SCOTUS

[dislaxxic]

Can we actually discuss something?

SCOTUS thread:

HS Football is a municipal employee, and therefore for our purposes an officer of the "state." At the end of every game, he insists that he gets to carry out, at the 50 year line and in the middle of the field, a 15 second prayer. School district asks him to stop because the public display of prayer by a public employee, in a position from which his actions might be gently but actually coercive, shouldn't be promoting or "establishing" religion. He says, no, these are my free exercise rights. Who should win? Why?

I agree, the answer should be pretty clear to those who feel that church and state should be well separated. It can get a little more complicated down in the weeds, but this specific case seems pretty straightforward. In this one, i agree with the Founders. No pray to play.

..

[cradleandshoot]

Can we actually discuss something?

SCOTUS thread:

HS Football is a municipal employee, and therefore for our purposes an officer of the "state." At the end of every game, he insists that he gets to carry out, at the 50 year line and in the middle of the field, a 15 second prayer. School district asks him to stop because the public display of prayer by a public employee, in a position from which his actions might be gently but actually coercive, shouldn't be promoting or "establishing" religion. He says, no, these are my free exercise rights. Who should win? Why?

Okay counselor buzzkill, recess is over. IMO the coach should win. The coach is not promoting any established religion. i will admit that alot of Christians... and Muslims take prayer very seriously. IMO this goes strait to the heart of what the 1st amendment is all about... something called free speech. That is the same amendment that allows you to burn our flag in public but don't you dare take a knee and pray.... Nobody is being forced or being coerced into praying with the coach. They are doing so out of a bizarre and outdated concept called "freewill" imagine that... a concept completely foreign to most FLP liberal types especially if free speech contradicts their personal dogma. What is your opinion counselor?? Are you for or against the 1st amendment??

[cradleandshoot]

Can we actually discuss something?

SCOTUS thread:

HS Football is a municipal employee, and therefore for our purposes an officer of the "state." At the end of every game, he insists that he gets to carry out, at the 50 year line and in the middle of the field, a 15 second prayer. School district asks him to stop because the public display of prayer by a public employee, in a position from which his actions might be gently but actually coercive, shouldn't be promoting or "establishing" religion. He says, no, these are my free exercise rights. Who should win? Why?

I agree, the answer should be pretty clear to those who feel that church and state should be well separated. It can get a little more complicated down in the weeds, but this specific case seems pretty straightforward. In this one, i agree with the Founders. No pray to play.

..

Clarify for me Dis... i don't recall the founding fathers ever saying no pray to play. You reached really deep up your posterior to pull that one out.

[MDlaxfan76]

Can we actually discuss something?

SCOTUS thread:

HS Football is a municipal employee, and therefore for our purposes an officer of the "state." At the end of every game, he insists that he gets to carry out, at the 50 year line and in the middle of the field, a 15 second prayer. School district asks him to stop because the public display of prayer by a public employee, in a position from which his actions might be gently but actually coercive, shouldn't be promoting or "establishing" religion. He says, no, these are my free exercise rights. Who should win? Why?

I agree, the answer should be pretty clear to those who feel that church and state should be well separated. It can get a little more complicated down in the weeds, but this specific case seems pretty straightforward. In this one, i agree with the Founders. No pray to play.

..

Clarify for me Dis... i don't recall the founding fathers ever saying no pray to play. You reached really deep up your posterior to pull that one out.

Actually they did, though their language was less bumper sticker.

[jhu72]

Can we actually discuss something?

SCOTUS thread:

HS Football is a municipal employee, and therefore for our purposes an officer of the "state." At the end of every game, he insists that he gets to carry out, at the 50 year line and in the middle of the field, a 15 second prayer. School district asks him to stop because the public display of prayer by a public employee, in a position from which his actions might be gently but actually coercive, shouldn't be promoting or "establishing" religion. He says, no, these are my free exercise rights. Who should win? Why?

I agree, the answer should be pretty clear to those who feel that church and state should be well separated. It can get a little more complicated down in the weeds, but this specific case seems pretty straightforward. In this one, i agree with the Founders. No pray to play.

..

... even the 5 chuckleheads should realize they have the ability to really p*ss off half or more of the country. It will be a very narrow ruling in favor of their bias and passion - just pulling it out of their asses again.

