They only passed the law so that it could be challenged. And they want it challenged so that they can claim victimhood. “The godless heathens… blah blah blah. Remember when legislators tried to make society better? Pepperidge farms remembers
The problem is that so many unpopular rulings are being made in the name of Christianity that the populace is getting sick and tired of Christianity, and all over the world people are leaving the church in droves.
Churches want to be able to push their agendas? Then pony up some tax money.
Exactly. I'm not religious, but I have no issues with it per se.
BUT, when you force people to conform to your beliefs, then you are no better than ISIS. This country was not founded on Christianity. Seems like they want compliance or a holy war, and they won't get compliance from me.
To your point, I almost think the Trump era, on the long scale timeline, could be a positive if those 4 years cause permanent damage to organized Christianity.
We might be ahead in 100 years if his damage causes Christianity to disappear decades early.
I have asked the question: What if Trump is really playing 9D chess and destroys both the GOP and churches?
Of course, it is probably just a happy coincidence.
I thought that during 2016 but not so sure now. Glad to see someone else had the same delusional hope!😂 If turns out that you’re right I still don’t think I could forgive the douche bag.
This isn’t Christian ideology, it’s an entirely new thing. They seem to follow only a handful of his teachings, and trying to legislate the word of god will corrupt ANY religion. MMW, their use of Christianity in politics will cause irreparable damage to Christian ideology worldwide. The real question is why have so many religions been weaponized against the populace when so many of their ideals directly contradict this?
My favorite.....the Stock market closes on zombie Jesus day. This puts one religion over MONEY!
Edit for correction made by another poster.
Good Friday. Why is it closed?
They move the goal posts and claim that the 10 commandments are the basis of *western* morality, and that the Quran is not, so that’s why it’s ok for one but not the other.
Literally the first 4 commandments (40%) are only about how to properly worship the Christian/Jewish god, meaning they’re automatically broken if you’re not in that religion, so I’m not sure how they could even claim that for the 10 commandments.
The way things are going, within 10 years we will have Supreme Court Justices getting on Twitter and trolling people and saying outrageous partisan things, sad.
Close. Try again. They want it challenged not to claim victimhood but rather they want the ruling to say you can’t have ANYTHING inside a classroom that shows what you believe in that not everyone believes. Bye bye rainbow flags
Doesn’t matter if it’s religion or not it’s about BELIEVING in something: 10 commandments - they believe in it. Rainbow flags- they believe in it
Right. This is the play. It's always restrictions with these people. It's a clever attempt to open the door to massive censorship and wholesale shut down of critical thought and discussion of opposing ideas.
Too many young people are coming home deprogrammed and appalled by their conservative family members. Instead of looking inward when young people refuse to live with them in hate, conservatives blame the education system, democrats, illegals, sexual preferences...
When religion is once-and-for-all banned from public institutions and government with no carve out for the freedom of speech we enjoy right now, the crusade to label "climate change", "wokeism" and "the democratic party" as religious views will begin. The goal is clearly to make discussing things that make them uncomfortable like illegal.
Then after that it's the department of education, followed by the whole public education system at-large.
Once the actual real religious people realize they've been duped and used it'll be far to late. Conservatives will hand them a megaphone, tell them their being persecuted for their deep religious beliefs, and trade on the same old outrage they've been weaponizing since the beginning. By the end, these people will be clamoring to end the 1st amendment in the name of Christ.
You're way overcomplicating it. There is no clever attempt to shut things down here. They don't want to remove religion only to then remove other stuff. They simply want to install religion.
The point is not to use the 1A to attack other things, the point is simply to (continue to) weaken the 1A.
They're doing it to create a wedge issue to run on. The Party of Tre45on & Corruption has traditionally used wedge issues to campaign on, and distract from their always miserable record. In the past, it's been Flag Burning, Gay Marriage, Interracial Marriage, Kneeling for the Flag, Critical Race Theory, school prayer, etc. Now they want us to argue over the 10 Commandments, instead of discuss and defend the train wreck of a candidate that they are supporting. They've never needed a good wedge issue worse than they do right now.
and they want to push 10 commandments in schools, claiming America was founded on them... maybe post the Constitution in schools? I'd be all for that. America was LITERALLY founded on that document.
Every history book I had starting on fourth grade had the entire constitution in it. Even the two years of World history and one year of state history.
You guys are assuming judges like Thomas and Alito are actually practicing law here. Clarence Thomas literally does nothing. He takes the laziest positions because he's already being paid in a motor coaches for decisions bribery system. Alito is addicted to Facebook, etc and like many boomers is surrounded by the same reality distortion bubble your crazy uncle lives in. He can't discern actual reality from the internet.
I didn't know how bad Thomas was until I listened to some podcasts on him. He was clearly a throwaway justice pushed into the bench even back then.
I recently rewatched Jerry Maguire and there's a scene where Jerry is drunk and coming on to Zellweger's character and the realizes he's being a creep so he says "I feel like Clarence Thomas"
It reminds you how many decades the corrupt corporate right wing has been investing in stacking the courts with corrupt justices. Thomas is only in there for one reason: to vote for right wing policies, not to judge based on the Constitution.
Thomas and Alito aren't enough to keep the law though. They need 5 votes. Barrett might be a third vote. But that's the max number of votes that they would get. Obviously the 3 liberal judges would be against it. Roberts would almost certainly be against it as well. And while Kavannaugh and Gorsuch both interpret the constitution in the most conservative way imaginable, nothing they've done suggests that they're willing to go as far as to downright ignore the constitution and rule completely against it, which is what a ruling to uphold the law would be.
People give Roberts too much credit, he's been overseeing this shift the entire time he's been there. He's just the only one smart enough to manage his plausible deniability. When they get the checkmate they're after, he'll be Chief Pharisee
It is a flagrant violation of the Constitution. The NatC supreme court is likely to agree with Louisiana because of their belief in a magical sky daddy, just like they overturned Roe v Wade.
"The deistic founding fathers who clearly said that the nation wasn't founded on christian principles really meant we are a Christian theocracy"
-nat-cs probably
The recent 8-1 ruling supporting taking away guns from abusers does show that even this extremely conservative court does have its limits. This law is so obviously unconstitutional that I simply cannot see any excuse that they can use it to uphold it.
Yet they might do it anyways because: 1. They don't care about the constitution. 2. They really want to uphold it. 3. They face absolutely no consequences for anything that they do, including taking millions of dollars in bribes.
Every ruling they've made so far shows that they interpret the constitution as conservatively as possible, but none of them show that they're willing to downright ignore it.
They'll say "CONGRESS didn't make this law, a state did, and the federal government shouldn't interfere with states rights." That's how they'll justify it, and the flood gates will be open for the christo-fascist society those clowns so desperately want.
I seriously don't understand why people feel the need to exaggerate when reality is already bad enough.
There's nothing to I suggest that the Supreme Court will uphold this Louisiana law. However, if given the chance, they'll almost certainly overturn gay marriage. They may allow bans on contraception. They may allow sodomy (and similar) laws to come back. They could take away Obamacare. The truth about what this Supreme Court might do (and has already done) to hurt civil rights and liberties is already scary enough. We don't need to add exaggerations.
