The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Don't Push A Pencil Through Lemon, Slice It In Half!
Will the Supreme Court finally overrule the Lemon test?
In the five decades since Lemon v. Kurtzman, there have been more puns about lemons that I could ever count. Perhaps the best barb came in Justice Scalia's Lamb's Chapel concurrence:
As to the Court's invocation of the Lemon test: Like some ghoul in a late night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried, Lemon stalks our Establishment Clause jurisprudence once again, frightening thelittle children and school attorneys of Center Moriches Union Free School District. Its most recent burial, only last Term, was, to be sure, not fully six feet under: our decision in Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. ----, ---- (1992) (slip op., at 7), conspicuously avoided using the supposed "test" but also declined the invitation to repudiate it. Over the years, however, no fewer than five of the currently sitting Justices have, in their own opinions, personally driven pencils through the creature's heart (the author of today's opinion repeatedly), and a sixth has joined an opinion doing so.
Indeed, the Justice Scalia bobblehead depicts him shoving a pencil through a lemon.
Today during oral argument in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, Paul Clement riffed on Scalia's dissent, and improved on it! Enjoy this colloquy between Clement and Justice Kavanaugh:
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: Okay. And then, to pick up on Justice Gorsuch, the Lemon endorsement test, that has not been applied by this Court in several decades in cases like Van Orden, Town of Greece, American Legion. At least I've said I don't think there is such a test in our case law anymore, the Lemon endorsement test, correct?
MR. CLEMENT: Sure, but it's a --it --it's a stubborn --it's a stubborn fruit, and I don't think just pushing a pencil through it has done the trick. I mean, you really have to slice it in half and make clear to everybody--
Will Justice Kavanaugh merely jab another pencil into the stubborn fruit? And Justice Barrett? Or will they slice it in half, and make lemonade out of lemons? (Hopefully the last Lemon pun I'll have to make.)
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Kavanaugh's the swing vote, so the test looks like it is going to be coercion with Santa Fe on one side of it and today's Kennedy case on the other.
And clearly the Court has soured on Lemon.
Does Lemon still have a-peel to enough Justices?
These have got to be some of the seediest jokes possible.
I pity the justice writing this opinion, they'll become a sourpuss.
If not, it will be a fruitless appeal.
"And clearly the Court has soured on Lemon."
"Does Lemon still have a-peel to enough Justices?"
"These have got to be some of the seediest jokes possible."
"I pity the justice writing this opinion, they'll become a sourpuss."
"If not, it will be a fruitless appeal."
I love you folks. For the rest of you folks getting acidic below, if a justice gives you lemons, stop squirting them in your eyes.
"Kavanaugh's the swing vote, so the test looks like it is going to be coercion..."
Interesting to see that the "groomer" argument is getting so much bipartisan acceptance.
Or perhaps they will sidestep Lemon and Santa Fe by taking a cue from Barrett and holding this was private speech and there is no Establishment Clause violation because there is no state action. And I think if it were government speech, the coach can be fired under Garcetti and there ought be no Free Exercise claim, so again you don't reach any Establishment Clause issues.
On the other hand, Kagan was adamant that coercion, not Garcetti and employer-employee government/private speech, should be the determining factor in this case because it involves prayer. Of course, I would expect her to conclude the coach was being coercive.
What isn't clear is how the doctrines (employee speech, Free Exercise and Establishment clauses) interact. For one thing, it seems Clement was arguing private political speech by an employee gets lesser protection (Pickering) than private religious speech (strict scrutiny). Lots for the Court unpack, but I'm expecting a narrow ruling leaving precedent alone and many questions unanswered.
Lots for the Court unpack, but I'm expecting a narrow ruling leaving precedent alone and many questions unanswered.
That is very much in keeping with Chief Justice Roberts' practice.
Indeed. However as Dilan notes, Kavanaugh or Barrett is likely to be the deciding vote. So, Roberts may get a broader ruling then he wants.
I think the "government speech" thing doesn't really solve the establishment clause problem. Let's say that a teacher decides she wants to sneak school prayer back into the classroom. So she invites a student she knows to be evangelical to "say a few words" before each class. She knows darned well what type of words the student is going to say. Nonetheless, the speech is the student's, not the government's, right?
The issue with the Establishment Clause is simply different than the government speech issue. It's the line as to how entangled the government can get with religion. You have to draw it somewhere. Lemon drew it one place, but it wasn't a workable test because it would have, if taken literally, prohibited all sorts of relatively innocuous practices like Christmas decorations and legislative invocations. Justice O'Connor was enamored with a symbolic endorsement test, but government officials are religious and endorse their religions all the time. So the most workable test seems to be coercion (Lee v. Weisman), but nobody can agree what constitutes coercion.
The government speech theory doesn't solve that at all, because just because a private actor decides what the expression will be doesn't guarantee that it isn't a coercive exercise.
Under Santa Fe, I think your hypothetical is government speech.
I take it you disagree with Barrett
I disagree with Barrett. And if Santa Fe is government speech, you've simply swapped one fuzzy line for another, and arguably stopped asking the right question. Coercion IS the right question.
The Court said in Santa Fe
Perhaps the Court will take your lead and decouple coercion from government-versus-private speech, but it will have to answer why can't a private citizen coerce.
