Supreme Court: Coach Can Pray on the Sidelines. Ruling 6-3

[daveman]

Did you join the cult because you were already a eunuch, or were you snipped as part of the initiation ceremony? I just ask because only a complete lack of gonads could explain your cowardice here.

Now, again, what is your definition of murder?

You say "Jump!", I say, "Eat shit!"

What is it with leftists insisting they're entitled to things they haven't earned?

Anyway, let's call abortion murder.

You support murder.

You are not the good guy here.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Anyway, let's call abortion murder.

Exactly.

You're calling it murder.

But you clearly do not think it is murder.

Wow, you just caught up with the 30-minute younger version of yourself.

That's quite a feat.

 

[mamooth]

Where are those amendments? You can't back up anything you say. You lose.

I do so love drawing the fly deep into the web.

14th amendment, section one, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

I recommend reading the Constitution some time. That way, you won't get embarrassed like this again.

 

[daveman]

Exactly.

You're calling it murder.

But you clearly do not think it is murder.

Wow, you just caught up with the 30-minute younger version of yourself.

That's quite a feat.

You moron. I said, "Let's call it murder." You know, for the sake of discussion, which I thought was insanely obvious, but not obvious enough for a mushroom like you, apparently.

How is it you have such a high opinion of yourself? Because, really, you're an idiot.

 

[daveman]

I do so love drawing the fly deep into the web.

14th amendment, section one, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

I recommend reading the Constitution some time. That way, you won't get embarrassed like this again.

Oh, awesome. You just proved why the coach's freedom of religion can't be abridged by the state.

You do tend to score a lot of own goals, don't you?

 

[Rogue AI]

I do so love drawing the fly deep into the web.

14th amendment, section one, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

I recommend reading the Constitution some time. That way, you won't get embarrassed like this again.

What does that have to do with conferring powers to other branches? Right. Nothing because you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Concerned American]

The Constitution does not prohibit the states from doing so. In the Constitution the word Congress only applies to the federal body.

Using your logic, the protections of the 2nd amendment could be violated by any state that so chooses which clearly is illegal. States MUST follow the US constitution. They are open to create any law that is not codified in the constitution..

 

[mamooth]

What does that have to do with conferring powers to other branches?

Nothing, because that wasn't the topic being discussed.

Concerning the topic we were actually discussing, I demonstrated in two different ways how you were wrong ... causing you to move the goalposts.

Did you really think that it fooled anyone?

 

[Rogue AI]

Using your logic, the protections of the 2nd amendment could be violated by any state that so chooses which clearly is illegal. States MUST follow the US constitution. They are open to create any law that is not codified in the constitution..

Nope, that's your projection. The 2nd does not specifically define any body, federal or otherwise. Whereas the 1st clearly defines a specific body in regards to the establishment of religions. A state could establish a state religion so long as they did not prohibit other religions or interfere with the practices of said religions. All theoretical of course, as the potential of such is virtually zero.

 

[Rogue AI]

Nothing, because that wasn't the topic being discussed.

Concerning the topic we were actually discussing, I demonstrated in two different ways how you were wrong ... causing you to move the goalposts.

Did you really think that it fooled anyone?

Of course it was, the alleged agent of the state was not part of the legislature. In order for your claim to be true the powers of the Congress would need to be conferred to said agent. Which of course it is not. Ergo, you are wrong again. The 14th has no part in your claims, try again.

 

[flacaltenn]

CLosed for moderation.

 

[justoffal]

A win for religious freedom. For you Constitutional remedial learners: there is no "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. The 1st Amendment says ONLY that Congress cannot establish a state religion, as in the Church of England. That's it.