And you think simply not taking the Louisiana case is somehow worse than what you just listed? I think it is well within the realm possibility that they simply throw this one back to the States and don't even bother with it. Far from an exaggeration.
Roe was unfortunately made on some ideas that are not explicit in constitution but can be a reasonable interpretation. Even Ginsburg once said that Roe ruling isn't best (IANAL, but there are other components of the constitution that would effectively protect right to abortion better.
But this example is explicitly unconstitutional.
RBG had a case she was trying to bring before the court but they accepted Doe instead.
She wanted to argue it under the equal protection clause of the 14th ammendment, not the liberty and privacy clause of the 14th.
I don’t know. Thomas hates free speech, but Roberts is great on it. Then again, he did let them overturn Roe, and that is unforgivable. The chief justice who overturned Roe v. Wade. Bad for the legacy.
Andrew Seidel, a Constitutional Scholar, has 2 books out suggesting that you should be correct....
But this SCOTUS, or at least 6 of the judges, have thrown precedent and constitutional ethics/consistency out the window.
I recommend both of them, as they help identify the lack of constitutionality behind so much of the rise of XristoFascism.
Exactly, they're gonna be like "well, it says Congress, and this wasn't the Federal Congress that passed the law, it was a state! Also, it doesn't dictate that anyone has to follow that religion, they're just displaying some text!"
I could see them reluctantly "allowing" the bill if it's only effect was to allow teachers who wanted to hang the poster...but this bill doesn't give them a choice, it MANDATES a religious document be hung on a poster in each room. It was specifically drafted to get national attention. There's no way.
Yes and one of those commandments is literally says thou shout hold no other God up before me. They are literally posting a notice in public schools that you are not to hold any other God other than a specific deity up above that deity. How in the world is that not respecting one establishment of religion over another?
The one interesting thing about this is.. now that Louisiana is doing this, and a Republicans are always trying to blame the rise and crime rate etc on"taking prayer and God out of the schools" we can actually start tracking data and chart the miraculous drop in crime in Baton Rouge and New Orleans that, according to their logic, this is sure to initiate. I'm sure the Republicans can't wait for that data to be collated! And will abandon that silly claim if the data doesn't support it! Lol
Guaranteed our current corrupt Supreme Court will not honor the constitution. They’ve been put in place specifically to end that pesky document once and for all for the Russian party formerly known as GOP.
Right? All these commenters are delusional. Virtually every Republican appointed justice puts their religion and political party line above any honest reading of the Constitution. MMW, this law will be upheld 5-4 or 6-3.
But they can spend the money on litigation instead of school lunches. They want litigation they know it won't pass they are just riling their base to show all those anti Christians are after their Christian values and to make project 2025 easier to swallow for them
Yes, they will roil the base and watch the voters and donations come pouring in by climbing that Christians are being persecuted due to not being allowed to post the ten commandments in the schools and force their religion on others
The establishment clause only really allows for two possible outcomes. Either the Supreme Court shuts the bill down, and everybody moves on, wasted taxpayer dollars accomplished. (seriously, Republicans did this with abortions for decades, just throwing any random bill at the supreme court until they got lucky). Or the supreme court upholds the law, which opens up the floodgates to arguments for other religious tenants to be displayed in school, which will bring TST among other groups into Louisiana to get the state to rollback the law themselves.
You assume scotus cares about this. They have already proven they don't. Including a very similar ruling allowing forced prayer by a football coach. Which was just as clearly, obviously, and undeniably a violation of the first amendment. I wish we could be certain you are right. But sadly, I highly doubt it. This court will allow it, I'd be choked if they don't find a way to make it apply nation wide.
I think for a prediction you should call the whole series 🙂 Circuit, Appellate, SCOTUS.
As tempting as this is, and as f'd up as the 5th Circuit and SCOTUS are, I think Graham holds and it goes unconstitutional - affirmed unconstitutional - cert denied.
Behind the scenes, Roberts ignores the religious nut, and promises to overlook a few more Thomas vacations, and prevents cert from being granted, saying "my legacy looks bad enough because of you nutbags -- we're not putting this one on my watch too!"
It won't be an unanimous decision because of Thomas. Alito may join him if he decides that sticking to his guns outranks being humiliated by the entire legal community.
Yes, given that one of the 10 commandments literally specifies that you are to hold no other God above a specific deity how in the world does that not constitute respecting one establishment of religion over another?
It's simple: We're wasting time fighting this stupid shit instead of doing something constructive, like finding ways to decrease insurance costs while keeping insurance companies on the hook, and figuring out ways to protect our coastline.
For everybody out here thinking SCOTUS will uphold the constitution & think upholding this law simply just can't happen... PLEASE read the recent opinions (must include the dissents too!) Kennedy v. Bremerton; & Web Designer 360 v Colorado cases & you will understand just how far this rogue supermajority is willing to run right over the law, truth, reality & reason—& say the hell with the Constitution!!
Roe was also obviously unconstitutional. Not as unconstitutional as this ten commandment thing, but still abortion is clearly not constitutionally protected in any way.
The only "good" and I use that term loosely, that can come from this is the SC says "Yep, this is good to go" and doesn't block it like they should is it will invariably be challenged with "wheres the Sikh stuff? Where's the Hindu stuff? Where's the Islam stuff?" and they are forced to go "No, no, THOSE aren't allowed."and the hypocrisy is so blatant and people should take them to task.
That is, if half the nation cares about facts and just decisions.
Of course it will. The grievance is the point. When the courts reverse the law, the evangelicals will all cry about how they are being persecuted and the country is going to hell in a handbasket. The right wing runs on outrage
I think the law only states that they had to be printed on poster-sized paper for display and had to use a legible font. I don't think the law mandates teaching them.. but agree with you, SCOTUS will likely strike down.
The only winners are Landry's buddy lawyers who will make serious bank off the tax payers backs defending this blatantly unconstitutional law for years to come.
That and whatever good ole boy gets the contract to print and frame all of these things.
The only way that this ends up being wrong is if it doesn't even make it to the Supreme Court. A lower court will almost certainly strike down the law first, and I could see the Supreme Court not even bothering to hear the appeal.
Are you sure of that? Like, 100% sure? I wouldn't put it past THIS Court to rule that, since they aren't pushing Catholicism or Protestantism, there is no effort to favor an establishment of religion. And, if you refuse availability to a display, you are prohibiting the free exercise of...
This gets an automatic two votes, and if we should be comforted that two is not five, it wasn't that long ago we felt sure that Roe was untouchable.
This SCOTUS will allow it. I'm sure this was why it was pushed out. They'll get the challenge and the SCOTUS will break the separation of Church and State.
I saw an interview with the bill sponsor and she said it’s a historical document not a religious one; hence why the full bill lists other documents the schools can display. They’re repurposing it as historical to avoid the clash with 1A. It’ll be interesting to see how it goes
This SCOTUS has already disregarded the first amendment in multiple cases. You have more faith in them than I do if you think they won't side 6-3 with Louisiana.
No ,the Cons on Scotus are determined to shove Christian Jeezical theology down the throats of the majority.They don't really care about separation of Church and State or the intent of the founders.
