Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SCOTUS, Now with KBJ

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
    The only "facts" that I know about the case are those referred to in the decision, but I don't believe there were any facts relating to coercion or anything else. In fact, I think they suggest the opposite. The coach started doing it on his own, and only later did a few players ask if they could participate.

    No players or parents of players even complained, and it went on for years. It was only after someone from an opposing team went to the school and said they found it odd did the school take some action.

    Furthermore, the school didn't claim the reason they demanded that he stop was based upon coercion or any concerns of players or parents. Instead, the school gave as its reason a fear that members of the public would perceive that the school was endorsing a certain religion.

    He even asked if he could do it after all the players left, when he was alone, and the school turned him down.

    Maybe it is a case of bad facts making bad law, but as I said in my initial post, this one is all on the stupidity of the school. If they had simply ignored the comment from the parent of an opposing player, the SCOTUS never gets a chance to issue this decision you all hate.
    So, you’re saying the school should have waited for a more liberal SCOTUS to rule in their favor?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
      The only "facts" that I know about the case are those referred to in the decision,
      ...
      He even asked if he could do it after all the players left, when he was alone, and the school turned him down.
      From Sotomayor's dissent, reciting the facts:

      "Kennedy stopped participating in locker room prayers and, after a game the following day, gave a secular speech. He returned to pray in the stadium alone after his duties were over and everyone left the stadium, to which the District had no objection."

      You could at least read the facts first.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Swansong View Post

        This is a wild misstating of the facts of the case.

        The coach was in a position of authority and made it unofficially very clear that prayer was required. No one was offended at the site of some superstitious people praying. They were offended that players were effectively peer pressured into joining. Want to play? Come and ostentatiously pray with us.

        This was a performative act designed to get attention. The school responded to a complaint the right way, and then the coach made a major media campaign about it and got it all the way to this renegade court.




        My god, is every GQP and GQP-adjacent just allergic to facts?
        Well, fortunately, there is a record, and it is public.

        Below is the text of the letter sent by the school district to the coach that summarizes what happened that ultimately lead to his dismissal. Following receipt of the letter, the coach went ahead and did the same thing the following week (briefly said a prayer by himself at the center of the field while the players were off celebrating) and he was fired.

        No kids were coerced into participating. He made a public prayer, by himself, and the school was pizzed about it.

        The record is 376 pages long, if you care to read it. I skimmed through a sizable amount of it. It's actually kind of interesting.

        Here is the letter.

        JA 90
        Letter From A. Leavell to J. Kennedy
        (Oct. 23, 2015)
        Dear Coach Kennedy:
        OnSeptember17,2015,I provided you with
        guidance and a set of standards for compliance with
        Bremerton School District Board Policy 2340. Those
        directives were in response to your prior practices
        involving on-the-job prayer with players in the
        Bremerton High School football program, both in the
        locker room prior to games as well as on the field
        immediately following games. In general, I believe
        that you have attempted to comply with the guidelines
        set forth in that letter.
        However, immediately following the end of the
        homecoming game on October 16, 2015, you knelt at
        midfield and bowed your head in prayer. While most
        of the BHS players were at that moment engaged in
        the traditional singing of the school fight song to the
        audience, your intention to pray at midfield following
        the game was widely publicized, including through
        your own media appearances.
        I wish to emphasize my appreciation for your
        efforts to comply with the September 17 directives.
        Nevertheless, I find it necessary to clarify the
        District’s expectations going forward. As was
        discussed in that letter:
        Many decades of federal court litigation,
        including decisions of the United States
        Supreme Court, have fleshed out the meaning
        of the First Amendment’s Establishment
        Clause and Free Exercise Clause. In the
        public schools context, it is clear that schools
        and their employees may not directly prohibit

        JA 91
        students from participating in religious
        activities, nor may they require students to
        participate in religious activities. Further, it
        is equally clear that school staff may not
        indirectly encourage students to engage in
        religious activity (or discourage them from
        doing so),or even engage in action that is
        likely to be perceived as endorsing (or
        opposing) religion or religious activity. In
        short, schools and their employees, while
        performing their job duties, must remain
        neutral—allowing non-disruptive student
        religious activity, while neither endorsing nor
        discouraging it.
        Federal case law makes clear that a violation of
        the United States Constitution’s First Amendment
        Establishment Clause occurs if a school employee
        engages in conduct which a reasonable observer,
        familiar with the history and context of the conduct,
        would perceive as government endorsement of
        religion. I again emphasize that the District does not
        prohibit prayer or other religious exercise by
        employees while on the job.However, as my
        September 17 letter stated, such exercise must not
        interfere with the performance of job responsibilities,
        and must not lead to a perception of District
        endorsement of religion. I conclude that your conduct
        of October16, 2015,is not consistent with these
        requirements.
        As the District has emphasized to your legal
        representatives, paid assistant coaches in District
        athletic programs are responsible for supervision of
        students not only prior to and during the course of