[cradleandshoot]

Can we actually discuss something?

SCOTUS thread:

HS Football is a municipal employee, and therefore for our purposes an officer of the "state." At the end of every game, he insists that he gets to carry out, at the 50 year line and in the middle of the field, a 15 second prayer. School district asks him to stop because the public display of prayer by a public employee, in a position from which his actions might be gently but actually coercive, shouldn't be promoting or "establishing" religion. He says, no, these are my free exercise rights. Who should win? Why?

... think it is pretty clear prior to this court.

Maybe "this court" will have an opportunity to correct a wrong. You FLP folks have been bazhdardizing the separation of church and state concept long enough. When it becomes "unconstitutional" for a coach to pray in a public school I ask this... what came first in this country.. the right to pray or the concept of a public school???

[cradleandshoot]

Can we actually discuss something?

SCOTUS thread:

HS Football is a municipal employee, and therefore for our purposes an officer of the "state." At the end of every game, he insists that he gets to carry out, at the 50 year line and in the middle of the field, a 15 second prayer. School district asks him to stop because the public display of prayer by a public employee, in a position from which his actions might be gently but actually coercive, shouldn't be promoting or "establishing" religion. He says, no, these are my free exercise rights. Who should win? Why?

I agree, the answer should be pretty clear to those who feel that church and state should be well separated. It can get a little more complicated down in the weeds, but this specific case seems pretty straightforward. In this one, i agree with the Founders. No pray to play.

..

Clarify for me Dis... i don't recall the founding fathers ever saying no pray to play. You reached really deep up your posterior to pull that one out.

Actually they did, though their language was less bumper sticker.

How so??? The founding fathers had all sorts of disagreements about religion and its role in government. In regards to "pray to play" I don't think George Washington played on a lacrosse team, but I could be wrong...

[jhu72]

Can we actually discuss something?

SCOTUS thread:

HS Football is a municipal employee, and therefore for our purposes an officer of the "state." At the end of every game, he insists that he gets to carry out, at the 50 year line and in the middle of the field, a 15 second prayer. School district asks him to stop because the public display of prayer by a public employee, in a position from which his actions might be gently but actually coercive, shouldn't be promoting or "establishing" religion. He says, no, these are my free exercise rights. Who should win? Why?

... think it is pretty clear prior to this court.

Maybe "this court" will have an opportunity to correct a wrong. You FLP folks have been bazhdardizing the separation of church and state concept long enough. When it becomes "unconstitutional" for a coach to pray in a public school I ask this... what came first in this country.. the right to pray or the concept of a public school???

... the right not to be forced or coerced into praying came first.

[cradleandshoot]

Can we actually discuss something?

SCOTUS thread:

HS Football is a municipal employee, and therefore for our purposes an officer of the "state." At the end of every game, he insists that he gets to carry out, at the 50 year line and in the middle of the field, a 15 second prayer. School district asks him to stop because the public display of prayer by a public employee, in a position from which his actions might be gently but actually coercive, shouldn't be promoting or "establishing" religion. He says, no, these are my free exercise rights. Who should win? Why?

I agree, the answer should be pretty clear to those who feel that church and state should be well separated. It can get a little more complicated down in the weeds, but this specific case seems pretty straightforward. In this one, i agree with the Founders. No pray to play.

..

... even the 5 chuckleheads should realize they have the ability to really p*ss off half or more of the country. It will be a very narrow ruling in favor of their bias and passion - just pulling it out of their asses again.

My math is fuzzy. I thought the SCOTUS consisted of 6 chuckleheads and 3 dumbasses...

[cradleandshoot]

Can we actually discuss something?

SCOTUS thread:

HS Football is a municipal employee, and therefore for our purposes an officer of the "state." At the end of every game, he insists that he gets to carry out, at the 50 year line and in the middle of the field, a 15 second prayer. School district asks him to stop because the public display of prayer by a public employee, in a position from which his actions might be gently but actually coercive, shouldn't be promoting or "establishing" religion. He says, no, these are my free exercise rights. Who should win? Why?

... think it is pretty clear prior to this court.

Maybe "this court" will have an opportunity to correct a wrong. You FLP folks have been bazhdardizing the separation of church and state concept long enough. When it becomes "unconstitutional" for a coach to pray in a public school I ask this... what came first in this country.. the right to pray or the concept of a public school???