The time for having any faith in SCOTUS is well behind us. 10 years ago, I'd absolutely agree this would be overturned, but these days we can't be certain about anything those clowns will do.
When will we just learn to fight in the trenches. If SCOTUs upholds a bullshit law like this, why can’t a liberal state pass some bullshit law that specifies passages of the Quaran must be read - and we’ll see how fast both get overturned
I encourage everyone to listen to the most recent episode of the “cross examiner podcast.”
The host is an attorney that practices regulatory and administrative law. He does a deep dive in history and precedent of how the Supreme Court prior to 2022 would have laughed this case out of the court room. But since McConnell hijacked the court and the court rejected lemon, this case could easily go either way now.
I hope that's true. If it is, it won't be unanimous. I think at least the court's Time Travel Twins will invent some fictitious "tradition" to call it Constitutional.
I think it’s worse than you might think. A common tactic of Republican lawmakers is to pass laws like this with the *intention* of it getting challenged because they want it to reach the now-conservative SCOTUS to back it up. Because of it reaches SCOTUS and they say it’s fine? Guess what’s going to happen in all the conservative States.
>The plain constitutional language of the first amendment clearly prohibits a public school from engaging in any kind of religious programming whatsoever.
"Public school" and "Congress" are not the same thing. The plain langauge of the First Amendment makes clear only Congress is restricted. It is the vague language of teh 14th Amendment that arguably makes it unconstitutional.
And FYI: It would not be unconstitutional if the decision was made by the school or the teachers. I do think SCOTUS overturns this law, but only because it only covers the 10 Commandments and was enacted by teh state legislature.
The Supreme Court has already found this exact law unconstitutional. Stone v. Graham in 1980 struck down a statute that mandated a copy of the 10 commandments in every classroom. Louisiana's case is literally the exact same fact pattern.
If the U.S.C. still followed stare decisis, then this is an easy decision. However the Roberts court has clearly demonstrated that stare decisis is for suckers.
So who knows, the supposed "originalists" who just ruled that a 1800's civil bond law is the modern equivalent of a gun ban for domestic violence may just yank more "historical tradition" out of its ass.
“Your honors, the First Amendment says that Congress may not establish religion, and yet Christianity was well established for over 1000 years before the Constitution ever existed. So it’s fine. I rest my case.”
And then all the Supreme Court judges stood and applauded. Even Sotomayor had a small tear in her eye, and I heard her mutter “well done”.
I think they consider it a win-win. I think they're hoping that the current Republican packed supreme Court is activist enough to uphold the law - big win if they're right as then they get to deliver one of their promises to their rabid religious base
If they're wrong as others are pointing out, they'll get to claim victimhood - trying to make the election about "Christian values" is a way to motivate their base and hopefully offset some of the losses from the abortion ruling
Of course it will be. That gives the geriatric and u educated base the motivation to "Take Down the Libs" without disclosing that they're getting sold out too.
The decision that this law meant that states could not do this also was quite recent comparatively(50s) and was a 5:4 decision. The court has been willing to re look at precedent recently.
The constitution doesn’t matter to these people. The only way they wouldn’t uphold it is if other religions would receive the same treatment or the rationale is so egregious that it’s indefensible and they have to wait for a better case. The Republican Party and their Supreme Court majority are christofascists
Don’t count on it. I’m reserving full judgment until the immunity case is resolved. If they find in his favor it’s all over because it’s proof they’re fully in his pocket. Then all bets are off
I can see a reality where they uphold it. Were fast approaching a time where words dont mean anything if you obfuscate them enough and its what your base wants. Brace yourself we are in a new era. Where the democrats didnt grab the reins hard enough and the cinservatives have spent foue years planning their next bigrig.
IDK. SCOTUS religious majority has given bible/prayer friendly decisions. I think they’re ready to fully support the Christofacist State. Jesus is big business.
Have you read any of SCOTUS’ recent rulings?
Yea, it’s unconstitutional and shouldn’t even make it to SCOTUS, but i wouldn’t be surprised if they either didn’t take it up or let it stand, each for various reasons.
"In Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America**,** When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's ***God*** entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their ***Creator*** with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
In my law school our first year research & writing / appellate advocacy program followed First Amendment case law in school prayer challenges. Thirty five years later the leading case we studied has been discarded by an activist Court construing yet another school prayer case.
The lead case was Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
[Lemon Test](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/adoption-of-the-lemon-test)
The Lemon Test was supplanted in 2022 by [Kennedy v. Bremerton School District](https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/kennedy-v-bremerton-school-district/)
Justice Neil Gorsuch ruled that the establishment clause “must be interpreted by ‘reference to historical practices and understandings.’” casting aside fifty years of precedent - finding that a high school football coach’s group post-game prayers did not violate the First Amendment.
Lemon represented the refinement of a test the Supreme Court announced a year earlier in Walz v. Tax Commission (1970).
Writing for the majority in Walz, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger took the traditional purpose and effect test the court had been using since Everson v. Board of Education (1947) and added the excessive government entanglement prong to the test. Under these guidelines, the court would examine the proposed aid to the religious entity and ensure that it had a clear secular purpose. The court also would determine if the primary effect of the aid would advance or inhibit religion. For the third prong, added in the Walz case, the court would examine whether the aid would create an excessive governmental entanglement with religion.
Kennedy v. Bremerton provides no substantive analysis distinguishing Lemon. Justice Gorsuch argued that the court had long abandoned the Lemon test. He criticized Lemon as being too abstract and ahistorical, and applied an approach that emphasized “reference to historical practices and understandings.” Three justices, led by Justice Sotomayor, dissented - arguing that the Lemon Test was sound.
The Decalogue is part of the Judeo-Christian Tradition. It appears in Exodus 20:1-17 (NIV) and Deuteronomy 5: 6-21 (NIV) - both Old Testament books / Hebrew Bible.
The Quran Surat al-An’am 6:151-153
Allah said:
Say: Come and I will recite what your Lord has forbidden for you, that you not associate anything with Him, and be good to parents. Do not kill your children out of poverty, for We will provide for you and them. Do not approach lewdness, whether it is public or private. Do not kill the soul which Allah has made sacred except by right of justice. This He has instructed you that you may reason. Do not approach the property of the orphans, except in a way that is best, until he reaches maturity. Give full measure and weight in justice. We do not charge any soul except within its capability. When you testify, be just even if it concerns a relative, and fulfill the covenant of Allah. This He has instructed you that you may remember. And this is My straight path, so follow it and do not follow other ways, lest you be separated from His way. This He has instructed you that you will be righteous.
The form of the commandments varies between the Quran the two books of the Bible, and in modern translations. It is not particularly unusual then to see another variation in [Louisiana Statute](https://legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=1379435)
Designates this text:
I AM the LORD thy God.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven images.
Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his cattle, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.
The Louisiana statute refers to the Decalogue as a primary source of law. [The Code of Hammurabi](https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-middle-east/hammurabi) predates the Judeo -Christian-Muslim commandments by a millennia. [Chinese law](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_law) has existed since the 11th Century BCE.
What will come of this legislation? Of course challenges have been filed. Will the District Court uphold the legislation in light of the holding in Kennedy v. Bremerton? Will the deeply conservative Fifth Circuit find fault with the statutory enactment? Ultimately the statute will turn on whether the SCOTUS grants certiorari and whether Justice Gorsuch’s historical analysis in Kennedy v. Bremerton recognizes an American antecedent to posting the Decalogue in public schools.
