Discussion:
A case that Justice Neil Gorsuch can sink his teeth into (a religious school playground)
(too old to reply)
GLOBALIST
2017-04-19 18:19:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
A majority on the Supreme Court appeared to offer support Wednesday for a church excluded from a publicly funded aid program, during the hearing for what was considered Justice Neil Gorsuch’s first high-profile case.

At issue is a double dose of contentious issues: religious freedom and taxpayer funding. It is one of the most closely watched cases of the term, and could portend a series of upcoming church-state disputes facing the justices.

The justices are considering whether Trinity Lutheran Church in Columbia, Mo., should be eligible for state funds. The church sued after being denied funding to improve the surface of a playground used by its preschool, by replacing gravel with softer, recycled synthetic rubber.

The state program gives grants to nonprofits seeking a safer recreational environment for children. But Missouri's law -- similar to those in roughly three-dozen other states – prohibits direct government aid to educational institutions that have a religious affiliation.

Republican Gov. Eric Greitens’s unexpected decision last week to change the policy and allow religious institutions to participate in the program raised questions about whether the constitutional fight is now moot -- but no one on the nine-member bench appeared ready to punt the case away.

Instead, an intense hour of oral arguments focused on the merits.

"I'm not sure it's a 'free exercise' [of religion] question," said Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "No one is asking the church to change its beliefs. The state is just saying it doesn't want to be involved in giving [public] money to the church."

But other members of the court questioned the church's exclusion.

"You're denying one set of actors from competing [for the grant money] because of religion," Justice Elena Kagan said. She called it a "clear burden on a constitutional right."

The Constitution's First Amendment speaks on religion in the public sphere with two important provisions. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from unduly preferring or promoting religion over non-religion, and vice versa. And the Free Exercise Clause protects Americans' rights to practice their faith, absent a "compelling" government interest.

Gorsuch, the court’s newest member, was subdued by comparison to his active involvement during his first two days of arguments. He only asked a couple brief questions of the state's lawyer near the end of arguments.

The Supreme Court accepted the church's petition for review back in January 2016, when Justice Antonin Scalia was still the senior conservative. His death a month later kept the case on hold, possibly because the eight justices believed they would ultimately tie. Such splits mean no nationwide precedent is set.

Trinity Lutheran's high-profile case was finally put on the argument schedule for April, just in time for Gorsuch to perhaps cast the deciding vote.

The Christian church operates its Child Learning Center to serve families, incorporating "daily religion and developmentally appropriate activities in a preschool program."

To minimize injuries on its playground, the church applied to the state's "Scrap Tire Surface Material Grant" program, funded by a 50-cent tax on the purchase of new tires. The church says its application ranked fifth out of 44 other nonprofits, but was ultimately denied.

Missouri's constitution says "no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, section or denomination of religion."

The high court has never fully answered whether "free exercise of religion" compels states to provide taxpayer funds to religious institutions, through neutral means that do not promote faith-based beliefs or practices.

Teachers unions, meanwhile, worry a ruling favoring Trinity Lutheran would add nationwide momentum for private school voucher programs, part of the school-choice movement which the Trump administration has promoted. And some organizations fear a sweeping conservative-majority court opinion would lead to discrimination with the backing of government money.

Into the debate jumped Gorsuch, who took heat from Senate Democrats during his confirmation over past cases dealing with religion, while serving as a federal appeals court judge in Denver for over a decade.

Perhaps the 49-year-old justice's highest-profile case was the 2013 concurrence supporting the right of for-profit, secular institutions (and individuals too, he argued) to oppose the Obama's administration mandate to provide contraceptives to their workers. Gorsuch affirmed his past ardent commitment to religious freedom against claims of government "intrusion."

Besides the Trinity case at hand, the Supreme Court in coming days could accept two other religious liberty disputes for future review: Whether a Colorado baker and a Washington state florist can be compelled to do business with same-sex couples, which they say would violate their "sincerely held" religious beliefs.

The current case is Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer (15-577). A ruling is expected in late June.
====================
Those Lutheran parents are paying into the same public fund
so it's not like they are asking for something for nothing.
Lawrence Akutagawa
2017-04-19 18:32:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"GLOBALIST" wrote in message news:dfa089f2-b7fa-4717-92db-***@googlegroups.com...

A majority on the Supreme Court appeared to offer support Wednesday for a
church excluded from a publicly funded aid program, during the hearing for
what was considered Justice Neil Gorsuch’s first high-profile case.

At issue is a double dose of contentious issues: religious freedom and
taxpayer funding. It is one of the most closely watched cases of the term,
and could portend a series of upcoming church-state disputes facing the
justices.

/snip - follow the plagiarized words of the no good dishonest plagiarizing
Village Idiot/

====================
Those Lutheran parents are paying into the same public fund
so it's not like they are asking for something for nothing.

