6 ms·

Supreme Court sides with high school coach who led prayer on football field

17 points by voakbasda 4y ago

atwood22 4y ago
I really don’t understand this ruling. > “Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse Republic—whether those expressions take place in a sanctuary or on a field, and whether they manifest through the spoken word or a bowed head,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority. The coach is a public employee acting in an official capacity. This ruling basically allows any public employee to practice religion as part of their governmental duties.
- legobmw99 4y ago
  Looking for rock solid jurisprudence in rulings like this might be generous at this time
  - mhh__ 4y ago
    I think the idea that law can be rock solid is a bit like continental philosophers borrowing science words. An easy retort to my argument is that most interpretation is easy, surely we only hear about contentious ones? This is true, but it's like having a seatbelt that only works when you don't crash
- mhh__ 4y ago
  I haven't read it yet but other people seem to suggest that the dissent and majority opinions seems.to have vastly interpretation of even the simpler question of in what capacity he was acting while praying.
  - gumby 4y ago
    The majority decision clearly misrepresented the facts of the case: this was a public spectacle, not a quiet, private action (as the coach proudly points out), but the majority claimed their decision was based on it being the opposite.
- acdha 4y ago
  If you’re familiar with parallel reconstruction, this is the judicial version: people who were selected to be activists are unsurprisingly starting with the politically preferred outcome and working backwards. You will drive yourself crazy trying to find a logic in this rulings beyond “this is the pretext we picked”.
- kaczordon 4y ago
  No, what the ruling said was the government couldn’t treat him differently because of his religion. Are public employees not allowed to pray on the job? Same logic applies elsewhere. Should governmental employees be banned from wearing hijabs(they’re a public form of religious expression)? Should we ban/fire a Muslim employee for praying in public(if there’s no available private space) while working as a member of TSA? Limited powers on governmental religious discrimination is a good thing.
  - atwood22 4y ago
    > Are public employees not allowed to pray on the job? In this case, I would say yes, the coach should not be allowed to pray because the prayer was done as part of his role as a coach. Like if a social worker prays that a child is ok while driving to a home visit, then that’s ok. But if the social worker forces the family to pray then that’s different.
  - KerrAvon 4y ago
    The problem is that he wasn’t praying on his own. He was coercing the players to pray with him. Thus is documented. The justices lied.
    - kcplate 4y ago
      So where was it documented that he was coercing other people? It is certainly a fact that other people, players both on his team and other teams, did choose to join him. The schools argument for him to stop was that the administration felt that players might feel compelled to join him against their wishes, but is there literally anything that was entered in to evidence that he forced anyone to join or punished anyone for choosing not to join him? I don’t think so. He chose to pray and others chose to join him. Frankly, I think the argument to support Kennedy was pretty compelling. The first amendment allows for the free practice of any religion by the people. It makes no commentary on the government specifically censoring any religion. In fact it appears to be just the opposite. The text reads that the government has a duty to not act at all when religious expression is made by the people.
- drewbug01 4y ago
  > I really don’t understand this ruling. > The coach is a public employee acting in an official capacity. This ruling basically allows any public employee to practice religion as part of their governmental duties. You understand it perfectly.
jmpman 4y ago
I intend to advocate stopping all athletics.
- gumby 4y ago
  That will just cause them to move the goalposts.
WesternWind 4y ago
I'm always a fan of scotusblog coverage. https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/justices-side-with-high-school-football-coach-who-prayed-on-the-field-with-students/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/justices-side-with-high-s... My personal opinion, if it matters is that Gorsuch argues that we need to assess religious exercise and the establishment clause based on what the founders knew and thought, and he misconstrued (as shown in the pictures in the dissent) the facts of the case to achieve his preferred outcome. But even if he hadn't, there's a danger to Originalism, in that people in the past didn't have the information we have now. The founders probably weren't nearly as aware of how children are uniquely vulnerable to coercion and influence by authority figures, for example. Thomas Jefferson wrote (and this quote was inscribed on his memorial), "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
- kryogen1c 4y ago
  > there's a danger to Originalism, in that people in the past didn't have the information Good thing they built in a mechanism for revision then. Their intent is relatively clear. If you don't like the rule, change the rule. Anything else is vigilantism.
  - WesternWind 4y ago
    It's bold to suggest their intent is relatively clear when the Court is literally reversing it's past standard in this case and many others this term.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  If we are going to quote Jefferson, he cuts more to the point in a famous letter to Madison: On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. (Note that the 19 years is based on analysis of lifespans, etc., at the time, and is basically a model of generational turnover, so the same logic would get a slightly longer time today.) https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/thomas-jefferson-james-madison https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/tho... So, at least as far Jefferson goes, the framers intent would appear to be (to borrow from Lin Manuel Miranda): “Uh, do whatever you want, we’re super dead.” Of course, the cult that deifies an artificially constructed image of “the Founders” to justify their ideology wouldn't approve of that at all.
No1 4y ago
The Supreme Court seems to be on a tear overturning past landmark cases. It has turned into a complete kangaroo court, entirely willing to go through any legal contortions to arrive at the new political majority’s desired outcomes. This is going to be the future of the Supreme Court - overturn past decisions as soon as the political majority changes.
- JohnTHaller 4y ago
  That plus the way some recent justices were added is likely why public confidence in the Supreme Court is at the lowest point ever recorded: 25% in a recent Gallup poll.
  - kcplate 4y ago
    Well, that’s 5% higher than congress…so second place ain’t too bad, and considering how Biden’s polling keeps dropping, I’d say they might have a shot at the gold come mid October
alphabettsy 4y ago
Coaches and teachers have tremendous influence in students lives. If this coach can allegedly not require but allow students to join him in prayer during a school sanctioned event then why can’t teachers lead their classrooms in prayer? I suspect that is what this opens the door to intentionally.
spacemanmatt 4y ago
Fuck this SCOTUS.
spacemanmatt 4y ago
Does this protect a Satanic coach from being fired for leading a chant on the football field?
- spacemanmatt 4y ago
  Circle of salt? Flaming pentacle? Blood sacrifice? I KNOW MY RIGHTS@!
EddieDante 4y ago
Matthew 6:5–6 seems relevant here... > 5 And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. > 6 But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. It's one thing to allow Christians to be Christians, but if they want to be Christians they need to be better Christians and pray in private.
- RhysU 4y ago
  It can't be against the constitution to be a lousy Christian any more than it can be against the constitution to be a good Christian.
  - EddieDante 4y ago
    This is the one thing Richard Nixon got right. > It’s about time that the Christian in America realizes he’s an American first and a Christian second.
xigurat 4y ago
I hope that coach is Muslim