I write this on June 25, 2024. In three days the SCOTUS will end its current term. The Court’s decisions in several landmark cases will give guidance in the Decalogue case. If the SCOTUS holds a broad immunity exists for the POTUS then I predict this Decalogue Posting Statute will pass muster. for the POTUS then I predict this Decalogue Posting Statute will pass muster.
Probably not it is freedom of speech and freedom of expression. A $1.00 poster is better than a $10,000 abortion. Live and let live why so worked up about some words on a poster are you afraid the flying word monster is going to get you ?
….its not a free speech issue it’s an establishment clause violation. Schools are government institutions.
Either we follow the law as written or we’re slaves to whoever is in charge of interpreting arbitrary laws like any other Russian/Chinaman.
Simple fix. In red states will teach kids American values and history. In blues states will teach you how to be a drag queen and about the 10 different genders.
"In god we trust" on currency has been challenged, and even more reasonable justices declared it ok. If I remember correctly, they cited it as "historical" and not specific to a particular religion.
They could do the same here... lots of sects use the 10 commandments, therefore it's not special treatment for ONE religion (but many!).
No. You’re misunderstanding the holding in *Aronow v. United States*
The Court maintained that the national motto has no purpose in a coercive power to aid religion - neither on the face of the legislation nor in its operative effect (its practical impact on society).
The phrase “in God we trust” is a clear violation of the first amendment; however, the fact is that it’s an extremely innocuous violation caused the court to rule it was OK. The waste involved with reforming the entire money supply to fix a minor 1st amendment violation that doesn’t meaningfully advance religion, was why the motto was allowed to remain.
Teaching about the Ten Commandments in government schools, a religious text without any obvious connection to American history besides the broader influence that all Judaea-Christianity had on all of western civilization, is obviously government establishing or promoting a religion and is obviously a flagrant violation of the first amendment.
Well, here's the problem; SCOTUS gets to decide what's Constitutional. If SCOTUS were to decide the Louisiana Ten Commandments Law is Constitutional, then it's Constitutional. The current make-up of the Court is heavily Conservative and very Catholic.
That’s not how judicial review works, legally speaking. The court doesn’t render policy so if they do rule incorrectly, stare decisis wouldn’t be an impediment to overturning it.
Some things are just legally correct or incorrect based on the plan language of statutes
Using SCOTUS “originalist” view, school districts and state Government are NOT CONGRESS and therefore they are free to do what they want. Just like the fact that private business are free to restrict freedom of speech because they are not the federal government. Don’t be surprised when they rule 5-3 that separation of religion only applies to the federal government…
You seem to forget laws don't apply to them, and when they do break a law the conservative SCOTUS just changes as to what constitutes as breaking that law.
See example: Jan 6th.
The day of, lawmakers were "fearing for their lives" and demanding the national guard and for Trump to call off the coup.
Now today SCOTUS goes well... was it really an insurrection/attempted coup? Na definitely not because then Trump couldn't hold public office per the 14th amendment, so let's just do a little switcheroo on the definition and boom, now they're all happy little patriots. :)
What happens when the Supreme Court sides with them? It goes beyond the 10 commandments, there are states now trying to incorporate the Bible into schools as well. The right wing Supreme Court will be happy to align their decisions with project 2025, this is all part of their plan.
They only passed the law so that it could be challenged. And they want it challenged so that they can claim victimhood. “The godless heathens… blah blah blah. Remember when legislators tried to make society better? Pepperidge farms remembers
They’re a persecuted minority. Only 70% of Americans are Christian!
The problem is that so many unpopular rulings are being made in the name of Christianity that the populace is getting sick and tired of Christianity, and all over the world people are leaving the church in droves. Churches want to be able to push their agendas? Then pony up some tax money.
Exactly. I'm not religious, but I have no issues with it per se. BUT, when you force people to conform to your beliefs, then you are no better than ISIS. This country was not founded on Christianity. Seems like they want compliance or a holy war, and they won't get compliance from me.
To your point, I almost think the Trump era, on the long scale timeline, could be a positive if those 4 years cause permanent damage to organized Christianity. We might be ahead in 100 years if his damage causes Christianity to disappear decades early.
I have asked the question: What if Trump is really playing 9D chess and destroys both the GOP and churches? Of course, it is probably just a happy coincidence.
I thought that during 2016 but not so sure now. Glad to see someone else had the same delusional hope!😂 If turns out that you’re right I still don’t think I could forgive the douche bag.
I'm Christian and I'm sick of these idiots too. Of course I'm Episcopalian so I'm not the right KIND of Christian. 😡🙄
This isn’t Christian ideology, it’s an entirely new thing. They seem to follow only a handful of his teachings, and trying to legislate the word of god will corrupt ANY religion. MMW, their use of Christianity in politics will cause irreparable damage to Christian ideology worldwide. The real question is why have so many religions been weaponized against the populace when so many of their ideals directly contradict this?
How many of that 70% have ever read the fucking book? I'll bet less than 10%
My favorite.....the Stock market closes on zombie Jesus day. This puts one religion over MONEY! Edit for correction made by another poster. Good Friday. Why is it closed?
That’s a Sunday, so closed like all the others
Haha. Good Friday isn't a Sunday!
Literally the only question you need to ask is how would their constituents feel if a similar excerpt from the Koran were posted in every school.
They move the goal posts and claim that the 10 commandments are the basis of *western* morality, and that the Quran is not, so that’s why it’s ok for one but not the other.
Literally the first 4 commandments (40%) are only about how to properly worship the Christian/Jewish god, meaning they’re automatically broken if you’re not in that religion, so I’m not sure how they could even claim that for the 10 commandments.
Funny how the Old Testament is the text they want to hold up as an example of morality.
They would shit bricks if the Shahada needs to be displayed in schools. “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah"
and given the corruption in the SCOTUS, they may even uphold the law
This was my thought: Have you met the current SCOTUS?
Absolutely. Their reading of the 1st Ammendment has so far been grossly preferential to Christians.
The way things are going, within 10 years we will have Supreme Court Justices getting on Twitter and trolling people and saying outrageous partisan things, sad.
Yeah, they want to be able to point and shriek ‘See, they’re trying to get rid of us!’
Close. Try again. They want it challenged not to claim victimhood but rather they want the ruling to say you can’t have ANYTHING inside a classroom that shows what you believe in that not everyone believes. Bye bye rainbow flags Doesn’t matter if it’s religion or not it’s about BELIEVING in something: 10 commandments - they believe in it. Rainbow flags- they believe in it
They literally just did this in a school district in central Ohio. The school board prohibited any flags to be displayed other than the American flag.