***** This line separates my response from the foregoing ******

tsk, tsk, tsk

For the third time today - and of course for the **24th** day within the
last 26 days - does the no good, dishonest plagiarizing Village Idiot run
amok on his no good, dishonest plagiarizing spree!

Yet once again does the incorrigible, no good, dishonest plagiarizing
Village Idiot show us that he the incorrigible, no good, dishonest
plagiarizing Village Idiot has no morals, no principles, no ethics, no
honor, no integrity, no honesty, no mores, and certainly no sense at all of
right and wrong!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/19/supreme-court-justices-show-support-for-church-in-gorsuchs-1st-high-profile-case.html

Yet once again has the incorrigible, no good, dishonest plagiarizing Village
Idiot struck!

Yet once again does the incorrigible, no good, dishonest plagiarizing
Village Idiot (of course with "mutual agreement") do his Intellectual Coward
ploy to run away from the issue of his plagiarism, of course with his tail
well centered between his legs, back into that deep dark deplorable hole of
his under his rock!
Lawrence Akutagawa
2017-04-19 18:36:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"GLOBALIST" wrote in message news:dfa089f2-b7fa-4717-92db-***@googlegroups.com...

A majority on the Supreme Court appeared to offer support Wednesday for a
church excluded from a publicly funded aid program, during the hearing for
what was considered Justice Neil Gorsuch’s first high-profile case.

At issue is a double dose of contentious issues: religious freedom and
taxpayer funding. It is one of the most closely watched cases of the term,
and could portend a series of upcoming church-state disputes facing the
justices.

/snip - follow the plagiarized words of the no good, dishonest plagiarizing
Village Idiot/

====================
Those Lutheran parents are paying into the same public fund
so it's not like they are asking for something for nothing.


***** This line separates my response from the foregoing ******

Ha Ha Ha!!
Behold how the Village Idiot again entertain us all with his crappy crappy
English!

You, Village Idiot, are so very very *F*U*N*N*Y* with your crappy crappy
English!

Why, Village Idiot, are you with your crappy crappy English still in this
country?

wups...just look at the Village Idiot run away again from the issue of his
crappy crappy English by performing yet another Intellectual Coward ploy, of
course with his tail barely perceivable between his legs this time, back
into that deep dark diseased hole of his under his rock!
Lawrence Akutagawa
2017-04-19 18:43:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"GLOBALIST" wrote in message news:dfa089f2-b7fa-4717-92db-***@googlegroups.com...

A majority on the Supreme Court appeared to offer support Wednesday for a
church excluded from a publicly funded aid program, during the hearing for
what was considered Justice Neil Gorsuch’s first high-profile case.

At issue is a double dose of contentious issues: religious freedom and
taxpayer funding. It is one of the most closely watched cases of the term,
and could portend a series of upcoming church-state disputes facing the
justices.

/snip - follow the plagiarized words of the no good dishonest plagiarizing
Village Idiot;

====================
Those Lutheran parents are paying into the same public fund
so it's not like they are asking for something for nothing.

***** This line separates my response from the foregoing ******

OK, Village Idiot, I admit that you have got me again.
Do explain, Village Idiot, exactly how "Those Lutheran parents" are involved
in this SCOTUS case:
"Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer (15-577)"
Are those parents you reference plaintiffs or defendants in this SCOTUS
case, Village Idiot?
Where, Village Idiot, can I find the briefs filed by those parents in this
case?

Please clarify, Village Idiot.

