New Justice Neil Gorsuch is set to make a major impact on the Supreme Court in his first week of oral arguments, which includes a major religious liberty case that conservatives hope swings their direction now that the appeals court judge has been added to the bench.
For the first time in more than a year, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this week with the full complement of nine justices. Oral arguments in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer will be held Wednesday, when the high court will seek to decide whether Missouri violated the Constitution in its decision to bar a church from a state program that gives nonprofits funding to resurface their playgrounds. Missouri's Constitution includes a provision that prevents public funds from directly or indirectly assisting any church, sect or religion....
There seems to be a lot of 7-2 voting on this court including the subject of the article that SA has.
Pete Williams wrote: The U.S. Supreme Court reduced the wall of separation between church and state Monday in one of the most important rulings on religious rights in decades.
The decision could doom provisions in 39 states that prohibit spending tax dollars to support churches. The states defended the limits as necessary to keep the government from meddling in religious affairs.
Monday's ruling said Missouri was wrong to exclude Trinity Lutheran Church in Columbia, Missouri from a program intended to help non-profits cover their gravel playgrounds with a rubber surface made from recycled tires. The church wanted to improve the playground at its preschool and daycare center.
Ah, now this is a case that really mattered to the GOP and the new court justice came through as expected
David G. Savage wrote: New Justice Neil M. Gorsuch joined Clarence Thomas in dissent Monday when the Supreme Court rejected an appeal from a Republican Party lawyer seeking to strike down limits on big-money contributions to political parties.
By a 7-2 vote, the high court upheld limits set in the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002.
"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, â€˜tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
Barring "state funds" (wink wink) from going to religious schools is not an issue for me because it is not a federal issue to begin with. The first amendment speaks of what Congress can or can't do, not states. Having said that, there are a couple points to consider.
1. State funding sent to a religious school for paving a playground does not establish a state-favored religion. In fact, it has nothing to do with religion at all.
2. If the state does not want to send funding to a religious school on the basis of separation, then exempt the taxpayers who send their kids there from paying school taxes for public schools. "separation of church and state" should not be a one-way street, even if the term were a constitutional one, which it isn't.
Mike, this article should help explain the church-state problem more clearly.
Nina Totenberg wrote: A clear majority of justices at the U.S. Supreme Court seemed troubled Wednesday by a Missouri grant program that bars state money from going to religious schools for playground improvement.
Thirty-nine states have state constitutional provisions that bar taxpayer funds from going to religious schools â€” provisions that have been a major obstacle for the school choice movement. The Missouri case is an attempt to lower that wall separating church and state....
James Layton, representing the state of Missouri, countered that the Supreme Court has never required states to provide direct government grants to churches.
"Almost 200 years ago, the people of the state of Missouri, adopting language" used by the Founding Fathers, "decided that we were not going to tax people in order to give money to churches," he said.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Mike, especially see, (Timeline: The Religious Right and the Republican Platform). Ah, but what I wanted you to especially see what does school vouchers have to do with abortion? ---
Ok, that's nice, but I still haven't figured out what any of it has to do with Gorsuch and the Lutheran church parking lot paving case. Nothing you say? Oh.
Also Catholic judges have been more subtle about the death penalty, but they certainly having be trying to kill it off.
Ah, once again,
Phil Johnson wrote: ....Worst of all, during that same period of time, the evangelical movement has completely lost its spiritual influence, because the evangelical segment of the church has grown increasingly worldly. Evangelicals have become accustomed to compromise. They have abandoned (or else are in the process of abandoning) virtually all the doctrinal distinctives that made them distinct from Roman Catholics and nominal Christians whose faith amounts to a kind of civil religion. Evangelicals have pretty much forfeited whatever real moral and spiritual authority their movement ever had.
BDM wrote: "Christian activism" involves today the well-meaning but foolish attempt to force "Christian principles" upon a godless society through more effective lobbying, larger demonstrations, and greater "social upheaval" than the homosexuals, abortionists, or pornographers can produce. But rather than pressure the ungodly to live like saints, we must win them to Christ that they might live wholly for God. As Christians, our personal lives must also be lived in obedience to God even if that brings us into conflict with civil laws. In addition to avoiding idolatry and immorality, Christians must preach the gospel to everyone everywhere, regardless of government edicts to the contrary.
There is a danger of being so caught up in the social aspect of good causes that one forgets that the soul must be placed before the body. The Great Commission does not involve exerting a Christian influence upon society. We are not to "change society," but to "convert individuals."
Because, Romish Republicans think they have a divine right to public money to further the cause of the Romish church. Unfortunately Republican judges see that and use that to buy votes for the Republican Party. Unfortunately I think our new scotus judge with his Catholic / Episcopalian background might support this idea. ---
Imagination working overtime, Jim. Nothing in the article says anyone on either side of the case is Romish or Republican. You still finding Republican RCs under every rock?
Mike wrote: No it doesn't. If they can't resurface their own playgrounds, why should someone else pay for it? Government pays nothing for anything. It takes it from others, keeps some, and buys votes with the rest. "Public funds" is money first taken from people. Why would you support such corruption?
Because, Romish Republicans think they have a divine right to public money to further the cause of the Romish church. Unfortunately Republican judges see that and use that to buy votes for the Republican Party. Unfortunately I think our new scotus judge with his Catholic / Episcopalian background might support this idea.
Ben Franklin wrote: When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, â€˜tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.
John Yurich USA wrote: Of course the Missouri Constitution violates Freedom of Religion when it prohibits public funds from assisting religious organizations with resurfacing their playgrounds.
No it doesn't. If they can't resurface their own playgrounds, why should someone else pay for it? Government pays nothing for anything. It takes it from others, keeps some, and buys votes with the rest. "Public funds" is money first taken from people. Why would you support such corruption?