Supreme Court Allows Prayers at Town Meetings

[happyslug]

45. Here is the actual opinion

Last edited Mon May 5, 2014, 04:49 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-696_4f57.pdf

JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part II–B.*

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part II– B.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, J., joined the opinion in full, and

SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., joined except as to Part II–B

ALITO Filed a Concurring opinion joined by SCALIA

THOMAS filed a concurring opinion, joined as to Part II of Thomas's opinion by SCALIA

BREYER wrote a dissenting opinion

KAGAN worte a dissenting opinion, joined by GINSBURG, BREYER AND SOTOMAYOR

The legal dispute is how "coercive" is such a prayer? The Majority says it is NOT for there is NO MANDATE for one to participate or even attend (unlike a prayer in a Public School or at a Public School Graduation). The Dissent says that the mere fact that people who may object to such a pray have to hear it if they have any dealings with the City Council makes it "coercive"for and thus a violation of the Establishment clause.

Notice even the Dissent was willing to accept the right of Legislature and the Court itself to hold prays as it begins its day for such a prayer is NOT "coercive" to any member of either a legislature or the Court (Through the Dissent does point out a pray before the start of a trial would still be "coercive&quot . Thus the real dispute is where to draw the line, the Majority says you have to show ACTUAL harm not just a claim of a harm, the Dissent say the Possibility of such a harm is enough.