OOPS - just look at the Village Idiot go at performing his obligatory
Intellectual Coward ploy to run again away from the issue, of course with
his tail precisely between his legs, back into that deep dark dung filled
hole of his under his rock!
GLOBALIST
2017-04-20 00:10:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GLOBALIST
A majority on the Supreme Court appeared to offer support Wednesday for a
church excluded from a publicly funded aid program, during the hearing for
what was considered Justice Neil Gorsuch’s first high-profile case.
At issue is a double dose of contentious issues: religious freedom and
taxpayer funding. It is one of the most closely watched cases of the term,
and could portend a series of upcoming church-state disputes facing the
justices.
/snip - follow the plagiarized words of the no good dishonest plagiarizing
Village Idiot;
====================
Those Lutheran parents are paying into the same public fund
so it's not like they are asking for something for nothing.
***** This line separates my response from the foregoing ******
OK, Village Idiot, I admit that you have got me again.
Do explain, Village Idiot, exactly how "Those Lutheran parents" are involved
"Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer (15-577)"
Are those parents you reference plaintiffs or defendants in this SCOTUS
case, Village Idiot?
Where, Village Idiot, can I find the briefs filed by those parents in this
case?
Please clarify, Village Idiot.
OOPS - just look at the Village Idiot go at performing his obligatory
Intellectual Coward ploy to run again away from the issue, of course with
his tail precisely between his legs, back into that deep dark dung filled
hole of his under his rock!
I can provoke you enough to answer 3 or 4 times to my 1 post.
You are so riled up to prove me wrong that you can't catch
your breath to tell me.
Lawrence Akutagawa
2017-04-20 01:56:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GLOBALIST
A majority on the Supreme Court appeared to offer support Wednesday for a
church excluded from a publicly funded aid program, during the hearing for
what was considered Justice Neil Gorsuch’s first high-profile case.
At issue is a double dose of contentious issues: religious freedom and
taxpayer funding. It is one of the most closely watched cases of the term,
and could portend a series of upcoming church-state disputes facing the
justices.
/snip - follow the plagiarized words of the no good dishonest plagiarizing
Village Idiot;
====================
Those Lutheran parents are paying into the same public fund
so it's not like they are asking for something for nothing.
***** This line separates my response from the foregoing ******
OK, Village Idiot, I admit that you have got me again.
Do explain, Village Idiot, exactly how "Those Lutheran parents" are involved
"Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer (15-577)"
Are those parents you reference plaintiffs or defendants in this SCOTUS
case, Village Idiot?
Where, Village Idiot, can I find the briefs filed by those parents in this
case?
Please clarify, Village Idiot.
OOPS - just look at the Village Idiot go at performing his obligatory
Intellectual Coward ploy to run again away from the issue, of course with
his tail precisely between his legs, back into that deep dark dung filled
hole of his under his rock!
I can provoke you enough to answer 3 or 4 times to my 1 post.
You are so riled up to prove me wrong that you can't catch
your breath to tell me.

***** This line separates my response from the foregoing ******

Yet again does the Village Idiot - unable at all to respond with facts
and/or logic - toss out instead another of his brilliant and most
magnificent "Look here, not there" ploys!

"not there"
- "Do explain, Village Idiot, exactly how "Those Lutheran parents" are
involved in this SCOTUS case:
"Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer (15-577)"
Are those parents you reference plaintiffs or defendants in this SCOTUS
case, Village Idiot? Where, Village Idiot, can I find the briefs filed by
those parents in this case?"

"Look here"
- " I can provide you enough to answer 3 or 4 times to my 1 post."
blah blah blah blah blah

The Village Idiot has struck yet again!

Now...of course...here is the obligatory Intellectual Coward ploy as
performed for our entertainment by the one and only Village Idiot to run
away from his latest "Look here, not there" post, of course with his tail
most grandly held between his legs, back into that deep dark defunct hole of
his under his rock!
Lawrence Akutagawa
2017-04-20 02:05:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GLOBALIST
A majority on the Supreme Court appeared to offer support Wednesday for a
church excluded from a publicly funded aid program, during the hearing for
what was considered Justice Neil Gorsuch’s first high-profile case.
At issue is a double dose of contentious issues: religious freedom and
taxpayer funding. It is one of the most closely watched cases of the term,
and could portend a series of upcoming church-state disputes facing the
justices.
/snip - follow the plagiarized words of the no good dishonest plagiarizing
Village Idiot;
====================
Those Lutheran parents are paying into the same public fund
so it's not like they are asking for something for nothing.
***** This line separates my response from the foregoing ******
OK, Village Idiot, I admit that you have got me again.
Do explain, Village Idiot, exactly how "Those Lutheran parents" are involved
"Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer (15-577)"
Are those parents you reference plaintiffs or defendants in this SCOTUS
case, Village Idiot?
Where, Village Idiot, can I find the briefs filed by those parents in this
case?
Please clarify, Village Idiot.
OOPS - just look at the Village Idiot go at performing his obligatory
Intellectual Coward ploy to run again away from the issue, of course with
his tail precisely between his legs, back into that deep dark dung filled
hole of his under his rock!
I can provoke you enough to answer 3 or 4 times to my 1 post.
You are so riled up to prove me wrong that you can't catch
your breath to tell me.

***** This line separates my response from the foregoing ******

Darn - you got me again, Village Idiot.
I just have to admit, Village Idiot, that I do not at all have the slightest
idea whatsoever how you can provoke me "enough to answer 3 or 4 times to"
your one post. Are you saying, Village Idiot, that you the Village Idiot
cannot at all get your Village Idiot act together such you have to answer 3
or 4 times to your one post because you provoke me? I do think, Village
Idiot, that is exactly what your words here say. Allow me to restate,
Village Idiot:
a. You provoke me.
b. Because you provoke me, you the Village Idiot have "enough to answer 3 or
4 times to" your one post.