I have no issue with the government being forbidden from supporting cults and religions. But this should apply to all cults and religions. Something thats clearly not happening these days with the trillions being funneled to the wokeites.
Have you ever considered not lying and not making a partisan ass-clown of yourself?
You might disagree with his premise but it's a fairly common view to equate secular ideologies with religion.
Lots of common things are silly things.
it's a fairly common view to equate secular ideologies with religion.
Yeah. Stupid people do it all the time.
Yup. I don't think that a coach praying by himself is coercive, but I wonder why people who do don't think a teacher discussing his same-sex partner is coercive.
Someday perhaps you can frame issues truthfully.
Maybe you'll even learn the difference between religion and sexuality.
Many religions include beliefs about sexuality. Traditional forms of many world religions happen to have traditional views about it. To endorse OR oppose such views is to take a religious position.
X having opinions on Y doesn't make X=Y.
"To endorse OR oppose such views is to take a religious position."
No, it is not. That's what an idiot would say to try and pretend that everything is about religion.
Coercive of what, exactly?
Coercive of pushing a certain sexuality orientation on children.
Technically they're pushing a *viewpoint about* sexual orientation, not sexual orientation iteself.
(You're still basically correct that the state should have to be viewpoint neutral on such things...)
You're still basically correct that the state should have to be viewpoint neutral on such things.
Viewpoint neutral about what? That homosexuals exist? That they marry?
These are facts, you idiot.
Yes, before you know it the entire football team is gay!
I'm not concerned about the football team. I'm more concerned about the kindergarteners. I don't feel that they should be pressured into pledging allegiance to the Pride flag.
Sexual orientation is something that should be brought up in an appropriate forum to an appropriate age. For example, the classic 7th/8th grade health class.
Is it 'sexual orientation' to talk about one's significant other? I mean, if a teacher talks about his male and female parents or their male or female significant other that's coercive of...what?
I mean, you're going to have a 2nd grade class and never speak of 'mommies' 'daddies' 'husband' 'wife' 'partner?' WTF? This is the ultimate of 'safe spaces!'
"Is it 'sexual orientation' to talk about one's significant other?"
Depends how it's done. Let's use a different example.
1. Can a teacher say to class that they are going to church that weekend?
2. Can a teacher say to class that they are going to church, where they are going to experience the love and joy of Jesus Christ, and how he has come to save all our souls from sin and damnation?
What's the difference between those two?
Who cares?
Your second case would be analogous to a gay man saying something like, "I am married to a man and it's much better than marrying a woman, and you should all really try to have same-sex spouses when you grow up."
Bu nobody would excuse that. What you and your fellow bigots are doing is trying to make the simple factual statement, "I am married to a man," the equivalent of that, and suggesting that it is equally inappropriate.
You can fucking dodge and slither all you want, but it's pure anti-gay bigotry.
"Bu nobody would excuse that."
Really? "Nobody"....would excuse that? I bet you can find at least a few posters here who think that's right and appropriate.
Or would it be your opinion if a teacher said "I am married to a man and it's much better than marrying a woman, and you should all really try to have same-sex spouses when you grow up" to their students that they should be fired.
How do you feel about pressuring them to pledge allegiance to the U.S. flag?
Mmmmm.... So you equate pledging allegiance to the United States with pledging allegiance to minority group?
It is interesting to me that you chose that analogy of pledging "allegiance to the Pride Flag". Trump went nuts and said that the NFL should fire players that kneeled during the anthem. Conservatives cheered him on and there are plenty of documented instances before that where faux patriots got bent out of shape over similar actions. (A mayor of a city in the Orlando metro area had the police chief threaten to remove a guy from a city council meeting when he wouldn't stand during the Pledge. No doubt the fact that he had remained seated during the 'invocation' (that is, prayer) right before that probably pissed him off, too.)
The Supreme Court has long recognized that public school officials cannot coerce or punish students that won't stand or recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Perhaps if (when) the Court rules that school officials can say prayers in front of their students in ways that would make some of them think that they are being pressured into participating, the Court will also overrule that precedent as well.
Sorry, that was a direct example of what has occurred.
A Kindergarten teacher in California was having her students pledge allegience to the Pride flag.
I didn't equate anything; I asked you a question.
And your question was equating the two concepts. Or it was just a random non sequitor...
"How do you feel about pressuring them to pledge allegiance to the U.S. flag?"
Same way. When I told Bellamy that he was creating a slippery slope to having children pledge allegiance to a flag representing...that, he smacked me with his glove. But here we are.
Because it's only 7th and 8th grades where people have attraction to others?
I knew by the 2nd-grade that I liked girls. You, much like mad_bigot up there, just want gay people to be marginalized and treated as abominable outcasts who should not be spoken of.
You were sexually attracted to girls in 2nd grade?
Do you have some kind of disease which results in your inability to read what someone says without inserting words someone did not say?
There was nothing sexual about it.
Maybe, and I've said this enough times to have grown quite fucking tired of it, you should educate yourself on the topic before commenting again and looking like the brainless dipshit you are.
https://www.parentscanada.com/school/an-age-by-age-guide-to-romantic-love/
Now kindly fuck off - and that isn't meant sexually either.
So...the concept "sexual orientation"...implies "sexual" attraction..
