Help me understand this Gorsuch ruling about Jesus on the 50 yard line.

[Scrivener7]

As others have pointed out, Gorsuch did not use the facts of the case to make his ruling. The case is of coach Kennedy praying on the field with dozens of players and spectators joining him in the prayer.

But in Gorsuch's ruling, he changes the scenario. He describes a guy who "

“offered his prayers quietly while his students were otherwise occupied.”

https://www.vox.com/2022/6/27/23184848/supreme-court-kennedy-bremerton-school-football-coach-prayer-neil-gorsuch

So doesn't the ruling now ONLY apply to a guy praying quietly while his students are otherwise occupied? Doesn't it say NOTHING at all about what Kennedy was actually doing? And can't what Kennedy was actually doing STILL be argued against in court?

I would love to see someone bring the case on the basis that he is not "offering his prayers quietly." And I would love to see what convolutions they come up with then.

To the lawyers: what am I missing? Does that ruling do ANYTHING except say a guy can whisper a prayer away from others which, by the way, was never contested in the first place?

[lindysalsagal]

1. Unable to reply for fear of being ejected.

I would love to reply to this, but i don't dare.

[Scrivener7]

2. I don't understand that. It's a question about applying the ruling.

[lindysalsagal]

3. Unable to reply for fear of being ejected.

[mucifer]

11. I'm with you and I'm Jewish.

[emulatorloo]

30. Ejected from what? A fighter jet that's about to crash? Not sure what you mean. Hope you are ok

[Mosby]

40. Poster has 3 hides.

I don't know what they said, weather they were legit or not. Bad hides can be very frustrating, and aren't usually fixed.

[emulatorloo]

45. Yeah I have been there. Four bad hides, one wacky jury away from a ban . Thanks for the heads up.

[emulatorloo]

46. A heads up, you could get a hide for a post like this. So probably better just to lay low for

awhile before your other hides go away w time.

[Mister Ed]

31. May I respectfully suggest...

...that it's disrespectful to your fellow DU'ers to go around the site this morning disrupting and derailing their threads with this repetitive, veiled complaint about some unrelated hide or alert you may have suffered?

[Politicub]

38. You just did reply to the post. Albeit in a cryptic way.

I don't get the point of replying to register fear of replying.

Just say what you mean.

If anyone believes that are at risk about saying something, it makes sense that they would stay silent. Growing up gay, silence was a form of safety for me. And when I say risk, I mean real risk. Someone disagreeing or a complaint to the jury doesn't fall into the category of risk. People speak every day, as themselves, and put their reputation on the line.

Coy games are annoying.

[intrepidity]

4. IANAL, but

I *think* the claim trying to be made is that the crowd joined on their own, or something.

Like, "hey, I was just praying here, minding my business, and these guys couldn't help from gathering around" or sumsuch bullshit.

[Scrivener7]

5. "on the 50 yard line in the middle of the game."

I guess if that is the claim, then it kind of works.

[intrepidity]

8. As I posted elsewhere

Well, the Bible says he should pray in a closet.

Not on a football field.

People who pray in public do it for one reason only.

[Scrivener7]

9. Oh, but that's one of those parts of the Bible they don't have to follow.

Because Jesus revelated to them that they don't have to.

Like that "Do unto others" thing. That's just a pain, and no one has to listen to that one. The spirit doesn't move them on that one.

[John1956PA]

6. The junta set the precedent that "tradition" overrides separation of church and state.

The junta (my thanks to Eugene Robinson for applying this word to the right-wing-led court) will use the "tradition" standard in future cases to further erode the separation of church and state, including cases involving the establishment clause.

[Scrivener7]

7. But there was no tradition till this guy started it, right? So is it that anyone can do something

on Tuesday and then on Wednesday say, "It's tradition," and keep doing it even if it is unconstitutional?

Wow. That's a neat trick.

I hate these con artists.

But thank you. I was not aware of that element.

[John1956PA]

14. Thank you, too. The junta used this case as a bulldozer to overrule a 1970s case.

In the future, the junta will pave a new road to approve violations of the separation of church and state.

[Scrivener7]

16. That is feckin' terrifying.

But what about Novara's question below? Is there any ramification for the fact that the ruling was based on made up facts and not on the facts of the actual case? Does that do anything to nullify it when it comes to applying it?

