Is there a precedent for SCOTUS making up fake facts on the scale that they did in ['Kennedy']?

[In It to Win It]

Link to tweet

The Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District on Monday, overruling a 1971 case laying out how the government must keep its distance from religion.

But Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion for himself and his fellow Republican appointees relies on a bizarre misrepresentation of the case’s facts. He repeatedly claims that Joseph Kennedy, a former public school football coach at Bremerton High School in Washington state who ostentatiously prayed at the 50-yard line following football games — often joined by his players, members of the opposing team, and members of the general public — “offered his prayers quietly while his students were otherwise occupied.”

(Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not join a brief section of Gorsuch’s opinion concerning the Constitution’s free speech protections, but Gorsuch otherwise spoke for the Court’s entire Republican majority.)

Because Gorsuch misrepresents the facts of this case, it’s hard to assess many of its implications.

But it’s not clear how those lower court judges should now navigate questions about the separation of church and state. Although the Court overrules Lemon, it does not announce a fleshed-out test that will replace Lemon. Instead, Kennedy announces a vague new rule that “the Establishment Clause must be interpreted by ‘reference to historical practices and understandings.’”

Moreover, because Gorsuch’s opinion relies so heavily on false facts, the Court does not actually decide what the Constitution has to say about a coach who ostentatiously prays in the presence of students and the public. Instead, it decides a fabricated case about a coach who merely engaged in “private” and “quiet” prayer.

[intrepidity]

1. Good read, thanks for posting

These people are pushing, pushing, pushing. They must be slapped down, repeatedly.

[former9thward]

2. The OP does not list any "fake facts".

What are they?

[dpibel]

4. "Offered his prayers quietly"

The link in the OP allows you to read the article. No paywall.

But here:

But Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion for himself and his fellow Republican appointees relies on a bizarre misrepresentation of the case’s facts. He repeatedly claims that Joseph Kennedy, a former public school football coach at Bremerton High School in Washington state who ostentatiously prayed at the 50-yard line following football games — often joined by his players, members of the opposing team, and members of the general public — “offered his prayers quietly while his students were otherwise occupied.”

[former9thward]

11. One problem.

The school listed three different games where he prayed as the reason he was fired. In all three (admitted by the school in court) no students joined him on those occasions to pray.

[dpibel]

12. I could take your word for it

Can't, on a fairly cursory search, find the briefs in the case. Since you clearly have access to briefs, transcripts, or some source as to the school's in-court admissions, I'd be happy to see them. I know: You're not my research team. OTOH, you're making an assertion that's at odds with reporting, so I'd think you'd want to provide your source so as to set the record straight.

This Harvard Law Today piece is more in line with everything I've read about it, except your representations.

Frankly, depending on which version of the facts you believe, it’s an easy case either way. If you accept the district’s description of what’s going on, then I think it is clearly constitutional to prohibit the coach from doing that. There are cases holding that public officials cannot use their office to proselytize. But if you accept the coach’s version of events, then he ought to win, because he is a lone individual who just happens to be a coach and, when he goes to the 50-yard line to pray, he’s doing so simply as a private individual, hoping nobody will notice. Both the district court and the Ninth Circuit accepted the school district’s version of events.

I guess this Levinson fellow is not as well versed in the details of the case as you are.

Go figure.

[former9thward]

15. If you are interested these are all the main facts.

About 125 pages of oral arguments where the facts were discussed.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2021/21-418_3e04.pdf

And most important the Joint Appendix between the two sides in the case where all the relevant depositions, emails and other documents are contained. About 376 pages

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-418/214754/20220223131524547_2022-02-23%20FINAL%20Kennedy%20Joint%20Appendix.pdf

[dpibel]

16. Thank you. Will have a look.

[dpibel]

13. And a 9th Circuit judge who is also misled!

This dude also doesn't know what you know. https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216859405

Now I'm really curious the source of your "prayed quietly three times before the cock crowed" narrative.

Please. Be kind.

Share your info.

[dpibel]

14. Seriously

You are saying this judge has it all wrong.

M. SMITH, Circuit Judge, concurring in the denial of
rehearing en banc:
Unlike Odysseus, who was able to resist the seductive
song of the Sirens by being tied to a mast and having his
shipmates stop their ears with bees’ wax, our colleague,
Judge O’Scannlain, appears to have succumbed to the Siren
song of a deceitful narrative of this case spun by counsel for
Appellant, to the effect that Joseph Kennedy, a Bremerton
High School (BHS) football coach, was disciplined for
holding silent, private prayers. That narrative is false.
Although I discuss the events in greater detail below, the
reader should know the following basic truth ab initio:
Kennedy was never disciplined by BHS for offering silent,
private prayers.

https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/20-35222/20-35222-2021-07-19.pdf?ts=1626717647#page=9

That's about as close to the diametric opposite of what you claim as it's possible to get.

So where is this in-court admission that Judge Smith overlooked?

[inthewind21]

5. From the above

But Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion for himself and his fellow Republican appointees relies on a misrepresentation of the case’s facts. He repeatedly claims that Joseph Kennedy, a former public school football coach at Bremerton High School in Washington state who ostentatiously prayed at the 50-yard line following football games — often joined by his players, members of the opposing team, and members of the general public — “offered his prayers quietly while his students were otherwise occupied.”

[In It to Win It]

9. Along with posts #4 and #5

The school's district's brief actually had pictures of the coach being rather public in his prayer, like this one:

[Scrivener7]

3. Interesting. Seems to say that the ruling is inapplicable because the situation it ruled

on was so narrow.

Am I getting that right?

[inthewind21]

6. It's saying

The case was misrepresented.

But Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion for himself and his fellow Republican appointees relies on a bizarre misrepresentation of the case’s facts. He repeatedly claims that Joseph Kennedy, a former public school football coach at Bremerton High School in Washington state who ostentatiously prayed at the 50-yard line following football games — often joined by his players, members of the opposing team, and members of the general public — “offered his prayers quietly while his students were otherwise occupied.”

[Scrivener7]

7. But it also says this:

But it’s not clear how those lower court judges should now navigate questions about the separation of church and state. Although the Court overrules Lemon, it does not announce a fleshed-out test that will replace Lemon. Instead, Kennedy announces a vague new rule that “the Establishment Clause must be interpreted by ‘reference to historical practices and understandings.’”

Moreover, because Gorsuch’s opinion relies so heavily on false facts, the Court does not actually decide what the Constitution has to say about a coach who ostentatiously prays in the presence of students and the public. Instead, it decides a fabricated case about a coach who merely engaged in “private” and “quiet” prayer.

So this ruling doesn't actually apply to much of anything.

[Baitball Blogger]

8. Everything about this Court is tainted. Every case will have to be reviewed.

[mackdaddy]

10. So now a coach could bring out a Voodoo doll of the opposing team, and have pins thrust

into it to "pray" for victory over their opponents?

Or only if they do it in a "private and quiet" way?


These SC rulings never give the details...