Supreme Court Sides With Coach Over Prayers at the 50-Yard Line (Published 2022)

Joseph Kennedy, a former high school football coach in Bremerton, Wash., had a constitutional right to pray on the field after his team’s games, the justices ruled.

www.nytimes.com

High school football coach scores big win at Supreme Court over post-game prayer

The Supreme Court ruled that a school district violeted high school football coach Joe Kennedy's First Amendment rights by firing him for saying on-field prayers after games.

www.foxnews.com

OOOOOOOOOHHHHH!
OOOOOOOOOHHHHH!

THEY ARE GOING TO BE HUNTING DOWN THE JUSTICES NOW BOY!

OOOOOOHHHHH NOW THEYVE GONE AND DONE IT MAN!

 

[justoffal]

Nothing, because that wasn't the topic being discussed.

Concerning the topic we were actually discussing, I demonstrated in two different ways how you were wrong ... causing you to move the goalposts.

Did you really think that it fooled anyone?

Goalposts??? Bwahhhhhhhahahahahaaaaaah
Goalposts....

 

[badger2]

Jesus himself argued against this narcissistic desire for recognition we have seen in this prayer story. In post #381, we quoted from Seidel's book. We quote again from page 112:

'Even quoting the bible is not necessarily an indication of the writer's beliefs about that book. Thomas Paine quoted extensively from the bible in Common Sense because he was writing to a people who were familiar with biblical stories, like 1 Samuel 8. Paine made a biblical argument for revolution. But I'm an atheist and I regularly quote the bible to argue against government prayer. In Matthew 6:5, Jesus condemns public prayer as hypocrisy: "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen."

As an atheist, I use the bible to convince believers not to abuse their public office to promote their personal religion, pointing to the words of their own savior in his Sermon on the Mount. Like Paine and Lincoln, I write to my audience.'
(Seidel, The Founding Myth)

 

[flacaltenn]

Muslim and Pagan coaches take note.

They are welcome to do that. But only if they dont coerce anyone else to join them. Besides, the prayers were SILENT. A VERY important point that helped win the case. SO -- SILENT Muslim, Pagan, WIcken prayers -- ARE THEY A THREAT TO YOU?

 

[Concerned American]

Nope, that's your projection. The 2nd does not specifically define any body, federal or otherwise. Whereas the 1st clearly defines a specific body in regards to the establishment of religions. A state could establish a state religion so long as they did not prohibit other religions or interfere with the practices of said religions. All theoretical of course, as the potential of such is virtually zero.

You might have something there if the amendments to the constitution were not subject to the provisions of the constitution. There is a clause, Article VI, Clause 2 that clarifies that the constitution, which includes the amendments is the supreme law of the land.

Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[badger2]

They are welcome to do that. But only if they dont coerce anyone else to join them. Besides, the prayers were SILENT. A VERY important point that helped win the case. SO -- SILENT Muslim, Pagan, WIcken prayers -- ARE THEY A THREAT TO YOU?

You are incorrect. Jesus is arguing against (the image of prayer [italics]). See post # 645.

 

[BackAgain]

The point of the decision is that it neither establishes a religion by the state nor does it interfere with anyone’s free exercise of religion for a coach to pray on the sideline. But to fire him for doing so does interfere with his free speech right among other things.

 

[flacaltenn]

Exactly.

You're calling it murder.

But you clearly do not think it is murder.

Wow, you just caught up with the 30-minute younger version of yourself.

That's quite a feat.

Actually in most states, the STATES call it murder if a pregnant woman is physically attacked and the fetus dies. 38 states to be exact. The other states hate protecting unborn kids - Even if they are KNIFED at 8 months in the womb.

Policy Research

NCSL’s experts are here to answer your questions and give you unbiased, comprehensive information as soon as you need it on issues facing state legislatures. We answer more than 20,000 requests for information a year.

www.ncsl.org

 

[flacaltenn]

You are incorrect. Jesus is arguing against (the image of prayer [italics]). See post # 645.

Incorrect about the prayers being silent? Dont think so. Heard one of lawyers arguing the case say that in an interview. And at this moment -- there aint no post #645. You Nostradamus or what?