I see what at least one of your problems is:
My first crush was in the 2nd grade. Her name was Sandy. There was nothing sexual about it, and I had no knowledge of what sex was until the 5th or 6th grade when we had Sex Ed.
Looking back, I think that was an indicator that I was going to be heterosexual. Romantic attraction was not anything I was self-aware of until somewhere around 5th grade when girls became "pretty."
When your hypothetical kid steals someone's hat because they like them, or announces they have a 'crush' on someone, that doesn't mean you need to rush off to 7-11 and buy them contraceptives.
On the miniscule chance that someone procreates with you, I sincerely hope that your understanding of child development is substantially improved from the ignorance you're displaying here.
Oh, don't laugh. When I was in high school, back in the days when dinosaurs still roamed the earth, a football coach told the team that boys shouldn't masturbate because it will lead to homosexuality. Such a huge shame Coach K is now deceased, otherwise I would be happy to introduce him to AmosArch, 12 Inch Pianist and Armchair Lawyer; I'm sure they would have lots to talk about.
Though I think a far more interesting question is why some people here seem to think that slamming wokeness, gays, and CRT is germane to whatever conversation we were actually having. If there's a connection between most of the comments here and the coach who was fired for praying, I've not yet figured it out.
Stupid, Myopia causes Blindness, not Homosexuality, which is why I stop if the 20/40 line gets blurry.
"Yes, before you know it the entire football team is gay!"
And religious!
Is it coercive for a heterosexual teacher to talk about their opposite sex partner?
I've been told that because heterosexuality is the norm, that's not a valid parallel. A student might feel that a heterosexual teacher will assume the student is straight, but that he might need to provide more evidence for a gay teacher.
Or so Kagan might say.
This isn't 12" fantasy sharing time.
You've either been told or heard wrong.
Maybe so. That was the explanation of why the Florida parents' rights law would prohibit teachers from discussing same-sex families but not traditional families.
Really? Whose explanation?
Coercive of pushing a certain sexuality orientation on children.
This is fucking ridiculous. If a teacher mentions his/her opposite-sex spouse is that also "coercive of pushing a certain sexuality orientation on children?"
I get it. You're going for "grooming." Despicable.
Bernard,
Let's put this in a different context. If a teacher is asked "where they are going after school" and the teacher says "I'm going to church, where I'm going to love and pray about Jesus Christ and how he has come to save all our souls from perpetual damnation".
Is that a problem?
Yes.
Then you can see how a teacher explaining how "He is married to a man, and it's a wonderful experience, and he's glad that America embraces change and how anyone can love who they want, no matter their gender, and let me tell you all about gender orientation"
To a bunch of 1st graders who don't have the least concept of sexual orientation...
Might be an issue for some people, who think their 1st graders aren't ready for such a complex topic.
Coercive of pushing a certain sexuality orientation on children.
Is coercively pushing heterosexuality on children when the teacher discusses his opposite sex partner? You and Twelveinchpianist seem to think that only LGBT people being discussed openly (or even just acknowledged to exist) is coercive to kids. Why is that?
"Is coercively pushing heterosexuality on children when the teacher discusses his opposite sex partner?"
Honestly, gay or straight, I can't think of a legitimate reason for a K-12 teacher to discuss their sexual partners and/or spouses with their students.
You can't think of a reason for a teacher to mention their husband/wife/significant other? Are you for actual real?
One way to know conservatism is a ultra-radical movement now is to see so many people so quickly parrot something so counter to basic common sense and norms.
Queen Amalthea,
You see, in this view that I've been getting in arguments over this from others, just like MatthewSlyfield, teachers are not human beings that have normal human interactions and conversations with their students. Instead, they are robots that are only there to teach them how to factor polynomials, that the good guys won the Revolutionary War, or how to diagram a sentence.
Well, they can pray in front of students and seem approving of their students joining them in prayer, though. That is just their constitutional right.
I don't think we are talking about a lot of details of the relationship, but there can easily be casual references. Imagine a history teacher in a unit on the Civil War saying, "My wife and I visited Gettysburg last year, and saw..."
If the teacher saying that were a man then no one would think twice, but if it's a woman then 12" and A.L and m_k are all screaming about "grooming."
"Well, if Mr. Parker is gay, I guess I'll be sexually attracted to men now, too."
Is that how you think it works?
No. But I don't think a student will be forced to be religious because he sees a coach praying either.
That's not the concern with authority figures openly praying.
"Coercive of what, exactly?"
How should I know? From what I understand, people like Kagan were worried that a coach making a fleeting prayer by himself was coercive:
As I said, I don't buy it, but I wonder if the people who feel this way are also worried that a student who hears a teacher discussing his same-sex partner might think, "Gee, if I want to pass this class, I better get me a same-sex partner..."
You folks will have to forgive the Commander if he can't differentiate between a public profession of faith and mentioning your spouse. Dr. Soong didn't get around to that area of programming.
Can you "differentiate" why one is coercive and the other isn't? That would be swell.
See? His data banks really don't know any difference between the two (they're both foreign concepts not programmed I guess).
"I believe Jesus is the Christ and only through him is anyone Redeemed"="my wife is a Catholic" in the Commander's calculations.