        JA 92
        games, but also during the activities following games
        and until players are released to their parents or
        otherwise allowed to leave. Supervision of students,
        including in dressing rooms, is explicitly listed among
        the responsibilities of assistant coaches in the District.
        Indeed, I have confirmed with your head coach that for
        over ten years, all assistant coaches have had assigned
        duties both before and after each game and have been
        expected to remain with the team until the last
        student has left the event; that until recently, you
        regularly came to the locker room with the team and
        other coaches following the game; that you have been
        among the assistant coaches with specific
        responsibility for the supervision of players in the
        locker room following games; and that you have helped
        in the supervision of students until they are picked up
        by parents or leave the facility, including during post-
        game meetings between the head coach and
        coordinators. From this review, I am satisfied that you
        are and have been aware that as a paid assistant
        coach, you remain on duty following games until the
        last student has left the event. If that has been
        unclear, I trust any confusion on your part as to these
        expectations has now been remedied.
        Thus, when you engaged in religious exercise
        immediately following the game on October 16, you
        were still on duty for the District. You were at the
        event, and on the field, under the game lights, in BHS-
        logoed attire,in front of an audience of event
        attendees, solely by virtue of your employment by the
        District. The field is not an open forum to which
        members of the public are invited following completion
        of games; but even if it were, you continued to have job
        responsibilities, including the supervision of players.

        JA 93
        While I understand that your religious exercise was
        fleeting, it nevertheless drew you away from your
        work. More importantly, any reasonable observer saw
        a District employee, on the field only by virtue of his
        employment with the District, still on duty, under the
        bright lights of the stadium, engaged in what was
        clearly, given your prior public conduct, overtly
        religious conduct. And there were many such
        observers: The game had ended mere moments earlier.
        Under federal court precedent, a court would almost
        certainly find your conduct on October 16, in the
        course of your District employment, to constitute
        District endorsement of religion in violation of the
        United States Constitution. That same case law not
        only allows, but requires, the District to prohibit such
        violations from recurring. In addition, Washington
        courts have held that Article IX Section 4 of the
        Washington Constitution, which provides that public
        schools “shall be forever free from sectarian control or
        influence,” imposes an even more strict prohibition on
        public agency endorsement of religion.
        I wish to again emphasize that the District does
        not prohibit prayer or other religious exercise by its
        employees. However, it must prohibit any conduct by
        employees that would serve as District endorsement
        of religion. I have explained above why your conduct
        of October 16 violates that expectation. On the other
        hand, I wish to make it clear that religious exercise
        that would not be perceived as District endorsement,
        and which does not otherwise interfere with the
        performance of job duties, can and will be
        accommodated. Development of accommodations is an
        interactive process, and should you wish to continue
        to engage in private exercise while on the job, the

        JA 94
        District will be happy to discuss options for that to
        occur in a manner that will not violate the law.
        It is common for schools to provide an employee
        whose faith requires a particular form of exercise with
        a private location to engage in such exercise during
        the work day, not observable to students or the public,
        so long as this does not interfere with performance of
        job responsibilities. For example, a private location
        within the school building, athletic facility or press box
        could be made available to you for brief religious
        exercise before and after games, if this will not
        interfere with your assigned duties. Please let me
        know if you would like to discuss such
        accommodations.
        Finally, I would like to remind you of what I said
        in my September 17 letter: That is, the District values
        very highly your positive contributions to the BHS
        football program, and in particular, your motivational
        and inspirational talks to the players. In that letter, I
        assured you that you could continue that practice,
        focusing on appropriate themes such as unity,
        teamwork, responsibility, safety and endeavor. After
        the game immediately following that letter, you
        provided such a talk to the players of both teams,
        while remaining entirely secular. That talk was well
        received,and appreciated by the District and the
        community. I would certainly encourage continuation
        of that practice.
        To summarize: While on duty for the District as
        an assistant coach, you may not engage in
        demonstrative religious activity, readily observable to
        (if not intended to be observed by) students and the
        attending public. You may not repeat your conduct of