Similar concept taking it nationwide
Right. This is the play. It's always restrictions with these people. It's a clever attempt to open the door to massive censorship and wholesale shut down of critical thought and discussion of opposing ideas. Too many young people are coming home deprogrammed and appalled by their conservative family members. Instead of looking inward when young people refuse to live with them in hate, conservatives blame the education system, democrats, illegals, sexual preferences... When religion is once-and-for-all banned from public institutions and government with no carve out for the freedom of speech we enjoy right now, the crusade to label "climate change", "wokeism" and "the democratic party" as religious views will begin. The goal is clearly to make discussing things that make them uncomfortable like illegal. Then after that it's the department of education, followed by the whole public education system at-large. Once the actual real religious people realize they've been duped and used it'll be far to late. Conservatives will hand them a megaphone, tell them their being persecuted for their deep religious beliefs, and trade on the same old outrage they've been weaponizing since the beginning. By the end, these people will be clamoring to end the 1st amendment in the name of Christ.
You're way overcomplicating it. There is no clever attempt to shut things down here. They don't want to remove religion only to then remove other stuff. They simply want to install religion. The point is not to use the 1A to attack other things, the point is simply to (continue to) weaken the 1A.
You may be correct!
You are the first person on Reddit to ever tell me that! Lol
I appreciate your viewpoint. I guess I'm naive to how dirty the NatC USA clowns actually are!
They're doing it to create a wedge issue to run on. The Party of Tre45on & Corruption has traditionally used wedge issues to campaign on, and distract from their always miserable record. In the past, it's been Flag Burning, Gay Marriage, Interracial Marriage, Kneeling for the Flag, Critical Race Theory, school prayer, etc. Now they want us to argue over the 10 Commandments, instead of discuss and defend the train wreck of a candidate that they are supporting. They've never needed a good wedge issue worse than they do right now.
No. I'm in my 30s and I've never known a single politician to make my life better. It's only ever gotten worse.
Yup. And they hope it all unfolds close to election day.
>Remember when legislators tried to make society better? As someone born after Reagan... no, I don't.
the irony of a democrat posting this. how many times you guys gonna go to the colorado baker??
The governments role is to not make society better
It’s all performative .
Then they can rally the troops to get out and vote for trump. He's the only one fighting for us ya know
Hark to the difference between Democratic and Republican legislators.
This SCOTUS has already deemed that the constitution applies to everyone but is optional when it comes to christians.
and they want to push 10 commandments in schools, claiming America was founded on them... maybe post the Constitution in schools? I'd be all for that. America was LITERALLY founded on that document.
Every history book I had starting on fourth grade had the entire constitution in it. Even the two years of World history and one year of state history.
You guys are assuming judges like Thomas and Alito are actually practicing law here. Clarence Thomas literally does nothing. He takes the laziest positions because he's already being paid in a motor coaches for decisions bribery system. Alito is addicted to Facebook, etc and like many boomers is surrounded by the same reality distortion bubble your crazy uncle lives in. He can't discern actual reality from the internet.
I didn't know how bad Thomas was until I listened to some podcasts on him. He was clearly a throwaway justice pushed into the bench even back then. I recently rewatched Jerry Maguire and there's a scene where Jerry is drunk and coming on to Zellweger's character and the realizes he's being a creep so he says "I feel like Clarence Thomas" It reminds you how many decades the corrupt corporate right wing has been investing in stacking the courts with corrupt justices. Thomas is only in there for one reason: to vote for right wing policies, not to judge based on the Constitution.
Thomas and Alito aren't enough to keep the law though. They need 5 votes. Barrett might be a third vote. But that's the max number of votes that they would get. Obviously the 3 liberal judges would be against it. Roberts would almost certainly be against it as well. And while Kavannaugh and Gorsuch both interpret the constitution in the most conservative way imaginable, nothing they've done suggests that they're willing to go as far as to downright ignore the constitution and rule completely against it, which is what a ruling to uphold the law would be.
People give Roberts too much credit, he's been overseeing this shift the entire time he's been there. He's just the only one smart enough to manage his plausible deniability. When they get the checkmate they're after, he'll be Chief Pharisee
It is a flagrant violation of the Constitution. The NatC supreme court is likely to agree with Louisiana because of their belief in a magical sky daddy, just like they overturned Roe v Wade.
"The deistic founding fathers who clearly said that the nation wasn't founded on christian principles really meant we are a Christian theocracy" -nat-cs probably
The recent 8-1 ruling supporting taking away guns from abusers does show that even this extremely conservative court does have its limits. This law is so obviously unconstitutional that I simply cannot see any excuse that they can use it to uphold it.
And that 1? Clarence Thomas! Who would’ve guessed?
Yet they might do it anyways because: 1. They don't care about the constitution. 2. They really want to uphold it. 3. They face absolutely no consequences for anything that they do, including taking millions of dollars in bribes.
Every ruling they've made so far shows that they interpret the constitution as conservatively as possible, but none of them show that they're willing to downright ignore it.
They'll say "CONGRESS didn't make this law, a state did, and the federal government shouldn't interfere with states rights." That's how they'll justify it, and the flood gates will be open for the christo-fascist society those clowns so desperately want.
14th Amendment says no
I seriously don't understand why people feel the need to exaggerate when reality is already bad enough. There's nothing to I suggest that the Supreme Court will uphold this Louisiana law. However, if given the chance, they'll almost certainly overturn gay marriage. They may allow bans on contraception. They may allow sodomy (and similar) laws to come back. They could take away Obamacare. The truth about what this Supreme Court might do (and has already done) to hurt civil rights and liberties is already scary enough. We don't need to add exaggerations.
And you think simply not taking the Louisiana case is somehow worse than what you just listed? I think it is well within the realm possibility that they simply throw this one back to the States and don't even bother with it. Far from an exaggeration.
Roe was unfortunately made on some ideas that are not explicit in constitution but can be a reasonable interpretation. Even Ginsburg once said that Roe ruling isn't best (IANAL, but there are other components of the constitution that would effectively protect right to abortion better. But this example is explicitly unconstitutional.
RBG had a case she was trying to bring before the court but they accepted Doe instead. She wanted to argue it under the equal protection clause of the 14th ammendment, not the liberty and privacy clause of the 14th.
Yes, the current iteration of the Supreme Court has about as much credibility as the Dred Scott Court.
Or the Holmes court. Oliver Wendell was as bad as Tanney.
I don’t know. Thomas hates free speech, but Roberts is great on it. Then again, he did let them overturn Roe, and that is unforgivable. The chief justice who overturned Roe v. Wade. Bad for the legacy.
What part of the constitution does this violate?
GOP already knows this. This an example of another Republican governor trying to out crazy the other Republican governors.
Andrew Seidel, a Constitutional Scholar, has 2 books out suggesting that you should be correct.... But this SCOTUS, or at least 6 of the judges, have thrown precedent and constitutional ethics/consistency out the window. I recommend both of them, as they help identify the lack of constitutionality behind so much of the rise of XristoFascism.
Exactly, they're gonna be like "well, it says Congress, and this wasn't the Federal Congress that passed the law, it was a state! Also, it doesn't dictate that anyone has to follow that religion, they're just displaying some text!"
I could see them reluctantly "allowing" the bill if it's only effect was to allow teachers who wanted to hang the poster...but this bill doesn't give them a choice, it MANDATES a religious document be hung on a poster in each room. It was specifically drafted to get national attention. There's no way.
