What’s funny is that Bricker usually argues exactly that whenever anyone else disagrees with a Supreme Court decision. This time, it’s different.
Are we doing that “yes it’s a broken clock, but at this moment it’s showing the right time so it’s not right to excoriate her for being a broken clock” thing again?
Or are there serious calls to defend the Glenn Beck University position that SoCaS is nothing more than a liberal myth?
Or is it that there are serious calls to play the semantic “gotcha ya” game and say that she really was right, that because the actual phrase isn’t in the actual text of the Constitution she was showing off her Constitutional chops–that her Constitutional analysis is better than most?
True, but on the other hand, Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was a prototype for the First Amendment, and that was his baby. Looking at it this way, Jefferson was the key figure behind the religious parts of the First Amendment.
No, it’s not.
I’m saying here what I always say.
That’s a valid defense, if in fact she had shown the right time. But since she didn’t… no. She’s a broken clock that was showing the wrong time.
That’s surely what she was trying to do. Had she done it, we could indeed be having that conversation right now.
But she failed, because she lacked enough basic understanding of the subject to understand the difference between the subtle point she thought she was raising and the actual text of the document.
I have a hard time accepting even the argument that she was trying to make a clever point. I think it’s very clear that the phrase “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” didn’t ring any bells whatsoever for her, which means that she literally has no idea what’s in the first amendment to the Constitution. Coons quoted it and she didn’t bat an eyelash; she kept right on saying “and you’re telling me that’s in the Constitution?”
If you’re running for a Senate seat, and your shtick is that we need to get back to the ideals set forth in the Constitution, and somebody quotes verbatim one of the three or four most famous and recognizable bits of the conversation, and you don’t indicate even the tiniest bit of recognizance, I think it’s a massive stretch for anybody to ever claim that you’re even capable of attempting a clever Constitutional ploy, or that you’re trying to defend a particular doctrinal perspective based on a finer distinction. She had no idea whether or not what she was hearing was coming from the Constitution, which is fucking incredible, because it means that even giving her massive benefit of the doubt, it means she hasn’t recently reviewed herself, been prepped on, or listened to anybody else talk about what the First Amendment does. That’s middle school shit, and she didn’t know it. You can’t be making a hamhanded effort to argue semantics if you don’t even know what the words mean.
Even though it probably would have blown back on him one way or another - it always does - I would have loved to see Coons halt the proceedings right there and invite O’Donnell to tell everyone what she thinks is in the First Amendment.
Nah, that’s easy to justify. The Court, at times, makes incorrect decisions in order to preserve its own position. Korematsu was handed down in the knowledge that the government would (shamefully) ignore any other decision. Barring federal recognition of Christmas, removing “In God We Trust” from the currency, removing the Congressional chaplains etc would result in such a public uproar against the Court that it would cease to exist effectively. It is fully aware it is the conspicuously anti-democratic branch of government.
I don’t think ceremonial deism should be viewd as a sign SoCaS isn’t the actual law. It simply doesn’t fit into the case law, and sticks out like a sore thumb. There are, however, more important violations of the Establishment Clause to address.
Yes, now you’ve put forth both of your opinions on the matter in this thread. The marvelous thing is how you reconcile them with one another.
I suggest this site for the assistance you need.
[/hijack]
I’ve read such studies in the past and have been unimpressed by their claims. It generally seems to be more a case of regression to the mean than anything else. Most people think they are of average/slightly above average competence regardless of their true level. As a result the incompetent vastly over estimate their ability and the highly competent tend to under-estimate their ability.
It would be interesting if the incompetents tended to score themselves higher than the competents did but for the data I’ve seem this isn’t the case.
[/hijack]
I agree.
Too many of these nutcase candidates are allowed to run away, sometimes literally, from their crazy statements. Debates are just about the only forum where they can’t just walk away.
I hear this argument often, but I never hear any evidence that the question was ever asked.
So, exactly which cases are there from ~1900 that asked if prayer in school was or was not Constitutional?