        JA 95
        October 16, 2015, for the reasons discussed above.
        Given the severity and likelihood of liability faced by
        the District in the event of further violations of these
        directives, any further violations will be grounds for
        discipline, up to and including discharge from District
        employment. It is my hope that you will choose to
        honor these expectations, and .continue your positive
        work with the BHS football program for the remainder
        of this season.
        Sincerely,
        [handwritten: signature]
        Aaron Leavell, Ed.D.
        Superintendent
        That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

        Comment


        • By the way, if you are interested in the record, here is the link. The letter I copied and pasted into my post begins on page 98 of that pdf.

          https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...20Appendix.pdf
          That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by SJHovey View Post

            Well, fortunately, there is a record, and it is public.

            Below is the text of the letter sent by the school district to the coach that summarizes what happened that ultimately lead to his dismissal. Following receipt of the letter, the coach went ahead and did the same thing the following week (briefly said a prayer by himself at the center of the field while the players were off celebrating) and he was fired.

            No kids were coerced into participating. He made a public prayer, by himself, and the school was pizzed about it.

            The record is 376 pages long, if you care to read it. I skimmed through a sizable amount of it. It's actually kind of interesting.

            Here is the letter.

            JA 90
            Letter From A. Leavell to J. Kennedy
            (Oct. 23, 2015)
            Dear Coach Kennedy:
            OnSeptember17,2015,I provided you with
            guidance and a set of standards for compliance with
            Bremerton School District Board Policy 2340. Those
            directives were in response to your prior practices
            involving on-the-job prayer with players in the
            Bremerton High School football program, both in the
            locker room prior to games as well as on the field
            immediately following games. In general, I believe
            that you have attempted to comply with the guidelines
            set forth in that letter.
            However, immediately following the end of the
            homecoming game on October 16, 2015, you knelt at
            midfield and bowed your head in prayer. While most
            of the BHS players were at that moment engaged in
            the traditional singing of the school fight song to the
            audience, your intention to pray at midfield following
            the game was widely publicized, including through
            your own media appearances.
            I wish to emphasize my appreciation for your
            efforts to comply with the September 17 directives.
            Nevertheless, I find it necessary to clarify the
            District’s expectations going forward. As was
            discussed in that letter:
            Many decades of federal court litigation,
            including decisions of the United States
            Supreme Court, have fleshed out the meaning
            of the First Amendment’s Establishment
            Clause and Free Exercise Clause. In the
            public schools context, it is clear that schools
            and their employees may not directly prohibit

            JA 91
            students from participating in religious
            activities, nor may they require students to
            participate in religious activities. Further, it
            is equally clear that school staff may not
            indirectly encourage students to engage in
            religious activity (or discourage them from
            doing so),or even engage in action that is
            likely to be perceived as endorsing (or
            opposing) religion or religious activity. In
            short, schools and their employees, while
            performing their job duties, must remain
            neutral—allowing non-disruptive student
            religious activity, while neither endorsing nor
            discouraging it.
            Federal case law makes clear that a violation of
            the United States Constitution’s First Amendment
            Establishment Clause occurs if a school employee
            engages in conduct which a reasonable observer,
            familiar with the history and context of the conduct,
            would perceive as government endorsement of
            religion. I again emphasize that the District does not
            prohibit prayer or other religious exercise by
            employees while on the job.However, as my
            September 17 letter stated, such exercise must not
            interfere with the performance of job responsibilities,
            and must not lead to a perception of District
            endorsement of religion. I conclude that your conduct
            of October16, 2015,is not consistent with these
            requirements.
            As the District has emphasized to your legal
            representatives, paid assistant coaches in District
            athletic programs are responsible for supervision of
            students not only prior to and during the course of

