Outstanding....

Quote: Government meetings can include an opening prayer without running afoul of the Constitution, the Supreme Court said Monday.

The court ruled in favor of the town of Greece, N.Y., a Rochester suburb that has opened its monthly public meetings with a Christian prayer since 1999. Two residents, one Jewish and the other atheist, claimed that because the prayers were almost always Christian, the practice amounted to government endorsement of a single faith.

The Supreme Court last considered the issue of government prayer in 1983, ruling that the Nebraska legislature did not violate the Constitution by opening its sessions with a prayer from a Presbyterian minister.

But the challengers in the New York case argued that the meetings of the Greece town board were different, because members of the public who sought action from the board were legally required to attend and were not simply part of a passive audience — drawing attention to themselves if they declined to participate in a prayer that was contrary to their believes.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supr...ngs-n97221

5-4

Kagan writing the dissent on behalf of Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer.

(05-05-2014 10:33 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  5-4

Kagan writing the dissent on behalf of Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer.

Of course. But, if it were Deerborn, MI and the prayer was to Allah, then it would have been 9-0. Just sayin'.

This case has already been decided. The bigger question is why do we have 4 dissents. Precedent rules unless there was some "error" in the reasoning of the previous case. The truth is that we have 4 justices that are okay with legislating form the bench.

(05-05-2014 02:32 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 10:33 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  5-4

Kagan writing the dissent on behalf of Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer.

The bigger question is why do we have 4 dissents. Precedent rules unless there was some "error" in the reasoning of the previous case. The truth is that we have 4 justices that are okay with legislating form the bench.

C'mon Pharaoh...you can't be serious? You're familiar with the precedent thrown out the window in Citizens United, yes?

Anyway, I don't know why there were dissents either. Other then that maybe because it's almost always a Christian prayer. They should really mix it up a bit.

(05-05-2014 02:35 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 02:32 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 10:33 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  5-4

Kagan writing the dissent on behalf of Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer.

The bigger question is why do we have 4 dissents. Precedent rules unless there was some "error" in the reasoning of the previous case. The truth is that we have 4 justices that are okay with legislating form the bench.

C'mon Pharaoh...you can't be serious? You're familiar with the precedent thrown out the window in Citizens United, yes?

Anyway, I don't know why there were dissents either. Other then that maybe because it's almost always a Christian prayer. They should really mix it up a bit.

Which precedent was thrown out in CU?

(05-05-2014 02:35 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 02:32 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 10:33 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  5-4

Kagan writing the dissent on behalf of Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer.

The bigger question is why do we have 4 dissents. Precedent rules unless there was some "error" in the reasoning of the previous case. The truth is that we have 4 justices that are okay with legislating form the bench.

C'mon Pharaoh...you can't be serious? You're familiar with the precedent thrown out the window in Citizens United, yes?

Anyway, I don't know why there were dissents either. Other then that maybe because it's almost always a Christian prayer. They should really mix it up a bit.

The law in general equates corporations with people like Disney equates animals and humans...so, I never really understood the reasoning behind the cases that created the precedent. I thought CU was the correct ruling (not really a political statement on my part). I thought the Court on the prior cases probably thought that too much soft corporation money was getting into campaigns. I am sure Marshall was probably outspoken on that in the prior decisions, so I think the Court probably weighed more of the political fairness versus pure constitutionality. On this verdict, there are 4 usually strong constitutional judges and Kennedy, who really loves 1st amendment. I think the resulting verdict is probably more in line with the way corporations are treated by Courts and Constitution as opposed to the original cases.

On the prayer case, I don't know why this was a big deal. This type of thing has never been successfully challenged. But, probably changing it up every once in a while would probably be to their advantage, especially if the community consists of many faiths.

(05-05-2014 02:40 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 02:35 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 02:32 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 10:33 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  5-4

Kagan writing the dissent on behalf of Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer.

The bigger question is why do we have 4 dissents. Precedent rules unless there was some "error" in the reasoning of the previous case. The truth is that we have 4 justices that are okay with legislating form the bench.

C'mon Pharaoh...you can't be serious? You're familiar with the precedent thrown out the window in Citizens United, yes?

Anyway, I don't know why there were dissents either. Other then that maybe because it's almost always a Christian prayer. They should really mix it up a bit.

Which precedent was thrown out in CU?

How the first amendment relates to corporations

See Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) (in part)

(05-05-2014 02:32 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 10:33 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  5-4

Kagan writing the dissent on behalf of Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer.

Of course. But, if it were Deerborn, MI and the prayer was to Allah, then it would have been 9-0. Just sayin'.

This case has already been decided. The bigger question is why do we have 4 dissents. Precedent rules unless there was some "error" in the reasoning of the previous case. The truth is that we have 4 justices that are okay with legislating form the bench.

Lochner anybody?