(And since it’s the SCotUS, and only the SCotUS, that has the (almost) final say on the meaning of the CotUS can we limit it to cases before that court.)
CMC fnord!
Looking around Wikipedia (not necessarily the bestest place to even start) I did find this,
I find it hard to believe that once the SCotUS concludes that religious belief “lies solely between man and his God,” that the state has no business dictating what words are to be spoken as prayer, anywhere, is any kind of a leap.
Sure.
I’m even going to let you get away with confining the debate to the Supreme Court, even though I said “any court.”
But in 1922, the Supreme Court held the view that the First Amendment constrained Congress, but not the states. Congress could make no law respecting an establishment of religion, but the state surely could. Indeed, the Fourteenth Amendment had no effect whatsoever in applying any of the First Amendment’s freedoms to the states, as we learn from Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cheek, 259 U.S. 530 (1922):
They changed their minds about that in Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925):
And by Everson v. Board of Education, 330 US 1 (1947), we get to the specifics of schools and religion, although not prayer even then.
So what you’re missing is the application of the incorporation doctrine, where the court gradually incorporates the amendments which bind Congress against the states.
I have to call you out on this. It’s a common tactic of current conservatives to claim “prayer is banned in schools.” This isn’t true, and you know it isn’t true. To the best of my knowledge, no case has ever found prayer to be banned in schools, and no one has ever legally argued that courts should ban prayer from schools.
What is at stake, and what has always been at stake is school sponsored prayer, and how far the boundaries of such prayer go.
And no, it doesn’t matter that this is the way the situation is commonly phrased. That the defenders of SoCaS have been dumb enough to allow the language to be hijacked doesn’t mean it is right.
As I suggest above, no one would; prayer in public schools was common and no one could point to any reason it might be forbidden, because the First Amendment was not incorporated against the states.
What might an advocate have argued, absent the First Amendment?
ETA: Sorry, completely misread your post. Yes, correct: I sloppily said “prayer is banned in school,” but that’s not accurate and tends to polarize the discussion even more than it is. “School-sponsored prayer” is banned; prayer in school, as the joke goes, will be legal as long as there are math tests. Point well taken.
People often read “establishment” to mean “institution” and interpret the 1A to mean that the government cannot respect such a full-scale religious organization.
But an “establishment” can be an act of establishing something or anything that has been established–that is, set in place with the intention that it remain.
A 10 Commandments monument is an establishment of religion unless the people who set it in place take it back with them at the end of the day.
Of course you would have been.
Given that she later displayed complete and utter ignorance of the Fourteenth, Sixteenth and Seventeenth (IIRC) Amendments, I think her “chops” are suspect.
Blah blah blah letting women and negros vote, slavery, prohibition, gay marriage etc etc. Again, we can go back and forth ad nauseum cherry picking which parts of the Constitution or Supreme Court rulings were right or wrong at specific points in history. “Rightness” isn’t always set by the majority. Things are right or wrong because they are right or wrong for everyone.
I guess I’m just not following your position. Do you actually believe that school-sponsored prayer has a place in public schools? I firmly believe it does not for one very simple reason. As someone who was not raised Christian, I do not want to be subjected to some sort of tyrany of the majority where I will be forced to be subjected to someone elses religious doctrine in what should be a secular setting. Those people have plenty of other forums for which to practice their faith.
As it happens, over a dozen Supreme Court decisions agree with me.
Which only goes to prove that the incompetent are more incompetent at judging their abilities than competent people. It’s not like competent people are overrating or underrating to a huge degree.
More importantly, as the study shows, one people are allowed to look at the answers provided by others the competent people realize that they are more competent than others who took the test and raise their estimation of their abilities to a more accurate level, while the incompetent people don’t change their misplaced assessment, and indeed sometimes even rate themselves even higher.
Yes, I agree the best social policy is the one that exists now.
I would add to that by pointing out that it violates the academic principle. One minute you’re learning how to do math and science and being told to Show Your Work, the next you’re trying to perform magic by beseeching to an invisible man in the sky for whom no evidence exists.