition via revolution.

---

All you are saying is that those rights do not exist; that they are not essential to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. I agree.

Are you saying that before the 14th Amendment, enslaved people did not have the right to live freely? The right always existed. We changed the law to enforce it.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

All the nut jobs are out this morning.

"Wannabe Confederate states"? Living in the past? Hey, let's disparage an entire section of the country as a clever argument…….

The left never changes. You can't vote your policies into being, you try to sneak them in through the courts. You get called on your nonsense, you claim gloriously superior morality.

Men peeing in a women's restroom isn't a fundamental right. Try getting voters to recognize it as one. They won't. Hence your love of judicial activism and nonsense arguments about ever growing fundamental rights.

---

Notice you did not respond to the actual analysis.

People have rights regardless of the Constitution. The Constitution is how the government protects those rights. If it is a right for any citizen, it is a right for all citizens.

Its not that difficult.

---

First, that isn't analysis it is a proposition. Dictionary: try one.

Rights don't exist without recognition. Without recognition they are simply wishes.

Examples:

You: I have the right to count my boyfriend as a dependent for tax purposes.

IRS: no, you don't.

Reality: you don't have that right and you get audited.

You: I have the right to shoot fireworks in my own backyard inside the city limits.

Police: no, you don't.

Reality: you don't have that right and you get a ticket.

You: I have the right to walk into the restroom of the opposite sex and urinate next to small children.

Police: no, you don't.

Reality: you don't have that right and you are convicted as a pedophile.


Claiming rights does not equal having rights. Recognition is required.
You & your leftie buddies love citing that one phrase from the DOI……but the reality is that the only reason that the DOI didn't result in hangings was forced recognition via revolution.

---

All you are saying is that those rights do not exist; that they are not essential to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. I agree.

Are you saying that before the 14th Amendment, enslaved people did not have the right to live freely? The right always existed. We changed the law to enforce it.

---

you may be confusing rights with objective morals.

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

All the nut jobs are out this morning.

"Wannabe Confederate states"? Living in the past? Hey, let's disparage an entire section of the country as a clever argument…….

The left never changes. You can't vote your policies into being, you try to sneak them in through the courts. You get called on your nonsense, you claim gloriously superior morality.

Men peeing in a women's restroom isn't a fundamental right. Try getting voters to recognize it as one. They won't. Hence your love of judicial activism and nonsense arguments about ever growing fundamental rights.

---

Notice you did not respond to the actual analysis.

People have rights regardless of the Constitution. The Constitution is how the government protects those rights. If it is a right for any citizen, it is a right for all citizens.

Its not that difficult.

---

First, that isn't analysis it is a proposition. Dictionary: try one.

Rights don't exist without recognition. Without recognition they are simply wishes.

Examples:

You: I have the right to count my boyfriend as a dependent for tax purposes.

IRS: no, you don't.

Reality: you don't have that right and you get audited.

You: I have the right to shoot fireworks in my own backyard inside the city limits.

Police: no, you don't.

Reality: you don't have that right and you get a ticket.

You: I have the right to walk into the restroom of the opposite sex and urinate next to small children.

Police: no, you don't.

Reality: you don't have that right and you are convicted as a pedophile.


Claiming rights does not equal having rights. Recognition is required.
You & your leftie buddies love citing that one phrase from the DOI……but the reality is that the only reason that the DOI didn't result in hangings was forced recognition via revolution.

---

All you are saying is that those rights do not exist; that they are not essential to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. I agree.

Are you saying that before the 14th Amendment, enslaved people did not have the right to live freely? The right always existed. We changed the law to enforce it.

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

All the nut jobs are out this morning.

"Wannabe Confederate states"? Living in the past? Hey, let's disparage an entire section of the country as a clever argument…….

The left never changes. You can't vote your policies into being, you try to sneak them in through the courts. You get called on your nonsense, you claim gloriously superior morality.

Men peeing in a women's restroom isn't a fundamental right. Try getting voters to recognize it as one. They won't. Hence your love of judicial activism and nonsense arguments about ever growing fundamental rights.