... the right not to be forced or coerced into praying came first.

Who is being coerced???? i use to pray all the time as a young catholic. I don't recall EVER being FORCED to pray. No priest ever held a gun to my head and said pray you little SOB... Unless your a southern baptist, no one is going to make you pray. IMO prayer is fruitless and hopeless. if doing so gives you comfort and hope, who am i to tell you otherwise??

[MDlaxfan76]

Can we actually discuss something?

SCOTUS thread:

HS Football is a municipal employee, and therefore for our purposes an officer of the "state." At the end of every game, he insists that he gets to carry out, at the 50 year line and in the middle of the field, a 15 second prayer. School district asks him to stop because the public display of prayer by a public employee, in a position from which his actions might be gently but actually coercive, shouldn't be promoting or "establishing" religion. He says, no, these are my free exercise rights. Who should win? Why?

Okay counselor buzzkill, recess is over. IMO the coach should win. The coach is not promoting any established religion. i will admit that alot of Christians... and Muslims take prayer very seriously. IMO this goes strait to the heart of what the 1st amendment is all about... something called free speech. That is the same amendment that allows you to burn our flag in public but don't you dare take a knee and pray.... Nobody is being forced or being coerced into praying with the coach. They are doing so out of a bizarre and outdated concept called "freewill" imagine that... a concept completely foreign to most FLP liberal types especially if free speech contradicts their personal dogma. What is your opinion counselor?? Are you for or against the 1st amendment??

The facts of the case appear to be otherwise, cradle. Apparently there was coercion felt by his players, who felt forced to participate, and if they did not, they would face repercussions. That's their testimony. And yes, the prayers were specifically Christian.

The school said it would be just fine with the coach said his prayer privately, but not in a manner that pressured others to join him. He refused and increased the pressure and the spectacle.

The coach has a right to free speech, but not to violate the rights of others, nor to perpetual employment.

[MDlaxfan76]

Can we actually discuss something?

SCOTUS thread:

HS Football is a municipal employee, and therefore for our purposes an officer of the "state." At the end of every game, he insists that he gets to carry out, at the 50 year line and in the middle of the field, a 15 second prayer. School district asks him to stop because the public display of prayer by a public employee, in a position from which his actions might be gently but actually coercive, shouldn't be promoting or "establishing" religion. He says, no, these are my free exercise rights. Who should win? Why?

I agree, the answer should be pretty clear to those who feel that church and state should be well separated. It can get a little more complicated down in the weeds, but this specific case seems pretty straightforward. In this one, i agree with the Founders. No pray to play.

..

Clarify for me Dis... i don't recall the founding fathers ever saying no pray to play. You reached really deep up your posterior to pull that one out.

Actually they did, though their language was less bumper sticker.

How so??? The founding fathers had all sorts of disagreements about religion and its role in government. In regards to "pray to play" I don't think George Washington played on a lacrosse team, but I could be wrong...

as I said, bumper sticker, play on words "pay to play"...the Founders addressed making sure that the government could not/would not establish any religion as preferred by the state, and the courts have thoroughly litigated what this means over a couple of centuries to mean that the state cannot/should not pressure anyone to pray, much less in conformance with any specific religious belief set. At the same time, each individual is free to hold whatever religious beliefs without interference from the government. Where this comes into conflict, is when people act upon their beliefs in contravention of another's rights. It is particularly clear when that person is a representative of the State, with implied powers of such...as is the case of a public school employee, especially one with significant authority as would be a football coach.

[cradleandshoot]

Can we actually discuss something?

SCOTUS thread:

HS Football is a municipal employee, and therefore for our purposes an officer of the "state." At the end of every game, he insists that he gets to carry out, at the 50 year line and in the middle of the field, a 15 second prayer. School district asks him to stop because the public display of prayer by a public employee, in a position from which his actions might be gently but actually coercive, shouldn't be promoting or "establishing" religion. He says, no, these are my free exercise rights. Who should win? Why?