"I believe Jesus is the Christ and only through him is anyone Redeemed"="my wife is a Catholic"
Are you claiming that the former is coercive and the later is not? Any evidence?
No. Because it's obvious you simply refuse to understand.
1. Get your facts straight. He wasn't praying by himself. That's a lie.
2. Think just an iota harder.
Exactly. I'm a pastor. I know the difference between silent prayer and performative prayer. The coach is doing the latter. He may be well-motivated and believe that he is witnessing to the truth and value of his faith, but it's not simply silent, private prayer by himself. He wants attention for his prayer, he wants approval, and he invites others to join him.
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
The performance seems to be the point, not the faith.
And coaches and teachers with which religious beliefs are going to feel comfortable performing their prayers in this way when the SCOTUS rules in Kennedy's favor? Buddhists, Hindi, Jews, Muslims, Secular Humanists? Pastafarians? Somehow I doubt that a ruling opening the floodgates for school officials to pray or speak of their faith in such performative ways is going to lead people of all faiths doing this equally and freely. It will obviously be those with beliefs at least compatible with the majority that will be able to do so. I think that the conservatives on the Court that will almost inevitably rule for Kennedy either don't get that or don't have a problem with it. A couple probably even want that.
"1. Get your facts straight. He wasn't praying by himself. That's a lie."
QP#1:
" Whether a public-school employee who says a brief, quiet prayer by himself while at school and visible to students is engaged in government speech that lacks any First Amendment protection."
I'm not sure what the coach did or didn't do, but that's what the case is about.
I'm not sure what the coach did or didn't do, but that's what the case is about.
You haven't even learned the basic facts of the case if you don't know what the coach did or didn't do. He went out to the middle of the field, immediately after the game, while there were still a lot of spectators present, knelt in prayer while many of his players joined him. The school district told him he couldn't do that because it would seem like the district was supporting his religion and that players might feel pressure to participate, and thus the case and controversy started when he fought against that.
I also noted that what you linked is the petition from Kennedy's side. So, naturally, it frames things in the way most favorable to him.
"You haven't even learned the basic facts of the case if you don't know what the coach did or didn't do."
I learned what question the court is considering.
"I also noted that what you linked is the petition from Kennedy's side. "
Um, why would the other side file a cert petition?
The question in the petition is what the court agreed to consider. Again, it's what the case is about. There was a second QP that incorporated the "brief, quiet prayer by himself" language from QP1.
Um, why would the other side file a cert petition?
They respond to it with their own briefs, don't they? Then there are amicus briefs, the decision being appealed, etc. Lots of sources to look at that might frame things differently than Kennedy's side.
Yes, but only the cert position will state the Questions Presented.
"The question in the petition is what the court agreed to consider. Again, it's what the case is about."
Those are two different statements unrelated to one another.
This case does NOT involve a 'brief, quiet prayer by himself.'
That may be what SCOTUS is going to answer, but that is not what the facts are of this case.
Now...why they've decided to answer *that* question with a case that doesn't involve those facts? Motivated reasoning. That's why.
But that is the question the court granted cert on, so it is what they will be ruling on.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/qp/21-00418qp.pdf
Does granting cert on a question mean that the Court agrees to the premise of the question? It seems to me that the premise of the question is quite disputable.
Sometimes it does. Sometimes the justices reframe the question in the course of deciding the case, and then you sometimes get angry dissents saying that this wasn't the issue on which the court granted cert, and so the court shouldn't consider it. Other times when they find out the facts are different than those presented by the petitioner, they DIG the case.
I place no value in SCOTUS as an institution anymore. It's my opinion that they've phrased the question in this manner despite the facts of the case not supporting such a question, because they already have a decision in mind they want to make.
I think we'll see a 6-3 ruling here which disregards the actual facts in order to reach a pre-determined outcome.
Brief quiet prayer.
From the 9th circuit decision:
Eventually, Kennedy's religious practice evolved. He began giving short motivational speeches at midfield after the games. Students, coaches, and other attendees from both teams were invited to participate. During the speeches, the participants kneeled around Kennedy. He then raised a helmet from each team and delivered a message containing religious content. Kennedy subsequently acknowledged that these motivational speeches likely constituted prayers.
...
Kennedy's intention to pray on the field following the October 16 game was widely publicized through Kennedy and his representatives’ "numerous appearances and announcements [on] various forms of media."
Just personal and private.
According to Kennedy, while he was kneeling with his eyes closed, "coaches and players from the opposing team, as well as members of the general public and media, spontaneously joined [him] on the field and knelt beside [him]." Kennedy's claim that the large gathering around him of coaches, players, a state elected official, and other members of the public who had been made aware of Kennedy's intentions because of the significant amount of publicity advertising what Kennedy was about to do, was "spontaneous" is self-evidently inaccurate. Moreover, Kennedy's counsel acknowledged in his October 14, 2015 letter that Kennedy's prayers were "verbal" and "audible," flatly contradicting Kennedy's own recounting.
Apparently, Kennedy missed the part about false witness during his religious instruction.
Again, one side is claiming that "...a public-school employee who says a brief, quiet prayer by himself while at school and visible to students..." violates the establishment clause because doing so is coercive. I really don't have any view on what the coach did beyond that.
The school district is not making that claim. From the school district's brief:
OK.
