DiscussMormonism.com

Vēritās wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 28, 2022 3:18 pm

Does anyone doubt for a second that the Supreme Court decision would have been different if the coach's name was Akbar and he had rolled out a Muslim prayer cloth?

I just watched an interview with the coach and his attorney and his attorney said he never asked the kids to participate with him, and that this was just him praying on his own. If that were actually true then I wouldn't have a problem. But he had his team with him and they all knelt in unison at the 50 yd line. I'm just hoping some atheist or Muslim coach responds by pulling a similar stunt.

I would have. I am a strong supporter of the free exercise clause. This coach was a government employee who used his status as a government employee to promote his flavor of religion in an environment coercive to minors that were under his care and supervision. That's state promotion of a specific religious sect, which should anathema to anyone who values religious freedom. Under the actual, not the revisionist, facts, this was a constitutional no brainer. Most public schools are, and should be, meticulous about avoiding the endorsement of one religion or religious sect over another. In my local high school, a group of students prays every morning in a circle around the flagpole in front of the school. And that's great -- they are exercising their constitutional rights as American citizens. But it is not organized or led by the state. There is no state coercion -- overt or implicit -- to participate.

The school district made a bunch of proposals to accommodate the private prayer that the coach said he wanted. But he didn't want private prayer. He wanted to use his privileged position and influence as state employee to evangelize students and other state employees.

Here is a link to the published order denying the motion for an en banc hearing in the Ninth Circuit. https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/ ... -35222.pdf

For context, in the federal trial system, most trials are held in the U.S. District Courts. There is an automatic right of appeal to one of the Circuit Courts of Appeal. The Appeal is heard by a panel of three judges. After the panel renders its decisions, one of the parties or another judge in that Circuit can ask for an "en banc" rehearing -- a hearing by the full court. This one was requested by one of the other judges. This kind of motion is rarely granted, and is usually announced in an unpublished order comprising a couple of sentences.

The first two opinions are by two members of the three-judge panel that ruled against the coach. The first opinion is the one that shows the utter dishonesty of the revisionist narrative.

Enjoy!

To Res's point....

The Supreme Court hands the religious right a big victory by lying about the facts of a case

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:39 pm

Here is a link to the published order denying the motion for an en banc hearing in the Ninth Circuit. https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/ ... -35222.pdf

For context, in the federal trial system, most trials are held in the U.S. District Courts. There is an automatic right of appeal to one of the Circuit Courts of Appeal. The Appeal is heard by a panel of three judges. After the panel renders its decisions, one of the parties or another judge in that Circuit can ask for an "en banc" rehearing -- a hearing by the full court. This one was requested by one of the other judges. This kind of motion is rarely granted, and is usually announced in an unpublished order comprising a couple of sentences.

The first two opinions are by two members of the three-judge panel that ruled against the coach. The first opinion is the one that shows the utter dishonesty of the revisionist narrative.

Enjoy!

The implication of what you are saying is that some judges may make mistakes or do things that you do not agree with.

Vēritās wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:59 am

To Res's point....

The Supreme Court hands the religious right a big victory by lying about the facts of a case

Wow. that was pretty painful to read. the misrepresentation was blatant.

Binger wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:23 am

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:39 pm

Here is a link to the published order denying the motion for an en banc hearing in the Ninth Circuit. https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/ ... -35222.pdf

For context, in the federal trial system, most trials are held in the U.S. District Courts. There is an automatic right of appeal to one of the Circuit Courts of Appeal. The Appeal is heard by a panel of three judges. After the panel renders its decisions, one of the parties or another judge in that Circuit can ask for an "en banc" rehearing -- a hearing by the full court. This one was requested by one of the other judges. This kind of motion is rarely granted, and is usually announced in an unpublished order comprising a couple of sentences.

The first two opinions are by two members of the three-judge panel that ruled against the coach. The first opinion is the one that shows the utter dishonesty of the revisionist narrative.

Enjoy!

The implication of what you are saying is that some judges may make mistakes or do things that you do not agree with.

Nope, but nice try.

Marcus wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 29, 2022 5:01 am

Vēritās wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:59 am

To Res's point....

The Supreme Court hands the religious right a big victory by lying about the facts of a case

Wow. that was pretty painful to read. the misrepresentation was blatant.

If I tried a similar stunt in a brief in federal court, I’d get my as handed to me, and rightfully so. Appellate courts Have to base their decision on the evidence in the record, which included the photos used by the dissent.