17 points by voakbasda 4y ago

I really don’t understand this ruling. > “Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse Republic—whether those expressions take place in a sanctuary or on a field, and whether they manifest through the spoken word or a bowed head,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority. The coach is a public employee acting in an official capacity. This ruling basically allows any public employee to practice religion as part of their governmental duties.

legobmw99 4y ago
Looking for rock solid jurisprudence in rulings like this might be generous at this time
- mhh__ 4y ago
  I think the idea that law can be rock solid is a bit like continental philosophers borrowing science words. An easy retort to my argument is that most interpretation is easy, surely we only hear about contentious ones? This is true, but it's like having a seatbelt that only works when you don't crash
mhh__ 4y ago
I haven't read it yet but other people seem to suggest that the dissent and majority opinions seems.to have vastly interpretation of even the simpler question of in what capacity he was acting while praying.
- gumby 4y ago
  The majority decision clearly misrepresented the facts of the case: this was a public spectacle, not a quiet, private action (as the coach proudly points out), but the majority claimed their decision was based on it being the opposite.
acdha 4y ago
If you’re familiar with parallel reconstruction, this is the judicial version: people who were selected to be activists are unsurprisingly starting with the politically preferred outcome and working backwards. You will drive yourself crazy trying to find a logic in this rulings beyond “this is the pretext we picked”.
kaczordon 4y ago
No, what the ruling said was the government couldn’t treat him differently because of his religion. Are public employees not allowed to pray on the job? Same logic applies elsewhere. Should governmental employees be banned from wearing hijabs(they’re a public form of religious expression)? Should we ban/fire a Muslim employee for praying in public(if there’s no available private space) while working as a member of TSA? Limited powers on governmental religious discrimination is a good thing.
- atwood22 4y ago
  > Are public employees not allowed to pray on the job? In this case, I would say yes, the coach should not be allowed to pray because the prayer was done as part of his role as a coach. Like if a social worker prays that a child is ok while driving to a home visit, then that’s ok. But if the social worker forces the family to pray then that’s different.
- KerrAvon 4y ago
  The problem is that he wasn’t praying on his own. He was coercing the players to pray with him. Thus is documented. The justices lied.
  - kcplate 4y ago
    So where was it documented that he was coercing other people? It is certainly a fact that other people, players both on his team and other teams, did choose to join him. The schools argument for him to stop was that the administration felt that players might feel compelled to join him against their wishes, but is there literally anything that was entered in to evidence that he forced anyone to join or punished anyone for choosing not to join him? I don’t think so. He chose to pray and others chose to join him. Frankly, I think the argument to support Kennedy was pretty compelling. The first amendment allows for the free practice of any religion by the people. It makes no commentary on the government specifically censoring any religion. In fact it appears to be just the opposite. The text reads that the government has a duty to not act at all when religious expression is made by the people.
drewbug01 4y ago
> I really don’t understand this ruling. > The coach is a public employee acting in an official capacity. This ruling basically allows any public employee to practice religion as part of their governmental duties. You understand it perfectly.