Read the comments,or the circuit court opinion I linked.
So let's see.
Teacher gets fired for stealing from the school. Teacher then alleges he was fired because he was seen offering a brief silent prayer between classes, in an empty classroom.
Takes that to court, and the court is going to decide whether he can be fired for his prayer, instead of telling him to get lost?
Well, in your hypo, I believe that if the teacher could allege enough facts to show that he might have been fired for they prayer, then the court will first decide if he can be fired for his prayer, and then the court (or a jury) will decide if they were really fired for the prayer.
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
Again, you keep sticking your head in the sand to avoid the actual facts of the case because your argument is a spectacular failure otherwise.
I'm discussing the question that the court is considering.
If you want to claim that the QP isn't reflective of the facts of the case, that's fine, but it's not really relevant to what I was discussing.
And it's not my argument.
Ideology is not religion. The natural is not the supernatural. Policy is not metaphysics.
We treat them differently because they are different. I don't understand why some really fringey folks (on both sides) can't seem to understand how faith is only a subset of belief.
Actually the Supreme Court did once dabble (~1960s) with saying ALL philosophical belief systems -- theistic or not -- count as "religion" for constitutional purposes.
It was actually atheists/secularists who liked that idea, because they were focusing more on the free exercise implications (vs. establishment clause).
I actually think it makes a lot of sense, and I'd like to see them go back to that and clearly establish it. I think it's probably the only way forward for a pluralistic society; even many secularists who are right-leaning or centrist (or even left, e.g. McWhorter) believe that "wokeness" has indeed become in essence a religion...
Did they dabble with making any deeply held political stance as the same as religion (so a 2nd amendment enthusiast, a climate change activist, etc., are the same as an Episcopalian, Mormon, etc.)?
And by the way, McWhorter. You might as well have cited Even the Liberal Turley or Greenwald.
I have nothing to say about Greenwald, but are you disputing that Turley is a liberal? How so?
Why would you think he's a liberal? Because he says so on Fox News regularly?
The First Amendment exists not to protect religion becaise it is idiotic ideas made up by fools long ago.
It it is there because these are successful and evolved mechanisms, giant clusters of ideas to gather and bind large numbers of people together to seize power one way or another. Hence such organizations being forbidden from directly wielding such power.
But there are many more such giant clusters of ideas. I will pick up my hammer and keep pounding. It is this mechanism that is the evil that creeps in and controls, not that some are religions.
I don't think that's correct, the 1st Amendment protects (and forbids entanglement with) religion because religious beliefs are so deeply and intensely ingrained and felt that they were and are thought of as akin to the kinds of immutable characteristics we protect in other anti-discrimination areas. Remember the Founders were well versed with times when people were persecuted for their religion and many preferred resistance to the point of death to not dishonor their religion in the face of such persecution.
It's a quite silly view, on par with 'pine nuts and apples are the same thing because they both grow on trees, can be found in the produce section, etc.'
I think it persists among a subset of conservatives who are not quite comfortable with the huge proportion of their fellow travelers who incline towards fundamentalist religious beliefs and so they'd like to equate the nuts on the other side in a classic bothsidesdoit.
Is there anything Scalia ever said that his worshipers like Blackman don't find remarkable, clever, witty, incredibly insightful, or some combination?
My question: What happens if the Lemon test is squeezed out (pun intended)? Does Walz then control?
Lee v. Weisman will be the test. I think it's arguably been the test for a couple of decades anyway. And the current Court will likely say that the on field prayers weren't sufficiently coercive to constitute an Establishment Clause violation. But they won't overturn Santa Fe, invalidating loudspeaker prayers.
"But they won't overturn Santa Fe, invalidating loudspeaker prayers."
Cool story, bro.
Are you predicting that SCOTUS will overturn Santa Fe in the Kennedy decision? Or are you just being meaninglessly snarky?
It just seems that for all of the meticulous parsing of various texts, precedents, & incredibly granular discussions of Rights & principles in conflict, this is a judgement call. A subjective one (horrors), on that case-by-case basis. The exact point of balance is not going to be found in words. And certainly not a formula to "resolve" the issue ongoingly. Narrowly tailored & leaving precedent undisturbed seems to be the consensus here. When wading through a swamp, that seems like a good plan.
I think this case, like Masterpiece Cakeshop and Fulton, addresses a case where a governmental unit behaved stupidly, entangling itself in religion in a manner completely unnecessary to accomplishing its objective, and thereby running afoul of the Religion Clauses (and losing a case and incurring substantial legal fees) completely unnecessarily.
All Bremeron School District had to do was articulate a nonreligious reason for disciplining Coach Kennedy. It could have done so fairly easily. Coach Kennedy had been suspended. He nonetheless went out on the field in uniform and assumed the Coach role. All the Bremerton School District had to do was to discipline him for going out on the field, not for what he did while there, and there would have been no case.
So by focusing on Coach Kennedy’s religious activities as distinct from his secular ones, the Bremerton School District behaved stupidly. It shot itself in the veritable foot, or perhaps in a nether region even more fundamental. Because it behaved stupidly, Coach Kennedy deserves to and I expect will win.