Okay counselor buzzkill, recess is over. IMO the coach should win. The coach is not promoting any established religion. i will admit that alot of Christians... and Muslims take prayer very seriously. IMO this goes strait to the heart of what the 1st amendment is all about... something called free speech. That is the same amendment that allows you to burn our flag in public but don't you dare take a knee and pray.... Nobody is being forced or being coerced into praying with the coach. They are doing so out of a bizarre and outdated concept called "freewill" imagine that... a concept completely foreign to most FLP liberal types especially if free speech contradicts their personal dogma. What is your opinion counselor?? Are you for or against the 1st amendment??

The facts of the case appear to be otherwise, cradle. Apparently there was coercion felt by his players, who felt forced to participate, and if they did not, they would face repercussions. That's their testimony. And yes, the prayers were specifically Christian.

The school said it would be just fine with the coach said his prayer privately, but not in a manner that pressured others to join him. He refused and increased the pressure and the spectacle.

The coach has a right to free speech, but not to violate the rights of others, nor to perpetual employment.

I disagree a 100% I would never myself choose to pray because a coach on a team chose to do so. The solution is VERY VERY VERY simple. The coach says I'm going to pray now. Those of you who choose to join me are welcome. None of you students have to do anything you don't want to do. FTR, i would never have encouraged or discouraged my own two sons from praying if they chose to do so. Prayer has nothing to do with coercing students. Prayer is an act of faith that christians and muslims and folks of other religious beliefs engage in out of respect for their creator. Why that concept troubles so many of you is beyond me?? I'm more troubled by people who would burn our flag in public and claim that to be a patriotic display of their love for our country... also protected under the 1st amendment. I wonder if fellow flag burners are coerced into joining the flag burning festivities???

[cradleandshoot]

Can we actually discuss something?

SCOTUS thread:

HS Football is a municipal employee, and therefore for our purposes an officer of the "state." At the end of every game, he insists that he gets to carry out, at the 50 year line and in the middle of the field, a 15 second prayer. School district asks him to stop because the public display of prayer by a public employee, in a position from which his actions might be gently but actually coercive, shouldn't be promoting or "establishing" religion. He says, no, these are my free exercise rights. Who should win? Why?

I agree, the answer should be pretty clear to those who feel that church and state should be well separated. It can get a little more complicated down in the weeds, but this specific case seems pretty straightforward. In this one, i agree with the Founders. No pray to play.

..

Clarify for me Dis... i don't recall the founding fathers ever saying no pray to play. You reached really deep up your posterior to pull that one out.

Actually they did, though their language was less bumper sticker.

How so??? The founding fathers had all sorts of disagreements about religion and its role in government. In regards to "pray to play" I don't think George Washington played on a lacrosse team, but I could be wrong...

as I said, bumper sticker, play on words "pay to play"...the Founders addressed making sure that the government could not/would not establish any religion as preferred by the state, and the courts have thoroughly litigated what this means over a couple of centuries to mean that the state cannot/should not pressure anyone to pray, much less in conformance with any specific religious belief set. At the same time, each individual is free to hold whatever religious beliefs without interference from the government. Where this comes into conflict, is when people act upon their beliefs in contravention of another's rights. It is particularly clear when that person is a representative of the State, with implied powers of such...as is the case of a public school employee, especially one with significant authority as would be a football coach.

Who is "establishing" any religion??? The right to pray is not about or inclusive to any one religion. So if a muslim teacher chooses to pray when he/she is in school, as their religious belief dictates, they are coercing their students into praying with them?? If the teacher was actually attempting to influence his/her students towards their religious beliefs, your assertation would be correct. If the moment is simply about saying a silent prayer, then you can pray to or for anything you want. If that oak tree outside the school window is your higher power... then pray to that tree.

[dislaxxic]

Good grief, Cranky READ THE FORKIN ARTICLE and get back to us with something approaching cogent commentary. You're flapping your gums here in an extraordinarily uninformed way. This author is actually TRYING to give Brett Kegenough? some credit here...

..

[Seacoaster(1)]

Can we actually discuss something?

SCOTUS thread:

HS Football is a municipal employee, and therefore for our purposes an officer of the "state." At the end of every game, he insists that he gets to carry out, at the 50 year line and in the middle of the field, a 15 second prayer. School district asks him to stop because the public display of prayer by a public employee, in a position from which his actions might be gently but actually coercive, shouldn't be promoting or "establishing" religion. He says, no, these are my free exercise rights. Who should win? Why?

