LINK Neil Gorsuch says no-one can sue to stop government establishing religion
Not really sure what this is about???
4
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
6 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.That's one of the big reasons GOP stole Merrick Garland's seat for him.
ronnie40356
Level 7
Apr 3, 2019
2
I read and understood the article. Assuming the analysis is accurate, it could be good news for atheists. Gorsuch says that no one has “standing” to sue government-funded religious displays. That is, he thinks no one has the right to come before the court with such a challenge in the first place. I imagine he’s alone, or might be joined by Kavanaugh in that position. Thus, he is likely to decline to vote on the actual issue: whether a particular display violates the Establishment Clause. So it’s likely that the 4 progressive justices would find a violation, possibly more if the Court follows precedent, 3 (or 4) conservatives would not, and Gorsuch (maybe joined by Kavenaugh) would write a separate opinion holding that the case shouldn’t even be before the Court. By focusing on a separate issue, he could take himself out of the equation completely. OTOH, he could vote with the Conservatives just because he’s an ass.
Rghurst
Level 5
Apr 2, 2019
1
Just watch. Gorsuch is on the SC to make rulings that up hold the Constitution. POS needs to go.
silverotter11
Level 9
Apr 2, 2019
0
If Gorsuch said that, he obviously is failing to honor the US Constitution, and should be removed from the Supreme Court.
wordywalt
Level 9
Apr 2, 2019
2
@wordywalt sorry to burst your bubble, but deciding what is contrary to the Constitution is not a power given to you. Or me. Interpretation of the Constitution is a power given to the courts. Justices cannot be impeached because you or I disagree with their legal opinions. And, as a side note, I think Gorsuch has a point. The concept of “standing” includes a limitation on suing as a citizen objecting to a government action on policy grounds. You have to show individualized harm, above that of the general public. Objecting to use of tax monies to support religion cannot be based solely on your indignation. While I think he will not prevail in that opinion, it’s certainly not a crime for which he csn be impeached.
Asteroid. Now.
KKGator
Level 9
Apr 2, 2019
2
I'm against that solution, on the basis that many non-evangelicals would also perish. It's a disproportionate solution.
On the other hand, if we could launch a satellite-based orbital kinetic-delivery vehicle like the proposed Project Thor, which dropped tungsten rods at extremely high velocity (up to Mach 10) and surgical precision, the effect would be the same but in a comparatively tiny area.
Not that I'm suggesting anything, of course.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
Memes R Us
3036 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.