But because all that really happened here is government officials behaved stupidly, I don’t expect this case will set any real ground-breaking precedent or decide anything that isn’t already obvious. The other “stupid government tricks” Religion cases - Masterpiece Cakeshop and Fulton - didn’t decide anything of any real importance either. And this case is just like them.
Nice to see that the separation of Church and State mean nothing to you.
The school district behaved stupidly for enforcing the separation required by the Constitution in your mind, but Kennedy didn't behave stupidly for violating it in the first place.
So much for your analysis.
There was no connection to the state here at all. The school district can’t seriously argue Coach Kennedy was speaking for the school. They suspended him. He was off duty. He could only have been speaking for himself. The suspension, I think, protects Coach Kennedy from the School District’s attempts to portray him as acting on their behalf. You can’t suspend somebody from duty and then turn around and claim he represents you.
That’s part of why they screwed themselves up so badly.
Coach Kennedy’s offence was violating his suspension by walking on the field in uniform while suspended in order to do his own thing. His prayer was entirely his own and on his own behalf, the own thing that he did.
He was off duty. He could only have been speaking for himself.
I think I'm missing something in the timeline of events. You said in the previous comment that, "Coach Kennedy had been suspended. He nonetheless went out on the field in uniform and assumed the Coach role." Yet here, you are saying he was "off duty" and was just "speaking for himself". Which is it? How does this translate into the district committing an "own goal"?
How often do people not affiliated with either school, the school district, or state athletic authorities get to go out onto the playing field in order to make a spectacle of themselves like Kennedy did? Only occasionally, I imagine, and probably only when invited.
But of course he wasn’t invited. He was trespassing. That’s the whole point. That’s what the school district should have disciplined him for if they had any sense. But they very foolishly didn’t. Because he was trespassing, there was no establishment clause violation. There couldn’t have been. Only state agents can create establishment clause violations. And he definitely wasn’t a state agent at tbe time. There attempt to discipline him for creating an establishment clause violation must fail.
Faking an establishment clause violation, tricking people into thinking there’s an establishment clause violation isn’t good enough. That’s what made Coah Kennedy’s ploy clever and sneaky. The district fell for it, as did you. There has to actually be an establishment clause violation for the state to be able to discipline someone for praying. There wasn’t, so the district’s discipline attempt violates the Free Exercise Clause.
If Coach Kennedy had been permitted to be on the field, then I’d agree there would have been an establishment clause violation. It’s exactly the fact that he was banned, that he was trespassing, that prevents an establishment clause violation from having occurred.
Coach Kennedy essentially tricked the School Board into making an own goal. It may not seem fair that he did it, but he did it. And I think he did it successfully. So long as he was on duty, the school board could claim his prayer was school prayer and violated the establishment clause. But once they suspended him, he was not only off duty but forbidden from being on duty. They needed to have realized that that meant their Establishment claim was on shaky ground. Once he was off duty, his prayer was only his prayer, not the schools. They needed to have realized that once they suspended him, the rules for who and what his prayer represented became different from what they were when he was on duty.
That’s why the safe course, the course that would avoided this whole legal hullabaloo over pretty much nothing, was to discipline him for violating his suspension, not for the prayer itself.
That’s why the safe course, the course that would avoided this whole legal hullabaloo over pretty much nothing, was to discipline him for violating his suspension, not for the prayer itself.
Again, I think I might be missing something here, if how you are describing things is accurate. But if he was disciplined for doing the same thing that got him suspended in the first place, after making a big deal that he was going to do that in public, where he was definitely referencing his position as coach, then how is it that he was being disciplined only for praying rather than for violating his suspension in an insubordinate way?
He didn’t do the same thing that he did in the first place. He did something that merely superficially looked similar, but was in fact legally completely different. The first time he was acting as a coach, a state agent. The second time he was acting on his own, as a private person. It was not possible for him to repeat the thing he did before because he didn’t have a status that made doing it possible.
For example, someone can only violate the presidential oath of office when President. A person could do exactly the same thing when in office and again when out, and the thing when done on office would be a violation of the oath of office, and the “same” thing when done out of office wouldn’t be. They are legally not the same thing. It’s more or less the same principle.
A non-President could be guilty of impersonating the President, falsely and fraudulently representing he’s President, trespassing in the White House, many things. But violating the presidential oath of office wouldn’t be one of them. Again, it’s a similar principle.
“Then how was it that he was disciplined only for praying and not for violating his suspension in an insubordinate way?”
Because the school district made a foolish mistake. All they had to do was discipline him for violating his suspension in an insubordinate way, and they’d have been on solid legal ground and none of this legal mess would have happened.
I still don't get why you think this is a winning argument for Kennedy. You say that his "ploy" was "clever and sneaky", but then want to reward him because the district "fell for it"? If the district fell for it, then wouldn't the people witnessing Kennedy do this on the field, wearing a school jersey also be likely to fall for it and think that he was representing the district?
You earlier predicted it's so obvious the school fucked up, the decision will be unanimous against them. After hearing oral arguments, I'm sticking with my prediction that Kagan, Breyer and Sotomayor will dissent.
The worst aspect of this case is the uniform acceptance, by Kennedy's supporters and possibly the court, of the plain lie that all he was doing was offering a brief silent prayer alone.