---

Notice you did not respond to the actual analysis.

People have rights regardless of the Constitution. The Constitution is how the government protects those rights. If it is a right for any citizen, it is a right for all citizens.

Its not that difficult.

---

First, that isn't analysis it is a proposition. Dictionary: try one.

Rights don't exist without recognition. Without recognition they are simply wishes.

Examples:

You: I have the right to count my boyfriend as a dependent for tax purposes.

IRS: no, you don't.

Reality: you don't have that right and you get audited.

You: I have the right to shoot fireworks in my own backyard inside the city limits.

Police: no, you don't.

Reality: you don't have that right and you get a ticket.

You: I have the right to walk into the restroom of the opposite sex and urinate next to small children.

Police: no, you don't.

Reality: you don't have that right and you are convicted as a pedophile.


Claiming rights does not equal having rights. Recognition is required.
You & your leftie buddies love citing that one phrase from the DOI……but the reality is that the only reason that the DOI didn't result in hangings was forced recognition via revolution.

---

All you are saying is that those rights do not exist; that they are not essential to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. I agree.

Are you saying that before the 14th Amendment, enslaved people did not have the right to live freely? The right always existed. We changed the law to enforce it.

---

If these rights existed pre-revolutionary war and pre-civil war, why were two wars necessary?

Because they were philosophical concepts and not rights until they were enforceable.

That reality is what you hate……you can't simply rant your way to political dominance.
It takes enough votes or enough guns…….and the left has neither.

---

Mothra said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Some thoughts:

1) SCOTUS will not base their opinion in this case on those facts [whether kids were/were not compelled]. They will base their opinion upon whether the policy was unconstitutional as written [highly likely] or as applied [less likely]. While the latter basis would include all facts, I think that the key facts would be the statements & actions of the school district not the coach. The limitation of a fundamental right has to be narrowly tailored. The fact intensive inquiry [if there is one] would likely center on the school districts actions not the coach's actions. But, again, don't think they reach that inquiry. They likely strike the policy as written for being overly broad.

2) Roe v. Wade was a horrid opinion. That reality is why it is still hotly debated a half century later. First, the fact that SCOTUS thought it could read a fundamental right into the Constitution is frightening. The "living breathing document" nonsense is terrifying. It negates the express provision on the way that the constitution can be amended. It also ignores a huge body of case law across many legal areas that holds when cases interpret documents which have lists [about anything, in this case the fundamental rights in the 1st amendment], the exclusion of anything from the list is intended. Whether the "created" fundamental right is described as Privacy or Bodily Integrity is irrelevant…..it isn't on the list. Second, there is the problem of every other case interpreting the interplay of the Police Power of the state with the express protections in the 1st Amendment. Universally, those cases allow the Police Power of the State to supersede 1st Amendment rights when (a) the action is content neutral, and (b) the situation involves a threat of imminent bodily harm or death. You have freedom of speech but can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, you have freedom of religion but that doesn't include human sacrifice, you have a right of assembly but fire marshals can limit occupancy in buildings, etc. These cases are widespread and all follow the exact same analysis. Somehow, the "created" fundamental right of Roe avoids the analysis given to the express fundamental rights. That mind boggling absence has never been explained. Finally, to make that analysis someone would have to decide when life begins because the balancing test requires the threat of harm [which necessitates life existing]. That decision on the beginning of life is not a federal issue. It is a state issue. Furthermore, it isn't a legal issue it is a political issue. Per the express terms of the constitution [as amended], the Roe case couldn't be decided without the Texas legislature first deciding when life begins in Texas.

People might agree with Roe's philosophy. But the legal underpinnings of Roe are rationally non-supportable. And Roe will never be settled law. That fight will continue in perpetuity until it goes to its correct place [state legislatures].

---

Reading a right into the Constitution is an odd phrase for a document that protects rights that were extant before the Constitution was signed. We have rights. Constitutionally protected, not created or limited.

---

Did you take Con law before Roe v. Wade? Numerous constitutional scholars think it was a horrid decision, even those who agree with the end result.

