Please note that my post was meant facetiously.
But on a serious note, whether or not some posters agree on facts for which there are gobs of incontrovertible evidence can be frustrating.
When the SCOTUS ignores those gobs of evidence in order to come to the ruling they want to come to, that’s dangerous.
And that is how we ended up with president Trump. Republicans found that as their it had become increasing difficult to argue in favor of their idiological conclusions when the facts seemed to point the other way. So instead of altering their conclusions they altered the facts. The January 6th attacks were just tourists, the 1 million plus Covid deaths were just another flu season. And a school official leading a large group in prayer at the center of a football stadium was just a individual praying silently,.
They’re not the words of Gorsuch, they’re the words of the Bremerton School District, as presented in the underlying case.
I’m not entirely certain why, regardless of whether you agree with the ruling or not, people want to make up things like SCOTUS didn’t consider the motivational speeches. They did.
From the opinion:
The opinion specifically discusses the motivational speeches and notes that they stopped, prior to the Coach kneeling on the 50 yard line and being suspended for that. The opinion seems to be pretty focused on the silent 50 yard line prayers after he stopped doing the homilies.
Just so I can get a gauge on where you are coming from, do you consider this to be silent prayer?
Do I have to link to the opinion AGAIN? (I’ll make the formatting better)
I’m not entirely certain why, regardless of whether you agree with the ruling or not, people seem to want to think that repeating something makes it true.
Was the coach making a motivational speech or prayer at that Oct 16 game where spectators and reporters were running to join him? How many times are the goalposts getting moved here?
Some people simply won’t read the opinion, probably because it goes against their preferred narrative.
Agreed. I find this distressing because depending on the ruling either side will simply just ignore what is written in the rulings to fit whatever narrative they are pushing.
And that is factually untrue. Here’s what actually happened (from SCOTUS blog’s report):
On Oct. 14, 2015, Kennedy notified the school district that he intended to resume his prayers at the next game. After a scene that the school district describes as chaotic, with spectators and reporters knocking down members of the band in an effort to join Kennedy at midfield, the school district told him that his prayers violated the district’s policy, and it offered him other options to pray – for example, after the crowd had left. But Kennedy continued to pray at the next two games, prompting the district to place him on administrative leave and, eventually, decline to renew his contract for the following season.
That’s not him being punished for kneeling in three private prayers. He was punished specifically for his actions trying to continue the tradition. Announcing you’re going to do X is not voluntarily stopping doing X.
I don’t see him either giving a homily or saying anything at all. Spectators and reporters wanting to join him is not the same thing as him giving motivational speeches or giving a prayer at the 50 yard line. I imagine if he had the article would have said something. So where is the factual untruth?
Is there any evidence in the game at Oct 14, 2015 or the two Sundays after that the coach openly said a motivational speech or prayer to people as opposed to simply kneeling down and being joined by others?
Even the district acknowledged it was different:
Ok…(bolding mine)
In addition, the court held that Kennedy’s prayer practice violated the Establishment Clause, reasoning that “speech from the center of the football field immediately after each game . . . conveys official sanction.” Id., at 1238. That was especially true where Kennedy, a school employee, initiated the prayer; Kennedy was “joined by students or adults to create a group of worshippers in a place the school controls access to”; and Kennedy had a long “history of engaging in religious activity with players” that would have led a familiar observer to believe that Kennedy was “continuing this tradition” with prayer at the 50-yard line. Id., at 1238–1239. The District Court further found that players had reported “feeling compelled to join Kennedy in prayer to stay connected with the team or ensure playing time,” and that the “slow accumulation of players joining Kennedy suggests exactly the type of vulnerability to social pressure that makes the Establishment Clause vital in the high school context.” Id., at 1239. The court rejected Kennedy’s free exercise claim, finding the District’s directive narrowly tailored to its Establishment Clause concerns and citing Kennedy’s refusal to cooperate in finding an accommodation that would be acceptable to him. Id., at 1240.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, explaining that “the facts in the record utterly belie [Kennedy’s] contention that the prayer was personal and private.” 991 F. 3d 1004, 1017 (CA9 2021). The court instead concluded that Kennedy’s speech constituted government speech, as he “repeatedly acknowledged that—and behaved as if—he was a mentor, motivational speaker, and role model to students specifically at the conclusion of the game.” Id., at 1015 (emphasis deleted).
SOURCE: 21-418 Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist. (06/27/2022)
From the ruling:
“In the end, the District’s case hinges on the need to generate conflict between an individual’s rights under the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses and its own Establishment Clause duties—and then develop some explanation why one of these Clauses in the First Amendment should “‘trum[p]’” the other two. 991 F. 3d, at 1017; App. 43. But the project falters badly.”
From the dissent (bolding mine):
Official-led prayer strikes at the core of our constitutional protections for the religious liberty of students and their parents, as embodied in both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
The Court now charts a different path, yet again paying almost exclusive attention to the Free Exercise Clause’s protection for individual religious exercise while giving short shrift to the Establishment Clause’s prohibition on state establishment of religion. See Carson v. Makin, 596 U. S. ___, ___ (2022) (BREYER, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 1). To the degree the Court portrays petitioner Joseph Kennedy’s prayers as private and quiet, it misconstrues the facts. The record reveals that Kennedy had a longstanding practice of conducting demonstrative prayers on the 50yard line of the football field. Kennedy consistently invited others to join his prayers and for years led student athletes in prayer at the same time and location. The Court ignores this history. The Court also ignores the severe disruption to school events caused by Kennedy’s conduct, viewing it as irrelevant because the Bremerton School District (District) stated that it was suspending Kennedy to avoid it being viewed as endorsing religion. 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.
Today’s decision goes beyond merely misreading the record. The Court overrules Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971), and calls into question decades of subsequent precedents that it deems “offshoot[s]” of that decision. Ante, at 22. In the process, the Court rejects longstanding concerns surrounding government endorsement of religion and replaces the standard for reviewing such questions with a new “history and tradition” test. In addition, while the Court reaffirms that the Establishment Clause prohibits the government from coercing participation in religious exercise, it applies a nearly toothless version of the coercion analysis, failing to acknowledge the unique pressures faced by students when participating in school-sponsored activities. This decision does a disservice to schools and the young citizens they serve, as well as to our Nation’s longstanding commitment to the separation of church and state. I respectfully dissent.
A dissent is legally irrelevant. Lemon was bad law.
You said:
I read the opinion. I don’t disagree what the law is now but I think it is clear why people got some notions about why it was a bad decision and not merely pushing a “preferred narrative.”
Indeed, if anyone was pushing a preferred narrative it was the majority in this case. They ignored facts, tossed out decades of precedent and then created a whole new test out of thin air that benefits their narrative.
Wasn’t it more of a constitutional prohibition that he violated? As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, that he’s doing it without endorsement is just handwaving. Doing it once and having it explained to you why it’s wrong is one thing; continuing to do it is quite another.
Are you withdrawing your claims that he wasn’t praying in public? Because your last few posts seem to dance around the fact that he was very publicly praying, which was laid out in the lower court rulings as “facts” that the Supreme Court simply ignored.
Kennedy is not an improvement. It is much, much worse law.