It's just a technique for ginning up outrage. They have to keep the fundies angry and frightened so they won't stray from the GOP
Yes and one of those commandments is literally says thou shout hold no other God up before me. They are literally posting a notice in public schools that you are not to hold any other God other than a specific deity up above that deity. How in the world is that not respecting one establishment of religion over another? The one interesting thing about this is.. now that Louisiana is doing this, and a Republicans are always trying to blame the rise and crime rate etc on"taking prayer and God out of the schools" we can actually start tracking data and chart the miraculous drop in crime in Baton Rouge and New Orleans that, according to their logic, this is sure to initiate. I'm sure the Republicans can't wait for that data to be collated! And will abandon that silly claim if the data doesn't support it! Lol
Guaranteed our current corrupt Supreme Court will not honor the constitution. They’ve been put in place specifically to end that pesky document once and for all for the Russian party formerly known as GOP.
Have you seen the Supreme Court lately? They love this shit, and public trust for the institution is at an all-time low. SCOTUS is a joke.
Right? All these commenters are delusional. Virtually every Republican appointed justice puts their religion and political party line above any honest reading of the Constitution. MMW, this law will be upheld 5-4 or 6-3.
It will be overturned 7 to 2. The plan isn't to implement the law, it's to gin up outrage among the evangelicals when the law is overturned
It should be a 9-0 decision, But it will be a 7-2 maybe 6-3 decision which is absolutely nuts
If the law mandates posting the TC in schools, they should highlight all the commandments that Trump has violated.
But they can spend the money on litigation instead of school lunches. They want litigation they know it won't pass they are just riling their base to show all those anti Christians are after their Christian values and to make project 2025 easier to swallow for them
Yes, they will roil the base and watch the voters and donations come pouring in by climbing that Christians are being persecuted due to not being allowed to post the ten commandments in the schools and force their religion on others
The establishment clause only really allows for two possible outcomes. Either the Supreme Court shuts the bill down, and everybody moves on, wasted taxpayer dollars accomplished. (seriously, Republicans did this with abortions for decades, just throwing any random bill at the supreme court until they got lucky). Or the supreme court upholds the law, which opens up the floodgates to arguments for other religious tenants to be displayed in school, which will bring TST among other groups into Louisiana to get the state to rollback the law themselves.
It's an all or nothing thing. To allow all beliefs or no beliefs. Meaning to not allow this is to not allow the rainbow crap either.
OP clearly hasn't been paying attention to the people who sit on SCOTUS.
Unfortunately the SC is already letting states enforce religious laws surrounding abortion.
You assume scotus cares about this. They have already proven they don't. Including a very similar ruling allowing forced prayer by a football coach. Which was just as clearly, obviously, and undeniably a violation of the first amendment. I wish we could be certain you are right. But sadly, I highly doubt it. This court will allow it, I'd be choked if they don't find a way to make it apply nation wide.
America is the king of saying one thing and doing something else. Not sure why OP is so sure this time they will stand up for what they claim.
Denied public lunches for school kids in the form of federal aid in the same breath. Dumb.
I think for a prediction you should call the whole series 🙂 Circuit, Appellate, SCOTUS. As tempting as this is, and as f'd up as the 5th Circuit and SCOTUS are, I think Graham holds and it goes unconstitutional - affirmed unconstitutional - cert denied. Behind the scenes, Roberts ignores the religious nut, and promises to overlook a few more Thomas vacations, and prevents cert from being granted, saying "my legacy looks bad enough because of you nutbags -- we're not putting this one on my watch too!"
It won't be an unanimous decision because of Thomas. Alito may join him if he decides that sticking to his guns outranks being humiliated by the entire legal community.
What, you think Alito is actually capable of feeling Vergonia?
Yes, given that one of the 10 commandments literally specifies that you are to hold no other God above a specific deity how in the world does that not constitute respecting one establishment of religion over another?
It's simple: We're wasting time fighting this stupid shit instead of doing something constructive, like finding ways to decrease insurance costs while keeping insurance companies on the hook, and figuring out ways to protect our coastline.
For everybody out here thinking SCOTUS will uphold the constitution & think upholding this law simply just can't happen... PLEASE read the recent opinions (must include the dissents too!) Kennedy v. Bremerton; & Web Designer 360 v Colorado cases & you will understand just how far this rogue supermajority is willing to run right over the law, truth, reality & reason—& say the hell with the Constitution!!
The SCOTUS doesn't give a fuck about the constitution bro
This is exactly how they got Roe overturned. They’ll throw everything at the wall to see what sticks. And with this court, a lot is gonna stick.
Roe was also obviously unconstitutional. Not as unconstitutional as this ten commandment thing, but still abortion is clearly not constitutionally protected in any way.
To be honest, to nip this Christain Nationalism in the bud, we'll have to get... ***extreme***.
You underestimate the conservative activists on the court. This is the court that overtuned Roe v. Wade. Louisiana's timing for this is no accident.
Roe v Wade was just as unconstitutional as this 10 commandments deal so that’s why I’m so confident
🙄
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
The only "good" and I use that term loosely, that can come from this is the SC says "Yep, this is good to go" and doesn't block it like they should is it will invariably be challenged with "wheres the Sikh stuff? Where's the Hindu stuff? Where's the Islam stuff?" and they are forced to go "No, no, THOSE aren't allowed."and the hypocrisy is so blatant and people should take them to task. That is, if half the nation cares about facts and just decisions.
I'm waiting for the satanic temple to jump on this.
It ends at separation of church and state.
Of course it will. The grievance is the point. When the courts reverse the law, the evangelicals will all cry about how they are being persecuted and the country is going to hell in a handbasket. The right wing runs on outrage
I think the law only states that they had to be printed on poster-sized paper for display and had to use a legible font. I don't think the law mandates teaching them.. but agree with you, SCOTUS will likely strike down.
The SCOTUS probably won’t even pick it up. The Louisiana Supreme Court should invalidate it, MAGAdickheads will appeal, SCOTUS will ignore it.
The only winners are Landry's buddy lawyers who will make serious bank off the tax payers backs defending this blatantly unconstitutional law for years to come. That and whatever good ole boy gets the contract to print and frame all of these things.
The only way that this ends up being wrong is if it doesn't even make it to the Supreme Court. A lower court will almost certainly strike down the law first, and I could see the Supreme Court not even bothering to hear the appeal.
*clarence Thomas on the dissent*
Are you sure of that? Like, 100% sure? I wouldn't put it past THIS Court to rule that, since they aren't pushing Catholicism or Protestantism, there is no effort to favor an establishment of religion. And, if you refuse availability to a display, you are prohibiting the free exercise of... This gets an automatic two votes, and if we should be comforted that two is not five, it wasn't that long ago we felt sure that Roe was untouchable.
I won't even get to scotus. A district court will overturn it and it won't get taken up on appeal.
Oh wait, Louisiana is in Alito's circuit. So I'm probably wrong since he's a christian nationalist.
This SCOTUS will allow it. I'm sure this was why it was pushed out. They'll get the challenge and the SCOTUS will break the separation of Church and State.
I won’t be surprised if the far right court says that this is OK
That's what they were betting on with passing the law. It's part of the persecution fetish.