It's not true, and the support it gets says a lot about why some, myself definitely included, regard the evangelical movements as a pro-theocracy movement, and no respecter of religious freedom for anyone but themselves.
I am surprised no-one has yet mentioned American Legion v American Humanist Assoc. Thus Thomas: "I would take the logical next step and overrule the Lemon test in all contexts." Thomas was at his most theocratic in this case.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1717_4f14.pdf
Prediction: Court rules in favour of Kennedy, Thomas adding a concurrence where he goes through 2,000 years of history of Christians being persecuted for praying.
Prediction: Court rules in favour of Kennedy, Thomas adding a concurrence where he goes through 2,000 years of history of Christians being persecuted for praying.
That sounds about right to me. And how Thomas would ignore how much of those 2000 years were spent by some Christians persecuting others for not praying to the right God or in the right way.
What is driving this lawsuit? I doubt that it is the coach's Christian principles -- he is directly contravening the instructions of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount:
Matthew 6:1, 5-6 (RSV)
A lower court opinion indicates that Coach Kennedy is a publicity hound. He flogged his dispute with the school district for public recognition.
As the maxim goes, follow the money. How can an unemployed high school football coach afford the services of Paul Clement, one of the pre-eminent Supreme Court advocates of our time? Is this lawsuit crowdfunded? How much of the take goes into the coach's pocket?
Religious conservatives have been obsessed with weakening, if not essentially doing away with the Establishment Clause for at least my whole life. It was while I was in high school that only Scalia and Rehnquist sided with Louisiana on requiring public schools to teach creationism as well if they mentioned evolution. (Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)) I can only wonder what the current court would do with that case now.
Scalia's dissent in that case was a preview of conservative reasoning on the EC that has sinse become the norm with some, like Thomas, going even further. As well as arguing that the Lemon Test wasn't good precedent, he tried to argue that Louisiana's law passed it anyway. After all, if its supporters and the legislature call it "creation science", then who are judges to say that it is religion pretending to be science? Seeing how the tactics of fundamentalists shifted as soon as this ruling was handed down is almost amusing. Intelligent Design wouldn't have ever been a thing if this case had gone the other way. (Look up "cdesign propenentists", for evidence of a transitional form that creationists often claim don't exist.)
The whole thing is an exercise in motivated reasoning. They want us to ignore the obvious in order to give some Christians a way to use government power to ensure that their religious beliefs remain dominant in American society. A 32-foot tall cross in the median of a road in the middle of town isn't a religious symbol, it is a war memorial only. Teaching creation "science" or "intelligent design" or "controversies in evolution" is only about teaching science and critical thinking, not about pushing fundamentalist, anti-evolution views. They either think that we are too stupid to realize what is happening, or they have fooled themselves so thoroughly that they don't think that they are trying to fool us.
I regard Scalia's dissent in Edwards as one of the most dishonest dissents ever penned. To adapt from part of an essay I wrote years ago:
The dissent was based not just on his distaste for Lemon but on a much more subtle idea, involving an end-run around the test itself. What he did was argue that the states knew what they were doing, and that as a matter of jurisprudence they must be presumed to be acting constitutionally. No state legislature intentionally violates the constitution, so if a legislature can show that it took evidence from both sides as to the religious nature or otherwise of creation science, or the unscientific nature of evolution, when it reached its decision as to the wording of any legislation, nothing more need be said.
Once a state legislature can claim that on the evidence they have heard, creation science or its rebranded Intelligent Design is genuinely science, it can assert that the legislation has a secular purpose by teaching the existence of alternative theories which by the evidence they have heard they deem to be scientific not religious; by the same token, once ID is deemed to be science the act requiring it to be taught does not advance a religion, and nor is there any entanglement. Scalia would inquire no further into the decision process, the relative strength of the real scientific evidence, the nature of the supporters, evidence of motives, etc. What he did in Edwards was prepare the ground for the next generation of creationist legislators to be just subtle enough in the legislative process to pass an act which will allow a Christianised right-wing Supreme Court to decide, “the legislature of Mississippi says it’s science, and that’s good enough for us”.
Pathetic.
Fuck you.
The fact in question was simply mentioning their partner. Nice try.
Grooming is to gays what the blood libel was to Jews. Jews poisoned wells, drank the blood of Christian babies at their Passover rituals, and murdered God. Gays groom children. Same dynamic; different minority.
Two out of three of your premises are false.
- Homosexuals spread AIDS at approximately the same rate as heterosexuals (when controlled for promiscuity and other demographic factors that have nothing to do with the gender of one's sex partner).
- The abuse that pushed BSA into bankruptcy is about power and access, not sex. The research on child sex abusers is unambiguous on this point. Homosexuals are no more (or less) likely to commit child abuse than heterosexuals.
the Catholic Church has paid out hundreds of millions for abused altar boys.
So you are going to generalize from that to conclude that gays are pedophiles?
Wow. Idiocy is too polite.
So you're not only a fucking moron and a bigot, but you're also somehow stuck in the 1980's?
If little Timothy sees a picture of a guy (in this case, the teacher's husband) on his male teacher's desk and asks whom that is, is the teacher supposed to lie and say it's just his brother? Would you ask that of a male teacher who had a picture of his wife on his desk? Lie and say it's just his sister?