[John1956PA]

21. An honest lower would be at a loss applying this case to a similar claim brought to it.

But the junta knows that these prayers-at-football-games cases are not going to be common. This case was groomed to be heard by this court for larger reasons. The fired coach went on a tour of speaking engagements and TV talk show appearances to propel the case to the court. Powerful right-wing forces pushed him along his way because the plan was to get the junta to hear one or more separation- of-church-and-state cases of different stripes so that existing precedent could be overruled. In the large scope of things, prayer at football games is not a major issue. But other violations of church-and-state separation are big issues, and this junta is posed to allow those violations to occur. I feel sorry for the school district which was caught up in this coach's theatrics. One of the main reasons why the school district fired him was that it feared for the safety of band members who were being bowled over by football players (often from the opposing teams who were encouraged by right-wing operatives) to rally around the couch for his public spectacles.

[Scrivener7]

23. So I guess we will be seeing more of these eroding the fundamental basis for our country.

Great.

But thank you again. I just could not understand what the point of that was, and you have made it much clearer.

Not happy with what the answers mean, of course, but I do appreciate them.

[John1956PA]

25. You are welcome, and thank you for your cordial replies.

Do not let all of this get you down. We can keep on doing good by understanding the issues and spreading the information. Best wishes.

[Scrivener7]

29. To you too.

[Novara]

10. I would love to see any ruling like this ...

... which is made on misrepresentation (or outright lying) be declared void.

Look, he made a ruling that was not based on the facts of the case. Shouldn't that be voided on that basis? I mean, if they can lie to render decisions, we're REALLY fucked. This sets precedent: justices can bend facts and flat-out lie to create the law of the land. How is it even possible that we have no recourse?

I am hoping the ACLU is working on this. I don't know what they can do, but this kind of shit needs to be challenged.

And dammit, where's that SCOTUS oversight/ethics bill the Dems have been talking about?

[Scrivener7]

12. I would love to know this. Lawyers? Anyone know?

I am wondering who this generation's Thurgood Marshall and RBG are. I am sure they're out there.

[Tomconroy]

15. One of the first things I learned in law school is that the 'facts'

As recited in an appellate opinion may bear little relationship to the actual facts of a case.

[Scrivener7]

17. So this is not unusual? Interesting. I never knew. But then what does

that do when it comes to applying it?

Can't the next school say he's not praying quietly while his students are otherwise engaged, so the ruling doesn't apply?

[Tomconroy]

13. There is a 'free exercise clause' as well as a 'non-establishment'

clause.

[Scrivener7]

18. Tell me about this. Are you saying they are justifying his act on the basis of these two?

Is that a legit argument?

[Tomconroy]

19. This really isn't my issue and I haven't read the opinion,

But the Constitution guarantees the right to the free exercise of religion as well as prohibiting the state from establishing a state religion.
It seems to me the case kind of stands for the tension between the two clauses of the Constitution. I'm not saying it was decided rightly but it wasn't egregiously wrong to uphold someone's right to practice religion.
I would think these kind of cases are very fact specific. So it's not surprising a judge would slant the facts when writing an opinion.

[Scrivener7]

20. THANK YOU, ALL! This is a bit clearer to me now. I appreciate all the replies.

[FBaggins]

22. I think I can add some context

Much of this is bluster. The Supreme Court generally doesn't make determinations of fact at all. The "prayed quietly" comes directly out of the 9th circuit record that they were reviewing. Gorsuch didn't make it up.

But your reading is still probably correct. The ruling only applies (directly anyway) to "a guy praying quietly while his students are otherwise occupied". Having said that - the court seems to be making clear that you would have to move pretty far from that description before they would have a problem with the behavior. It's unlikely that an occurrence where others decide to join him and pray at the same time will be seen as crossing the line.

One key element that many are missing (apparently including the dissent) is that the case really only applies to the three events in October 2015 that resulted in his firing. The dissent points out a much longer record that included arguably clearer cases that could result in his firing, but SCOTUS doesn't do that. They don't pull up other incidents and say "well... he could have been fired for that so that's good enough".

From the dissent -

Under the Court’s analysis, presumably this would be a different case if the District had cited Kennedy’s repeated disruptions of school programming and violations of school policy regarding public access to the field as grounds for suspending him. As the District did not articulate those grounds, the Court assesses only the District’s Establishment Clause concerns. It errs by assessing them divorced from the context and history of Kennedy’s prayer practice.

I'd respond that... yes... as you catch in the OP, this could have been a different case. The error (and in the dissent as well) is the implication that the court should have just ignored the fact that the school district screwed up. It sounds like they could have built a much stronger case for firing him... but didn't.

A liberal court might have vacated the ruling and sent it all the way back to the initial court for additional proceedings that might add some of that relevant information, but I'm not sure that it could be fixed (because the district can't change what they've said about why they suspended him)... but at the very least, they could have ruled in his favor on much narrower grounds that did not overturn existing precedent and made explicit that some of the other behaviors in the record could legitimately have resulted in termination.