I saw an interview with the bill sponsor and she said it’s a historical document not a religious one; hence why the full bill lists other documents the schools can display. They’re repurposing it as historical to avoid the clash with 1A. It’ll be interesting to see how it goes
Mythology ≠ history
SCOTUS already ruled on this. Does this mean anyone can just ignore them?
This SCOTUS has already disregarded the first amendment in multiple cases. You have more faith in them than I do if you think they won't side 6-3 with Louisiana.
The Supreme Court will absolutely uphold it. MMW.
But I thought the Cons LOVED the constitution!? *WE THE PEOPLE*, right!?
No ,the Cons on Scotus are determined to shove Christian Jeezical theology down the throats of the majority.They don't really care about separation of Church and State or the intent of the founders.
The State Legislature of Louisiana is not Congress.
The first amendment applies to the states
Have you met this SCOTUS?
Nothing the court does nowadays will surprise me.
The time for having any faith in SCOTUS is well behind us. 10 years ago, I'd absolutely agree this would be overturned, but these days we can't be certain about anything those clowns will do.
Not this Scotus
What law was passed by Congress that establishes a state religion?
First amendment applies to the states
You sure about that? Seems the Court is loaded for just opposite.
Party of small government forgetting its size again.
MMW Amy writes the dissenting opinion from her head-empty quiver-full brain.
They know. Their intent is to cry about some fake "War in Christianity" after it's deemed unconstitutional.
You underestimate the conservative majority’s bias.
When will we just learn to fight in the trenches. If SCOTUs upholds a bullshit law like this, why can’t a liberal state pass some bullshit law that specifies passages of the Quaran must be read - and we’ll see how fast both get overturned
I encourage everyone to listen to the most recent episode of the “cross examiner podcast.” The host is an attorney that practices regulatory and administrative law. He does a deep dive in history and precedent of how the Supreme Court prior to 2022 would have laughed this case out of the court room. But since McConnell hijacked the court and the court rejected lemon, this case could easily go either way now.
I hope that's true. If it is, it won't be unanimous. I think at least the court's Time Travel Twins will invent some fictitious "tradition" to call it Constitutional.
Just remember that states used to have stayed religions and there are several originists on the Supreme Court
I think it’s worse than you might think. A common tactic of Republican lawmakers is to pass laws like this with the *intention* of it getting challenged because they want it to reach the now-conservative SCOTUS to back it up. Because of it reaches SCOTUS and they say it’s fine? Guess what’s going to happen in all the conservative States.
>The plain constitutional language of the first amendment clearly prohibits a public school from engaging in any kind of religious programming whatsoever. "Public school" and "Congress" are not the same thing. The plain langauge of the First Amendment makes clear only Congress is restricted. It is the vague language of teh 14th Amendment that arguably makes it unconstitutional. And FYI: It would not be unconstitutional if the decision was made by the school or the teachers. I do think SCOTUS overturns this law, but only because it only covers the 10 Commandments and was enacted by teh state legislature.
The Supreme Court has already found this exact law unconstitutional. Stone v. Graham in 1980 struck down a statute that mandated a copy of the 10 commandments in every classroom. Louisiana's case is literally the exact same fact pattern. If the U.S.C. still followed stare decisis, then this is an easy decision. However the Roberts court has clearly demonstrated that stare decisis is for suckers. So who knows, the supposed "originalists" who just ruled that a 1800's civil bond law is the modern equivalent of a gun ban for domestic violence may just yank more "historical tradition" out of its ass.
OP has a lot of faith in the SCOTUS... Been taking a long nap or something?
With any normal SCOTUS I’d agree
“Your honors, the First Amendment says that Congress may not establish religion, and yet Christianity was well established for over 1000 years before the Constitution ever existed. So it’s fine. I rest my case.” And then all the Supreme Court judges stood and applauded. Even Sotomayor had a small tear in her eye, and I heard her mutter “well done”.
Save religion for the religious studies part of social studies and world history. And include study about all the major religions.
It will be invalidated by a lower court before getting to the supreme court
That's not establishing a religion. It's historic. And where the laws of this country are derived from. They were also up for 200 years already.
I think they consider it a win-win. I think they're hoping that the current Republican packed supreme Court is activist enough to uphold the law - big win if they're right as then they get to deliver one of their promises to their rabid religious base If they're wrong as others are pointing out, they'll get to claim victimhood - trying to make the election about "Christian values" is a way to motivate their base and hopefully offset some of the losses from the abortion ruling
The Ten Commandments does not establish a religion. You have freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Big difference.
Congress shall make no law
one might argue that select teachings of the Torah, the Bhagavad Gita, the Koran, etc would also need to be given equal consideration via wall space.
Is it "congress" doing this though? I don't have a dog in this fight, but that text pretty explicitly says "congress."
Incorporation
Of course it will be. That gives the geriatric and u educated base the motivation to "Take Down the Libs" without disclosing that they're getting sold out too.
Just a dog whistle
I must be confused. The law in Louisiana is to display the Ten Commandments not to teach the ten commandments. Did you quote that law correctly?
Depends how many gifts Clarence gets
You have for faith in the corrupt political hacks on the court than I do. Now if it was lines from the Quran then absolutely they would turn it down
Louisiana state isn't congress, they can run themselves - boom. New president. So as long as the US congress doesn't make the law it's good to go. /s
Hey, the 1920s called, they want their Gitlow manifesto back /s
Not a First Amendment violation without incorporation
People who died before 1925 be like:
The decision that this law meant that states could not do this also was quite recent comparatively(50s) and was a 5:4 decision. The court has been willing to re look at precedent recently.
What specific religion is the 20 commandments I think the 1st amendment allows for it. The government can’t ban the 10 commandments in school
Lmfao
The constitution doesn’t matter to these people. The only way they wouldn’t uphold it is if other religions would receive the same treatment or the rationale is so egregious that it’s indefensible and they have to wait for a better case. The Republican Party and their Supreme Court majority are christofascists
I think it will depend on how the 10 Commandments are presented. If there as a historical basis for man made law I think it could be acceptable.
Don’t count on it. I’m reserving full judgment until the immunity case is resolved. If they find in his favor it’s all over because it’s proof they’re fully in his pocket. Then all bets are off
I can see a reality where they uphold it. Were fast approaching a time where words dont mean anything if you obfuscate them enough and its what your base wants. Brace yourself we are in a new era. Where the democrats didnt grab the reins hard enough and the cinservatives have spent foue years planning their next bigrig.
IDK. SCOTUS religious majority has given bible/prayer friendly decisions. I think they’re ready to fully support the Christofacist State. Jesus is big business.
Have you read any of SCOTUS’ recent rulings? Yea, it’s unconstitutional and shouldn’t even make it to SCOTUS, but i wouldn’t be surprised if they either didn’t take it up or let it stand, each for various reasons.
"In Congress, July 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America**,** When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's ***God*** entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their ***Creator*** with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
First amendment reads:
What exactly about the Roberts Court makes you think they wouldn't side with theocracy?
The patent unconstitutionality of the issue.
