• @Chocrates@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      155 months ago

      I’m still pissed we are spending tax payer money defending this shit. We are doing something similar in La.

      • @teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        75 months ago

        The Superintenant of OK apparently stated plainly that he believes Trump’s appointment to the SC were specifically done to protect states doing this.

    • @GroundedGator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      85 months ago

      Looking at recent decisions, it’s going to go badly for those of us who believe in the anti-establishment clause.

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      Congress shall make no law, this actually could be interpreted quite literally by the courts that it is perfectly acceptable for a state to not only establish a religion but to criminalize other beliefs.

      I think this would be a 5-4 decision with SCOTUS. I think Barrett would be against it, because she is Catholic and would see that her beliefs may not be the ones promoted. Kavanaugh and Roberts could be a toss up.

      • @chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        85 months ago

        Kavenaugh has been better than expected (still bad). Actually, all of the Trump appointments have been less-bad than Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. If it weren’t for the fact that Kavenaugh replaced Kennedy and Barret RBG it wouldn’t be so bad.

        The good news is that the next 2 up for replacement are probably Thomas and Alito. If we can hold onto the White House we may be able to unfuck this.

      • @Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        15 months ago

        Congress shall make no law, this actually could be interpreted quite literally by the courts that it is perfectly acceptable for a state to not only establish a religion but to criminalize other beliefs.

        Reading one piece of the Constitution or the text of any specific statute is kind of useless in our legal system. Other parts of the Constitution, the laws, and the case law that’s been established over centuries and decades also have parts to play.

        This particular legal situation has been argued before, and it’s very settled law (at least for now.) Specifically, the 14th Amendment has been viewed to expand many of the Constitutional provisions that originally only restrained Congress to apply to the state governments as well.

        It’s most likely to be slapped down in district court, slapped down in the appellate court, and then declined by SCOTUS.