            JA 92
            games, but also during the activities following games
            and until players are released to their parents or
            otherwise allowed to leave. Supervision of students,
            including in dressing rooms, is explicitly listed among
            the responsibilities of assistant coaches in the District.
            Indeed, I have confirmed with your head coach that for
            over ten years, all assistant coaches have had assigned
            duties both before and after each game and have been
            expected to remain with the team until the last
            student has left the event; that until recently, you
            regularly came to the locker room with the team and
            other coaches following the game; that you have been
            among the assistant coaches with specific
            responsibility for the supervision of players in the
            locker room following games; and that you have helped
            in the supervision of students until they are picked up
            by parents or leave the facility, including during post-
            game meetings between the head coach and
            coordinators. From this review, I am satisfied that you
            are and have been aware that as a paid assistant
            coach, you remain on duty following games until the
            last student has left the event. If that has been
            unclear, I trust any confusion on your part as to these
            expectations has now been remedied.
            Thus, when you engaged in religious exercise
            immediately following the game on October 16, you
            were still on duty for the District. You were at the
            event, and on the field, under the game lights, in BHS-
            logoed attire,in front of an audience of event
            attendees, solely by virtue of your employment by the
            District. The field is not an open forum to which
            members of the public are invited following completion
            of games; but even if it were, you continued to have job
            responsibilities, including the supervision of players.

            JA 93
            While I understand that your religious exercise was
            fleeting, it nevertheless drew you away from your
            work. More importantly, any reasonable observer saw
            a District employee, on the field only by virtue of his
            employment with the District, still on duty, under the
            bright lights of the stadium, engaged in what was
            clearly, given your prior public conduct, overtly
            religious conduct. And there were many such
            observers: The game had ended mere moments earlier.
            Under federal court precedent, a court would almost
            certainly find your conduct on October 16, in the
            course of your District employment, to constitute
            District endorsement of religion in violation of the
            United States Constitution. That same case law not
            only allows, but requires, the District to prohibit such
            violations from recurring. In addition, Washington
            courts have held that Article IX Section 4 of the
            Washington Constitution, which provides that public
            schools “shall be forever free from sectarian control or
            influence,” imposes an even more strict prohibition on
            public agency endorsement of religion.
            I wish to again emphasize that the District does
            not prohibit prayer or other religious exercise by its
            employees. However, it must prohibit any conduct by
            employees that would serve as District endorsement
            of religion. I have explained above why your conduct
            of October 16 violates that expectation. On the other
            hand, I wish to make it clear that religious exercise
            that would not be perceived as District endorsement,
            and which does not otherwise interfere with the
            performance of job duties, can and will be
            accommodated. Development of accommodations is an
            interactive process, and should you wish to continue
            to engage in private exercise while on the job, the

            JA 94
            District will be happy to discuss options for that to
            occur in a manner that will not violate the law.
            It is common for schools to provide an employee
            whose faith requires a particular form of exercise with
            a private location to engage in such exercise during
            the work day, not observable to students or the public,
            so long as this does not interfere with performance of
            job responsibilities. For example, a private location
            within the school building, athletic facility or press box
            could be made available to you for brief religious
            exercise before and after games, if this will not
            interfere with your assigned duties. Please let me
            know if you would like to discuss such
            accommodations.
            Finally, I would like to remind you of what I said
            in my September 17 letter: That is, the District values
            very highly your positive contributions to the BHS
            football program, and in particular, your motivational
            and inspirational talks to the players. In that letter, I
            assured you that you could continue that practice,
            focusing on appropriate themes such as unity,
            teamwork, responsibility, safety and endeavor. After
            the game immediately following that letter, you
            provided such a talk to the players of both teams,
            while remaining entirely secular. That talk was well
            received,and appreciated by the District and the
            community. I would certainly encourage continuation
            of that practice.
            To summarize: While on duty for the District as
            an assistant coach, you may not engage in
            demonstrative religious activity, readily observable to
            (if not intended to be observed by) students and the
            attending public. You may not repeat your conduct of

            JA 95
            October 16, 2015, for the reasons discussed above.
            Given the severity and likelihood of liability faced by
            the District in the event of further violations of these
            directives, any further violations will be grounds for
            discipline, up to and including discharge from District
            employment. It is my hope that you will choose to
            honor these expectations, and .continue your positive
            work with the BHS football program for the remainder
            of this season.
            Sincerely,
            [handwritten: signature]
            Aaron Leavell, Ed.D.
            Superintendent
            Looks like the author of the letter repeatedly states he violated their code of conduct and the law by doing it while a) people were present and viewed him perform the act while b) he was supposed to be watching students safely leave the premises, as being an assistant coach/guardian meant safety of the kids came first before his freedom of religion. Once they all left the premises, he was free to pray, as his duties to protect the safety of his students was discharged. Sounds like he knew that, and he violated it anyways.