jmpman 4y ago

I intend to advocate stopping all athletics.

gumby 4y ago
That will just cause them to move the goalposts.

WesternWind 4y ago

I'm always a fan of scotusblog coverage. https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/justices-side-with-high-school-football-coach-who-prayed-on-the-field-with-students/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/justices-side-with-high-s... My personal opinion, if it matters is that Gorsuch argues that we need to assess religious exercise and the establishment clause based on what the founders knew and thought, and he misconstrued (as shown in the pictures in the dissent) the facts of the case to achieve his preferred outcome. But even if he hadn't, there's a danger to Originalism, in that people in the past didn't have the information we have now. The founders probably weren't nearly as aware of how children are uniquely vulnerable to coercion and influence by authority figures, for example. Thomas Jefferson wrote (and this quote was inscribed on his memorial), "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

kryogen1c 4y ago
> there's a danger to Originalism, in that people in the past didn't have the information Good thing they built in a mechanism for revision then. Their intent is relatively clear. If you don't like the rule, change the rule. Anything else is vigilantism.
- WesternWind 4y ago
  It's bold to suggest their intent is relatively clear when the Court is literally reversing it's past standard in this case and many others this term.
dragonwriter 4y ago
If we are going to quote Jefferson, he cuts more to the point in a famous letter to Madison: On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. (Note that the 19 years is based on analysis of lifespans, etc., at the time, and is basically a model of generational turnover, so the same logic would get a slightly longer time today.) https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/thomas-jefferson-james-madison https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/tho... So, at least as far Jefferson goes, the framers intent would appear to be (to borrow from Lin Manuel Miranda): “Uh, do whatever you want, we’re super dead.” Of course, the cult that deifies an artificially constructed image of “the Founders” to justify their ideology wouldn't approve of that at all.

No1 4y ago

The Supreme Court seems to be on a tear overturning past landmark cases. It has turned into a complete kangaroo court, entirely willing to go through any legal contortions to arrive at the new political majority’s desired outcomes. This is going to be the future of the Supreme Court - overturn past decisions as soon as the political majority changes.

JohnTHaller 4y ago
That plus the way some recent justices were added is likely why public confidence in the Supreme Court is at the lowest point ever recorded: 25% in a recent Gallup poll.
- kcplate 4y ago
  Well, that’s 5% higher than congress…so second place ain’t too bad, and considering how Biden’s polling keeps dropping, I’d say they might have a shot at the gold come mid October

alphabettsy 4y ago

Coaches and teachers have tremendous influence in students lives. If this coach can allegedly not require but allow students to join him in prayer during a school sanctioned event then why can’t teachers lead their classrooms in prayer? I suspect that is what this opens the door to intentionally.

spacemanmatt 4y ago

Fuck this SCOTUS.

spacemanmatt 4y ago

Does this protect a Satanic coach from being fired for leading a chant on the football field?

spacemanmatt 4y ago
Circle of salt? Flaming pentacle? Blood sacrifice? I KNOW MY RIGHTS@!

EddieDante 4y ago

Matthew 6:5–6 seems relevant here... > 5 And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. > 6 But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. It's one thing to allow Christians to be Christians, but if they want to be Christians they need to be better Christians and pray in private.

RhysU 4y ago
It can't be against the constitution to be a lousy Christian any more than it can be against the constitution to be a good Christian.
- EddieDante 4y ago
  This is the one thing Richard Nixon got right. > It’s about time that the Christian in America realizes he’s an American first and a Christian second.

xigurat 4y ago

I hope that coach is Muslim