[Scrivener7]

26. Bluster, and, it seems from the answers above that this is one part of a whole that will

chip away at separation till, in their hopes, it is in tatters. Even though this is a very small move in that direction.

And this is outside the discussion, but given what you point out about the school district not specifying the other fire-able offenses in the first place, it sounds like they can now go back and fire him on the basis of those.

I know it's petty, but I'd dance of they did successfully fire this guy on any basis.

[FBaggins]

28. I don't know... but I doubt that they need to

This was years ago and he's now on to a different job in a different state.

[sl8]

27. Thanks, that's helpful. nt

[Sympthsical]

37. One of the areas of the case I found interesting

Was the case's concern about an overly broad job description.

This is something we wrestle with in a modern society. Where does your job end and your personal rights begin? The coach wasn't doing this during the day in his official capacity as a district employee. He was doing this after the game. Is he still acting under his employment? Does the district have a say over what he does after a game if he's doing it on his own?

Where does the professional role end and the personal right begin?

We deal with this all the time even though we may not always be consciously aware of it. Think about someone who works wherever. Then they say something stupid on Facebook or Twitter and are subsequently fired. At what point is our employment reaching too far, where our lives become our job description. If we can face sanction over speech 24/7, is that where we want to go? That we are all now company brand ambassadors in every aspect of our personal lives?

The reason it's relevant here is because the coach works for the district. Is he always on duty as a government employee? Where does that stop and his personal rights begin? If the game's over and he was going out there by himself, did the district have the right to control that? Yes, it was performative, but was the district's action balancing free exercise vs. a prohibition on establishment? Or did it violate free exercise (actual consequence) for fear of establishment (potential consequence).

I'm not really giving an answer to these issues, because I think I'd have to digest it more (and have more coffee).

But I thought it was an interesting issue the Supreme and lower courts were wrestling with in this one.

[uponit7771]

44. +1,

[uponit7771]

43. +1,

[Baitball Blogger]

24. When the facts of a case change or are wrong, it can be appealed.

In the case of a bad Supreme Court decision, I suspect what will happen is that prayer on the 50 yard line will get out of hand and someone will file another lawsuit based on the fact that Gorsuch's little white lie created an unsustainable situation.

[FBaggins]

32. That could be intentional

It allows them to make incremental moves towards a final goal (as we know Roberts prefers).

[Emile]

33. Does this coach thinks God cares who wins the football game?

I don't get it!

[FBaggins]

34. Would such a prayer occur before the game? nt

[leftyladyfrommo]

35. I have a question. Haven't footballers been praying

down on the field forever? Like everytime they get a goal some of the guys kneel down and pray?

I am not a sports follower.

[JCMach1]

39. There is nothing preventing players from praying. When I was a HS Coach, I stood

With my Atheist and Jewish students. Doing anything else would have been a violation of the establishment cause.

[wnylib]

36. Trying to picture Jesus in a football helmet,

running at the 50 yard line, robe flowing behind him.

But...Wait. Can't he be disqualified from the team due to unfair advantage?

[moniss]

42. I will repeat

what I said before. They do not care about getting it wrong or purposely altering facts to fit their desired conclusion. They do not have a sense of shame and they do not care about being hypocritical in their arguments. Trying to argue these things with them on those terms is futile. Pointing these things out for ourselves and perhaps other voters is of course a good thing. Sociopaths can be highly functioning, seemingly successful people and carry out their sick actions all while seeming to remain calm as can be. Inside though these people are always twisted in rage that anybody questions their actions as they go about with their plans to "get people" and "to show them". I've had the misfortune to observe this behavior first hand several times over the years by well educated people in corporations and by blue/brown collar workers. It is bad enough when you have one in a group of people. When you get more than one it becomes a pit of snakes. In this case you combine that behavior by one or more (likely Thomas and Rapey Brett, possibly Alito) , combine it with some who are religious zealots (Amy the Cultist at the least) and the group being lead by a weakling like Roberts and this is the result.

Thomas had issues long before Anita Hill but he never got over the fact that she told the world what he really was and remember the most recent lashing out at Hill by low class Ginny proves that they still seethe over her supposed "betrayal" of "Coke Can Clarence". Rapey Brett and his obvious issues with women clearly have been long standing. His problems with alcohol may well have begun as a way for him to cope and then turned into a young man who, according to testimony, regularly was extremely drunk and seeming to force himself on women. Remember that there were other women besides Dr. Ford who wanted to testify but Grassley refused to allow it.