            Comment


            • Republicans are awesome at willful blindness. It's their fucking superpower.
              **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

              Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
              Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by psych View Post

                Looks like the author of the letter repeatedly states he violated their code of conduct and the law by doing it while a) people were present and viewed him perform the act while b) he was supposed to be watching students safely leave the premises, as being an assistant coach/guardian meant safety of the kids came first before his freedom of religion. Once they all left the premises, he was free to pray, as his duties to protect the safety of his students was discharged. Sounds like he knew that, and he violated it anyways.
                Amen (no pun intended). The school district was spot on.

                The whacko wing of SCOTUS? Not so much.
                If you don't change the world today, how can it be any better tomorrow?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by psych View Post

                  Looks like the author of the letter repeatedly states he violated their code of conduct and the law by doing it while a) people were present and viewed him perform the act while b) he was supposed to be watching students safely leave the premises, as being an assistant coach/guardian meant safety of the kids came first before his freedom of religion. Once they all left the premises, he was free to pray, as his duties to protect the safety of his students was discharged. Sounds like he knew that, and he violated it anyways.
                  What happened was this, and you can see that in the letter.

                  The school district knew they couldn't fire him for privately praying on student grounds. In fact, they write that in the letter. They also knew that they had no evidence of coercion or anything else that they could use to make their "establishment" clause case. So they come up with this "failure to perform your job" argument in the letter, that he violated with his "fleeting" prayer (his words, not mine). As shows up elsewhere in the record, everyone knew that was a bogus claim by the district. The kids were off singing a song. There was nothing he was expected to do, and the evidence was that the school officials "on duty" in these situations were always off doing their own personal thing, so that whole argument was a sham.

                  It's pretty obvious from the record the school got set up, that much is clear. The coach and his lawyers knew that the school had no legitimate basis upon which to take action, so he clearly went out and offered the prayer, by himself, at the center of the field, with the whole world watching, and the school got baited into firing him. If they had done nothing, and refused to take the bait, the thing would have died down, everyone would have lost interest, and they could have simply elected not to renew his contract the next time it came up.
                  That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                  Comment


                  • By the way, did you guys know that Kirk Cousins filed an amicus brief in that case? Seriously. When I get time, I'm going to have to go and read what ol' Kirk had to say about this.
                    That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by SJHovey View Post

                      What happened was this, and you can see that in the letter.

                      The school district knew they couldn't fire him for privately praying on student grounds. In fact, they write that in the letter. They also knew that they had no evidence of coercion or anything else that they could use to make their "establishment" clause case. So they come up with this "failure to perform your job" argument in the letter, that he violated with his "fleeting" prayer (his words, not mine). As shows up elsewhere in the record, everyone knew that was a bogus claim by the district. The kids were off singing a song. There was nothing he was expected to do, and the evidence was that the school officials "on duty" in these situations were always off doing their own personal thing, so that whole argument was a sham.

                      It's pretty obvious from the record the school got set up, that much is clear. The coach and his lawyers knew that the school had no legitimate basis upon which to take action, so he clearly went out and offered the prayer, by himself, at the center of the field, with the whole world watching, and the school got baited into firing him. If they had done nothing, and refused to take the bait, the thing would have died down, everyone would have lost interest, and they could have simply elected not to renew his contract the next time it came up.
                      Sounds a lot like your opinion, as some of what you say in there conflicts with what I’ve read about the case. I will ask you again, are you arguing the school should have waited for a more liberal SCOTUS to rule in their favor?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by psych View Post

                        Sounds a lot like your opinion, as some of what you say in there conflicts with what I’ve read about the case. I will ask you again, are you arguing the school should have waited for a more liberal SCOTUS to rule in their favor?
                        No, what I'm saying is this.

                        From the school's standpoint, their goal should be to avoid litigation. Schools are short of money the way it is. Litigating cases with employees, all the way up the the Supreme Court, should be an expense they are looking to avoid. Furthermore, now that the SCOTUS has ruled against them, they probably face a bunch of costs and back wages from the coach.