Just admit that you don't think 'the gays' should be allowed to exist in society and allow everyone to mute you and move on. That's the entire crux of your position on this issue.
You're a piece of filth.
Can you see why presenting the fact that gays exist is not indoctrination?
You really are being slimy.
Are they gathered in His name at the public H.S. football game?
I'm not following what you said I left out. I've never studied the Bible in any fashion, so please explain further what I'm missing here. What I quoted seems quite simple, so if there is missing context, I'd like to know.
I'm no fan of personality cults - are you a Trump fan? - but "sad sack of humanity" is unjustified.
Anyway, I don't think her remarks were generally quoted with the kind of breathless admiration we see here. I mean, WTF is so clever, as a metaphor of some kind, about driving a pencil through a lemon?
There's a straight line from the Satanic day care abuse to QAnon to this stuff. It's a bit surprising to see 12" adopt it, but this is modern conservatism for ya.
"Gays groom children."
No one is claiming that Gays groom children. Gays teach class. Groomers groom children.
I'm not a goy, but I would think that ostentatiously praying in the middle of a football field would constitute a "prayer for attention," regardless of the volume at which the person is speaking. If the point weren't attention, why didn't he just wait 15 minutes until he was alone?
That reflects differences in writing style. RBG was a perfectly cromulent writer, but she wasn't a particularly interesting one.
1. The problem demographic group isn't gays; it's males. In general, males are more promiscuous than females, and female homosexuals, as usual, don't even get factored into your counting.
2. The claim that gays "spread AIDS like crazy" is (a) not true world wide; in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, AIDS is almost entirely a heterosexual disease; and (b) is out of date even in the US.
3. Your boy scouts argument is the logical fallacy of the undistributed middle:
Gays molested boys
Molesting boys is a bad thing
Therefore gays are bad people
is a fallacy for the same reason
Hitler was German
Hitler was a bad person
Therefore all Germans are bad people
is a fallacy. You can't extrapolate the bad behavior of some to the entire group.
Right, Ted Bundy was a Republican, so obviously all Republicans are serial killers.
Talk about an utterly irrelevant point.
What does that have to do with anything?
And if Blackman were quoting some particularly well-turned phrase by Scalia that would be fine.
But this pencil business isn't it. Backman is just being a sycophant.
"Love for eugenics."
Stop that crap.
Yes, and Germans built Auschwitz. That tells us nothing about Germans as a group.
And what is the relevance of that fact to the discussion, other than to insinuate something about gays?
I see that you're unable to answer a straight-forward question.
You want homosexuals to hide in the shadows of society and pretend they don't exist. You have no such expectations for heterosexuals.
You are a fucking bigot - and muted. Go play in traffic.
Who said that the scout leaders/priests were gay?
Your argument remains entirely the logical fallacy of undistributed middle, and would be even if 99% of all new HIV transmissions were gay males and even if 99% of gay males molested children. You cannot extrapolate from the behavior of a group to the behavior of an individual.
And in order to have a baseline, you need to know how many gay people did not contract HIV or molest children. Look at it this way: Suppose that 1% of the general population abuses drugs. Suppose that 2% of a certain demographic group abuses drugs. It's interesting that the rate is double in that group, but you've still got 98% of it that does not abuse drugs. And that's the error you're making here.
Oh STFU.
So you equate being in a same-sex marriage with being in a white supremacy group.
You are just paining the picture of yourself ever more clearly.
It wasn't a silent solitary prayer, you liar.
Eventually, Kennedy's religious practice evolved. He began giving short motivational speeches at midfield after the games. Students, coaches, and other attendees from both teams were invited to participate. During the speeches, the participants kneeled around Kennedy. He then raised a helmet from each team and delivered a message containing religious content. Kennedy subsequently acknowledged that these motivational speeches likely constituted prayers.
Yes, what you are missing, is that praying on the street corner involved loud public prayers for attention. This guy was hardly doing that.
Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.
Kennedy's intention to pray on the field following the October 16 game was widely publicized through Kennedy and his representatives’ "numerous appearances and announcements [on] various forms of media."
I have, and her explanation as well.
One somewhat ambiguous statement does not make someone with her record a eugenicist, no matter how clever you think you are, what a gotcha you think you have.
The accusation of grooming is a canard -- a sure sign that the accuser is not one to be taken seriously.
What is going wrong in your head, mad_kalak, is that you are equating a player or other competitor speaking his own mind and no one else's after a victory with a coach of high school children making a show of his faith and clearly being happy when some of his players join him. I wonder what Coach Kennedy thought when he found out that at least one of his players that was not religious said that he participated in the prayer out of fear of losing playing time. To me, a reasonable person that really didn't intend to coerce young people under his charge into sharing his religious practices, may have reconsidered the whole practice. Or, at least doing something to make clear that he was acting only on his own beliefs and didn't want to pressure any of his students. Did Coach Kennedy do any of that? Given the nature of Christian dogma, he might instead have thought that it would be good for his players to pray, even if they didn't want to, as it might bend their "hearts toward Jesus" and thus save their souls or something along those lines.
Um, "controlled for promiscuity" doesn't make sense here. And that almost certainly isn't true anyway, except that it doesn't make sense to talk about "homosexuals" in this context, since gay males and lesbians are entirely different in the risk of spreading AIDS.