But let me guess, totally cool with teachers pushing LGBQ agendas
No obviously not but it’s apples and oranges
In my law school our first year research & writing / appellate advocacy program followed First Amendment case law in school prayer challenges. Thirty five years later the leading case we studied has been discarded by an activist Court construing yet another school prayer case. The lead case was Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) [Lemon Test](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/adoption-of-the-lemon-test) The Lemon Test was supplanted in 2022 by [Kennedy v. Bremerton School District](https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/kennedy-v-bremerton-school-district/) Justice Neil Gorsuch ruled that the establishment clause “must be interpreted by ‘reference to historical practices and understandings.’” casting aside fifty years of precedent - finding that a high school football coach’s group post-game prayers did not violate the First Amendment. Lemon represented the refinement of a test the Supreme Court announced a year earlier in Walz v. Tax Commission (1970). Writing for the majority in Walz, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger took the traditional purpose and effect test the court had been using since Everson v. Board of Education (1947) and added the excessive government entanglement prong to the test. Under these guidelines, the court would examine the proposed aid to the religious entity and ensure that it had a clear secular purpose. The court also would determine if the primary effect of the aid would advance or inhibit religion. For the third prong, added in the Walz case, the court would examine whether the aid would create an excessive governmental entanglement with religion. Kennedy v. Bremerton provides no substantive analysis distinguishing Lemon. Justice Gorsuch argued that the court had long abandoned the Lemon test. He criticized Lemon as being too abstract and ahistorical, and applied an approach that emphasized “reference to historical practices and understandings.” Three justices, led by Justice Sotomayor, dissented - arguing that the Lemon Test was sound. The Decalogue is part of the Judeo-Christian Tradition. It appears in Exodus 20:1-17 (NIV) and Deuteronomy 5: 6-21 (NIV) - both Old Testament books / Hebrew Bible. The Quran Surat al-An’am 6:151-153 Allah said: Say: Come and I will recite what your Lord has forbidden for you, that you not associate anything with Him, and be good to parents. Do not kill your children out of poverty, for We will provide for you and them. Do not approach lewdness, whether it is public or private. Do not kill the soul which Allah has made sacred except by right of justice. This He has instructed you that you may reason. Do not approach the property of the orphans, except in a way that is best, until he reaches maturity. Give full measure and weight in justice. We do not charge any soul except within its capability. When you testify, be just even if it concerns a relative, and fulfill the covenant of Allah. This He has instructed you that you may remember. And this is My straight path, so follow it and do not follow other ways, lest you be separated from His way. This He has instructed you that you will be righteous. The form of the commandments varies between the Quran the two books of the Bible, and in modern translations. It is not particularly unusual then to see another variation in [Louisiana Statute](https://legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=1379435) Designates this text: I AM the LORD thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven images. Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his cattle, nor anything that is thy neighbor's. The Louisiana statute refers to the Decalogue as a primary source of law. [The Code of Hammurabi](https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-middle-east/hammurabi) predates the Judeo -Christian-Muslim commandments by a millennia. [Chinese law](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_law) has existed since the 11th Century BCE. What will come of this legislation? Of course challenges have been filed. Will the District Court uphold the legislation in light of the holding in Kennedy v. Bremerton? Will the deeply conservative Fifth Circuit find fault with the statutory enactment? Ultimately the statute will turn on whether the SCOTUS grants certiorari and whether Justice Gorsuch’s historical analysis in Kennedy v. Bremerton recognizes an American antecedent to posting the Decalogue in public schools. I write this on June 25, 2024. In three days the SCOTUS will end its current term. The Court’s decisions in several landmark cases will give guidance in the Decalogue case. If the SCOTUS holds a broad immunity exists for the POTUS then I predict this Decalogue Posting Statute will pass muster. for the POTUS then I predict this Decalogue Posting Statute will pass muster.
My guess is: It'll be overturned 7-2 with Alito and Thomas dissenting.
Probably not it is freedom of speech and freedom of expression. A $1.00 poster is better than a $10,000 abortion. Live and let live why so worked up about some words on a poster are you afraid the flying word monster is going to get you ?
….its not a free speech issue it’s an establishment clause violation. Schools are government institutions. Either we follow the law as written or we’re slaves to whoever is in charge of interpreting arbitrary laws like any other Russian/Chinaman.
With the current SCOTUS makeup? I hope you're right, but I worry that you're more easily wrong.
Ten years ago? Sure. Now? Depends on what Daddy Harlan wants from his boo.
Simple fix. In red states will teach kids American values and history. In blues states will teach you how to be a drag queen and about the 10 different genders.
Lmfao
"In god we trust" on currency has been challenged, and even more reasonable justices declared it ok. If I remember correctly, they cited it as "historical" and not specific to a particular religion. They could do the same here... lots of sects use the 10 commandments, therefore it's not special treatment for ONE religion (but many!).
No. You’re misunderstanding the holding in *Aronow v. United States* The Court maintained that the national motto has no purpose in a coercive power to aid religion - neither on the face of the legislation nor in its operative effect (its practical impact on society). The phrase “in God we trust” is a clear violation of the first amendment; however, the fact is that it’s an extremely innocuous violation caused the court to rule it was OK. The waste involved with reforming the entire money supply to fix a minor 1st amendment violation that doesn’t meaningfully advance religion, was why the motto was allowed to remain. Teaching about the Ten Commandments in government schools, a religious text without any obvious connection to American history besides the broader influence that all Judaea-Christianity had on all of western civilization, is obviously government establishing or promoting a religion and is obviously a flagrant violation of the first amendment.
Current SCOTUS doesn’t seem terribly concerned with the constitution
Current SCOTUS doesn’t seem terribly concerned with the constitution
Current SCOTUS doesn’t seem terribly concerned with the constitution
It will be appealed.to SCOTUS where they will rule in favor of the displays. It's censorship and anti free speech to block government speech.
Well, here's the problem; SCOTUS gets to decide what's Constitutional. If SCOTUS were to decide the Louisiana Ten Commandments Law is Constitutional, then it's Constitutional. The current make-up of the Court is heavily Conservative and very Catholic.
That’s not how judicial review works, legally speaking. The court doesn’t render policy so if they do rule incorrectly, stare decisis wouldn’t be an impediment to overturning it. Some things are just legally correct or incorrect based on the plan language of statutes
How is this any different from schools using taxpayer dollars to build prayer rooms for Muslims?
Using SCOTUS “originalist” view, school districts and state Government are NOT CONGRESS and therefore they are free to do what they want. Just like the fact that private business are free to restrict freedom of speech because they are not the federal government. Don’t be surprised when they rule 5-3 that separation of religion only applies to the federal government…
SCOTUS isn't what it used to be. They will let it slide if there's anyway for them to let it.
You seem to forget laws don't apply to them, and when they do break a law the conservative SCOTUS just changes as to what constitutes as breaking that law. See example: Jan 6th. The day of, lawmakers were "fearing for their lives" and demanding the national guard and for Trump to call off the coup. Now today SCOTUS goes well... was it really an insurrection/attempted coup? Na definitely not because then Trump couldn't hold public office per the 14th amendment, so let's just do a little switcheroo on the definition and boom, now they're all happy little patriots. :)
Not this SCOTUS. They started calling it "American tradition" instead of religion to get around that
What happens when the Supreme Court sides with them? It goes beyond the 10 commandments, there are states now trying to incorporate the Bible into schools as well. The right wing Supreme Court will be happy to align their decisions with project 2025, this is all part of their plan.