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Canon said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

All the nut jobs are out this morning.

"Wannabe Confederate states"? Living in the past? Hey, let's disparage an entire section of the country as a clever argument…….

The left never changes. You can't vote your policies into being, you try to sneak them in through the courts. You get called on your nonsense, you claim gloriously superior morality.

Men peeing in a women's restroom isn't a fundamental right. Try getting voters to recognize it as one. They won't. Hence your love of judicial activism and nonsense arguments about ever growing fundamental rights.

---

Notice you did not respond to the actual analysis.

People have rights regardless of the Constitution. The Constitution is how the government protects those rights. If it is a right for any citizen, it is a right for all citizens.

Its not that difficult.

---

First, that isn't analysis it is a proposition. Dictionary: try one.

Rights don't exist without recognition. Without recognition they are simply wishes.

Examples:

You: I have the right to count my boyfriend as a dependent for tax purposes.

IRS: no, you don't.

Reality: you don't have that right and you get audited.

You: I have the right to shoot fireworks in my own backyard inside the city limits.

Police: no, you don't.

Reality: you don't have that right and you get a ticket.

You: I have the right to walk into the restroom of the opposite sex and urinate next to small children.

Police: no, you don't.

Reality: you don't have that right and you are convicted as a pedophile.


Claiming rights does not equal having rights. Recognition is required.
You & your leftie buddies love citing that one phrase from the DOI……but the reality is that the only reason that the DOI didn't result in hangings was forced recognition via revolution.

---

All you are saying is that those rights do not exist; that they are not essential to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. I agree.

Are you saying that before the 14th Amendment, enslaved people did not have the right to live freely? The right always existed. We changed the law to enforce it.

---

If these rights existed pre-revolutionary war and pre-civil war, why were two wars necessary?

Because they were philosophical concepts and not rights until they were enforceable.

That reality is what you hate……you can't simply rant your way to political dominance.
It takes enough votes or enough guns…….and the left has neither.

---

There are inalienable rights. Despite the fact they are inalienable, and from God alone, our forefathers still felt compelled to chain the government, lest they try to remove them.

No sovereign needs to give the right to speak, worship, believe or defend.

---

Calling these items "inalienable" may sound nice but it is woefully incorrect. Throughout history, the vast majority of societies around the globe have taken away these "inalienable" rights. Hence, by the very definition of the word they are not inalienable. The fact that the colonies had to fight a revolutionary war to obtain the governmental embodiment of these rights is ipso facto proof of that reality.

But let's skip all of the prolog and jump to the "why" of the discussion. By defining all of the political wish list of the political left as fundamental rights that simply have yet to be found by courts, they seek to justify their rioting, the lawlessness in Seattle and Portland, the burning of neighborhoods by BLM, etc. It is nothing more than an attempt to build a false narrative of a manufactured moral imperative justifying anything they wish to do in support of their political agenda. It is political propaganda.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Holy crap on a cracker"

I find myself wondering where you came up with that theosophical construct.

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

SCOTUS is working hard to erase the establishment clause.

---

You have obviously never read/studied any of the prior SCOTUS opinions regarding balancing the Non Establishment Clause with the Free Exercise Clause. The outcome of this case was both correct and predictable.

---

Joy Behar is an idiot. Colin Kaepernick was never kicked off the 49ers for kneeling. In fact, he wasn't punished at all and he ultimately asked to be released.

Why does the media lie so much? https://t.co/kVmZhl01XC

— David Hookstead (@dhookstead) June 28, 2022

Jack Bauer said:

---

Joy Behar >> Bad Takes

Joy Behar is an idiot. Colin Kaepernick was never kicked off the 49ers for kneeling. In fact, he wasn't punished at all and he ultimately asked to be released.

Why does the media lie so much? https://t.co/kVmZhl01XC

— David Hookstead (@dhookstead) June 28, 2022

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Educators are in power positions vis-a-vis their students. Whether it is giving grades or deciding playing time, there are reasons for students to please a teacher or coach beyond sharing the educator's views. In addition, when public displays encourage large groups of students to participate, there is peer pressure that results. So while the coach and his followers were likely sincere in their beliefs and had no intent to ostracize or punish anyone who chose not to participate, these type of activities can never be said to be truly voluntary for everyone.