Do I have that correct, Village Idiot? Or is there another meaning to be
ascribed to these Village Idiot words of yours?

Please clarify, Village Idiot.

Boy, Village Idiot, you sure are *F*U*N*N*Y* !!
ha ha ha

wups...now here is the obligatory Intellectual Coward ploy performed for our
entertainment by the Village Idiot to run away again from the issue, of
course with his tail perfectly positioned between his legs, back into that
deep dark degenerate hole of his under his rock!
Lawrence Akutagawa
2017-04-20 02:06:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GLOBALIST
A majority on the Supreme Court appeared to offer support Wednesday for a
church excluded from a publicly funded aid program, during the hearing for
what was considered Justice Neil Gorsuch’s first high-profile case.
At issue is a double dose of contentious issues: religious freedom and
taxpayer funding. It is one of the most closely watched cases of the term,
and could portend a series of upcoming church-state disputes facing the
justices.
/snip - follow the plagiarized words of the no good dishonest plagiarizing
Village Idiot;
====================
Those Lutheran parents are paying into the same public fund
so it's not like they are asking for something for nothing.
***** This line separates my response from the foregoing ******
OK, Village Idiot, I admit that you have got me again.
Do explain, Village Idiot, exactly how "Those Lutheran parents" are involved
"Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer (15-577)"
Are those parents you reference plaintiffs or defendants in this SCOTUS
case, Village Idiot?
Where, Village Idiot, can I find the briefs filed by those parents in this
case?
Please clarify, Village Idiot.
OOPS - just look at the Village Idiot go at performing his obligatory
Intellectual Coward ploy to run again away from the issue, of course with
his tail precisely between his legs, back into that deep dark dung filled
hole of his under his rock!
I can provoke you enough to answer 3 or 4 times to my 1 post.
You are so riled up to prove me wrong that you can't catch
your breath to tell me.

***** This line separates my response from the foregoing ******

Ha Ha Ha!!
Behold how the Village Idiot again entertain us all with his crappy crappy
English!

You, Village Idiot, are so very very *F*U*N*N*Y* with your crappy crappy
English!

Why, Village Idiot, are you with your crappy crappy English still in this
country?

wups...just look at the Village Idiot run away again from the issue of his
crappy crappy English by performing yet another Intellectual Coward ploy, of
course with his tail barely perceivable between his legs this time, back
into that deep dark diseased hole of his under his rock!
Lawrence Akutagawa
2017-04-20 02:13:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GLOBALIST
A majority on the Supreme Court appeared to offer support Wednesday for a
church excluded from a publicly funded aid program, during the hearing for
what was considered Justice Neil Gorsuch’s first high-profile case.
At issue is a double dose of contentious issues: religious freedom and
taxpayer funding. It is one of the most closely watched cases of the term,
and could portend a series of upcoming church-state disputes facing the
justices.
/snip - follow the plagiarized words of the no good dishonest plagiarizing
Village Idiot;
====================
Those Lutheran parents are paying into the same public fund
so it's not like they are asking for something for nothing.
***** This line separates my response from the foregoing ******
OK, Village Idiot, I admit that you have got me again.
Do explain, Village Idiot, exactly how "Those Lutheran parents" are involved
"Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer (15-577)"
Are those parents you reference plaintiffs or defendants in this SCOTUS
case, Village Idiot?
Where, Village Idiot, can I find the briefs filed by those parents in this
case?
Please clarify, Village Idiot.
OOPS - just look at the Village Idiot go at performing his obligatory
Intellectual Coward ploy to run again away from the issue, of course with
his tail precisely between his legs, back into that deep dark dung filled
hole of his under his rock!
I can provoke you enough to answer 3 or 4 times to my 1 post.
You are so riled up to prove me wrong that you can't catch
your breath to tell me.

***** This line separates my response from the foregoing ******

[big sigh]
You, Village Idiot, don't get it at all, do you?
The point, dear Village Idiot, is not at all to prove that you the Village
Idiot are "wrong."
The point, dear Village Idiot, is to show one and all that you the Village
Idiot are beyond any shadow of a doubt, no ifs, buts, or maybes, rightfully
and truthfully the one and only Village Idiot.
And in all truth and honesty, Village Idiot, you the Village Idiot do
present such an admirable and a most inviting target rich environment in
which to do exactly that!

Do you now get it, Village Idiot?
Or do I have to explain again...perhaps in more simple words?

Please clarify, Village Idiot.

You, Village Idiot, are so very, very *F*U*N*N*Y* !!!
ha ha ha

And now, folks, sit back and enjoy as the Village Idiot again entertains us
by performing his Intellectual Coward ploy to run away once again from the
issue, of course with his tail exactly between his two legs, back into that
deep dark degraded hole of his under his rock.

Loading...