                        The school claims they were worried about being sued by someone claiming they were violating the "establishment clause" if they let the coach proceed. However, as I pointed out earlier, in my opinion that was only slightly likely to happen. No one was complaining about this, and it apparently went on for about seven years. It was only when someone from a neighboring town pointed it out that the school took action. However, there was no question the coach was going to sue, that became apparent very early on. There were other ways of handling this, such as just quietly not continuing the coaches contract that next time it came up.

                        Second, it is clear from the record that the coach was spoiling for a legal battle that could be litigated all the way to the SCOTUS, if necessary. He had some conservative outfit out of Texas representing him.

                        Bad facts can make bad law, and the school had bad facts in this case. There was no evidence he was making anyone pray, or that anyone even felt compelled to participate. If you are someone who is evaluating whether you want this case to go to any court, even the SCOTUS, you want good facts on your side, not bad facts. Groups actively seeking a separation of church and state should have definitely been in the ear of the school telling them this is not a good factual case to litigate, certainly not before this version of the SCOTUS.
                        That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by SJHovey View Post

                          No, what I'm saying is this.

                          From the school's standpoint, their goal should be to avoid litigation. Schools are short of money the way it is. Litigating cases with employees, all the way up the the Supreme Court, should be an expense they are looking to avoid. Furthermore, now that the SCOTUS has ruled against them, they probably face a bunch of costs and back wages from the coach.

                          The school claims they were worried about being sued by someone claiming they were violating the "establishment clause" if they let the coach proceed. However, as I pointed out earlier, in my opinion that was only slightly likely to happen. No one was complaining about this, and it apparently went on for about seven years. It was only when someone from a neighboring town pointed it out that the school took action. However, there was no question the coach was going to sue, that became apparent very early on. There were other ways of handling this, such as just quietly not continuing the coaches contract that next time it came up.

                          Second, it is clear from the record that the coach was spoiling for a legal battle that could be litigated all the way to the SCOTUS, if necessary. He had some conservative outfit out of Texas representing him.

                          Bad facts can make bad law, and the school had bad facts in this case. There was no evidence he was making anyone pray, or that anyone even felt compelled to participate. If you are someone who is evaluating whether you want this case to go to any court, even the SCOTUS, you want good facts on your side, not bad facts. Groups actively seeking a separation of church and state should have definitely been in the ear of the school telling them this is not a good factual case to litigate, certainly not before this version of the SCOTUS.
                          So, yes, that is what you’re saying. They shouldn’t have litigated now because a) expensive, duh, coupled with b) “bad” facts because they were interpreted by the majority who think like Alito, not Sotomayor, therefore c) wrong Supreme Court to spend so much time litigating. If c) was the right Supreme Court, I think a) and b) would have been moot, no?

                          Comment


                          • The Right is only acting like we always knew they would act when they got control of the Court. None of this is a surprise.

                            This has always been the Right:

                            “When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.”

                            The only way to fight them is to retake power, and the only way to retake power is to oppose them strongly so that voters will support us. The Democrats' mewling, wincing, apologetic centrism of the last fifty years has destroyed America. We need a muscular Left that will fight these monsters.


                            Last edited by Kepler; 06-28-2022, 10:25 AM.
                            Cornell University
                            National Champion 1967, 1970
                            ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                            Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                              By the way, did you guys know that Kirk Cousins filed an amicus brief in that case? Seriously. When I get time, I'm going to have to go and read what ol' Kirk had to say about this.
                              Odd. I would expect him to compile a bunch of meaningless victories in lower courts and then lose when it came down to the big cases.

                              Cornell '04, Stanford '06


                              KDR

                              Rover Frenchy, Classic! Great post.
                              iwh30 I wish I could be as smart as you. I really do you are the man
                              gregg729 I just saw your sig, you do love having people revel in your "intelligence."
                              Ritt18 you are the perfect representation of your alma mater.
                              Miss Thundercat That's it, you win.
                              TBA#2 I want to kill you and dance in your blood.
                              DisplacedCornellian Hahaha. Thread over. Frenchy wins.

                              Test to see if I can add this.

                              Comment


                              • Putting aside one's opinion on the ruling, "I want to be an ostentatious asshole about my superstitious belief in an invisible white, bearded sky dude and his 2000 year-old book of cannibalistic, warmongering, patriarchal, xenophobic fairytales, despite Matthew 6:5-6 explicitly saying not to be an ostentatious asshole about it" is totally on-brand for the Christofascist GOP.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X