---

Except that SCOTUS has previously ruled [on multiple occasions] that wearing religious based attire, pins/crosses, lent ash, etc. do not violate the establishment clause and are first amendment protected. If the mere exercise of first amendment activity constitutes government coercion, these cases would all be overturned.

You are tilting at a windmill that is already slain.

---

There is a difference in those cases. Students are unlikely to feel compelled to respond to religious adornment. If they do not respond, they would not be singled out as "non-believers." Here by not participating they would be identified as not practicing the right religion.

And I am not tilting at anything. First, I said the cases raises establishment issues, I did not say that the conduct violated the Establishment Clause. Second, i have little doubt how this case will end-it will be a 5-4 reversal of the 9th Circuit with Thomas, Kavanaugh, Coney, Korsuch and Alito in the majority. That doesn't mean I think it is a correct result, but I am not under any illusions. The dominant culture will become more dominant and probably ratchet their whining about being oppressed another notch, from 11 to 12. Maybe Korsuch will surprise me.

---

1. Purposefully misspelling SCOTUS Justices' names isn't clever. It is childish.

2. Cases aren't decided based upon feelings. Cases are determined by law and possibly fact. Feelings are irrelevant. Feeling violated isn't the same as rights being violated.

3. Name calling [labeling those with who you obviously disagree as "whiners"] isn't clever. It is intellectual weakness.

---

Man, you trigger easily.

---

Only the political left gets triggered. We adult.

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Educators are in power positions vis-a-vis their students. Whether it is giving grades or deciding playing time, there are reasons for students to please a teacher or coach beyond sharing the educator's views. In addition, when public displays encourage large groups of students to participate, there is peer pressure that results. So while the coach and his followers were likely sincere in their beliefs and had no intent to ostracize or punish anyone who chose not to participate, these type of activities can never be said to be truly voluntary for everyone.

---

Except that SCOTUS has previously ruled [on multiple occasions] that wearing religious based attire, pins/crosses, lent ash, etc. do not violate the establishment clause and are first amendment protected. If the mere exercise of first amendment activity constitutes government coercion, these cases would all be overturned.

You are tilting at a windmill that is already slain.

---

There is a difference in those cases. Students are unlikely to feel compelled to respond to religious adornment. If they do not respond, they would not be singled out as "non-believers." Here by not participating they would be identified as not practicing the right religion.

And I am not tilting at anything. First, I said the cases raises establishment issues, I did not say that the conduct violated the Establishment Clause. Second, i have little doubt how this case will end-it will be a 5-4 reversal of the 9th Circuit with Thomas, Kavanaugh, Coney, Korsuch and Alito in the majority. That doesn't mean I think it is a correct result, but I am not under any illusions. The dominant culture will become more dominant and probably ratchet their whining about being oppressed another notch, from 11 to 12. Maybe Korsuch will surprise me.

---

1. Purposefully misspelling SCOTUS Justices' names isn't clever. It is childish.

2. Cases aren't decided based upon feelings. Cases are determined by law and possibly fact. Feelings are irrelevant. Feeling violated isn't the same as rights being violated.

3. Name calling [labeling those with who you obviously disagree as "whiners"] isn't clever. It is intellectual weakness.

---

Man, you trigger easily.

---

Only the political left gets triggered. We adult.

---

Fine: you trigger like an adult.

Better?

---

C. Jordan said:

---

quash said:

---

Kennedy v. Bremerton

Football coach requested by district to tone down his motivational prayers, but mainly to quit praying at the fifty after games (where he often prayed for both teams, raising each team's helmet up). He does for a bit, then publicly announces he will defy the district. His next midfield prayer he is joined by a stampeding crowd.

There are a **** ton of amicus briefs in this one.

I don't think this court will find coercion. Concern about praying time equals playing time seems easy to rebut.

The district apparently is basing their case on people getting jostled in the rush to the field. Seems weak.

But a **** ton of amicus briefs.

---

The problem is that he's imposing his faith on his team in an activity that's basically compulsory.

Public school teachers can't and shouldn't lead prayers in their classes and coaches can't and shouldn't either.

But in today's SCOTUS atmosphere where free exercise is being exalted over no establishment, he just might prevail.

---

TechDawgMc said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

quash said:

---

Kennedy v. Bremerton

Football coach requested by district to tone down his motivational prayers, but mainly to quit praying at the fifty after games (where he often prayed for both teams, raising each team's helmet up). He does for a bit, then publicly announces he will defy the district. His next midfield prayer he is joined by a stampeding crowd.

There are a **** ton of amicus briefs in this one.

I don't think this court will find coercion. Concern about praying time equals playing time seems easy to rebut.

The district apparently is basing their case on people getting jostled in the rush to the field. Seems weak.

But a **** ton of amicus briefs.

---

The problem is that he's imposing his faith on his team in an activity that's basically compulsory.

Public school teachers can't and shouldn't lead prayers in their classes and coaches can't and shouldn't either.

But in today's SCOTUS atmosphere where free exercise is being exalted over no establishment, he just might prevail.

---

He wasn't the head coach and the head coach objected to his actions. How could the team have felt it was compulsory?

---

whiterock said:

---

TechDawgMc said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

quash said:

---

Kennedy v. Bremerton

Football coach requested by district to tone down his motivational prayers, but mainly to quit praying at the fifty after games (where he often prayed for both teams, raising each team's helmet up). He does for a bit, then publicly announces he will defy the district. His next midfield prayer he is joined by a stampeding crowd.

There are a **** ton of amicus briefs in this one.

I don't think this court will find coercion. Concern about praying time equals playing time seems easy to rebut.

The district apparently is basing their case on people getting jostled in the rush to the field. Seems weak.

But a **** ton of amicus briefs.

---

The problem is that he's imposing his faith on his team in an activity that's basically compulsory.

Public school teachers can't and shouldn't lead prayers in their classes and coaches can't and shouldn't either.

But in today's SCOTUS atmosphere where free exercise is being exalted over no establishment, he just might prevail.

---

He wasn't the head coach and the head coach objected to his actions. How could the team have felt it was compulsory?

---

and he didn't lead prayers in class. He walked out onto the field after the game and knelt in silent prayer. After several times doing this, some of the students voluntarily joined. The practice grew. It wasn't compulsory. The "complaint" was actually a compliment from an opposing coach.

CJ's post is a classic example of how the establishment clause has been contorted to restrict first amendment liberties.

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TechDawgMc said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

quash said:

---

Kennedy v. Bremerton

Football coach requested by district to tone down his motivational prayers, but mainly to quit praying at the fifty after games (where he often prayed for both teams, raising each team's helmet up). He does for a bit, then publicly announces he will defy the district. His next midfield prayer he is joined by a stampeding crowd.

There are a **** ton of amicus briefs in this one.

I don't think this court will find coercion. Concern about praying time equals playing time seems easy to rebut.

The district apparently is basing their case on people getting jostled in the rush to the field. Seems weak.

But a **** ton of amicus briefs.

---

The problem is that he's imposing his faith on his team in an activity that's basically compulsory.

Public school teachers can't and shouldn't lead prayers in their classes and coaches can't and shouldn't either.

But in today's SCOTUS atmosphere where free exercise is being exalted over no establishment, he just might prevail.

---

He wasn't the head coach and the head coach objected to his actions. How could the team have felt it was compulsory?

---

and he didn't lead prayers in class. He walked out onto the field after the game and knelt in silent prayer. After several times doing this, some of the students voluntarily joined. The practice grew. It wasn't compulsory. The "complaint" was actually a compliment from an opposing coach.

CJ's post is a classic example of how the establishment clause has been contorted to restrict first amendment liberties.

---

Yep. A line of poorly reasoned jurisprudence (mainstream religion always loses) had basically deleted the free exercise clause. Glad to see it being resuscitated.
It's an Indian smoking peyote)

---