Okay counselor buzzkill, recess is over. IMO the coach should win. The coach is not promoting any established religion. i will admit that alot of Christians... and Muslims take prayer very seriously. IMO this goes strait to the heart of what the 1st amendment is all about... something called free speech. That is the same amendment that allows you to burn our flag in public but don't you dare take a knee and pray.... Nobody is being forced or being coerced into praying with the coach. They are doing so out of a bizarre and outdated concept called "freewill" imagine that... a concept completely foreign to most FLP liberal types especially if free speech contradicts their personal dogma. What is your opinion counselor?? Are you for or against the 1st amendment??

The facts of the case appear to be otherwise, cradle. Apparently there was coercion felt by his players, who felt forced to participate, and if they did not, they would face repercussions. That's their testimony. And yes, the prayers were specifically Christian.

The school said it would be just fine with the coach said his prayer privately, but not in a manner that pressured others to join him. He refused and increased the pressure and the spectacle.

The coach has a right to free speech, but not to violate the rights of others, nor to perpetual employment.

I disagree a 100% I would never myself choose to pray because a coach on a team chose to do so. The solution is VERY VERY VERY simple. The coach says I'm going to pray now. Those of you who choose to join me are welcome. None of you students have to do anything you don't want to do. FTR, i would never have encouraged or discouraged my own two sons from praying if they chose to do so. Prayer has nothing to do with coercing students. Prayer is an act of faith that christians and muslims and folks of other religious beliefs engage in out of respect for their creator. Why that concept troubles so many of you is beyond me?? I'm more troubled by people who would burn our flag in public and claim that to be a patriotic display of their love for our country... also protected under the 1st amendment. I wonder if fellow flag burners are coerced into joining the flag burning festivities???

The two important values -- free speech/free exercise on the one hand, and the prohibition on the "state" advancing or promoting a religion -- can be reconciled, right? And that is by precluding the coach from the public display of his personal act of thanks to his supreme being. He can go to church; he can close his eyes and make a prayer in his head; he can wait until he gets in his car after the game is over. His free exercise rights are completely unimpeded by the prohibition on the public/with team display of religiosity. His free speech rights are balanced against the [erstwhile?] understanding that the school system cannot be seen as promoting any religion, and must give way to the other First Amendment value that government in a pluralistic society cannot endorse or be seen to endorse a religion.

Establishment of religion is endorsement, even indirect or tacit endorsement. That is what the coach is doing: he is promoting his notion of what pleases God.

'72 and MDLaxFan are right: in former times this is actually a pretty easy call.

C&S, respectfully, I think that you understate or underemphasize the desire for playing time, team "culture," and a sense of belonging to the unit. The coercive power of a charismatic coach or teacher or administrator, particularly one with the power to be seen to reward -- starting roles, playing time, etc. -- is absolutely real.

[MDlaxfan76]

Can we actually discuss something?

SCOTUS thread:

HS Football is a municipal employee, and therefore for our purposes an officer of the "state." At the end of every game, he insists that he gets to carry out, at the 50 year line and in the middle of the field, a 15 second prayer. School district asks him to stop because the public display of prayer by a public employee, in a position from which his actions might be gently but actually coercive, shouldn't be promoting or "establishing" religion. He says, no, these are my free exercise rights. Who should win? Why?

Okay counselor buzzkill, recess is over. IMO the coach should win. The coach is not promoting any established religion. i will admit that alot of Christians... and Muslims take prayer very seriously. IMO this goes strait to the heart of what the 1st amendment is all about... something called free speech. That is the same amendment that allows you to burn our flag in public but don't you dare take a knee and pray.... Nobody is being forced or being coerced into praying with the coach. They are doing so out of a bizarre and outdated concept called "freewill" imagine that... a concept completely foreign to most FLP liberal types especially if free speech contradicts their personal dogma. What is your opinion counselor?? Are you for or against the 1st amendment??

The facts of the case appear to be otherwise, cradle. Apparently there was coercion felt by his players, who felt forced to participate, and if they did not, they would face repercussions. That's their testimony. And yes, the prayers were specifically Christian.

The school said it would be just fine with the coach said his prayer privately, but not in a manner that pressured others to join him. He refused and increased the pressure and the spectacle.

The coach has a right to free speech, but not to violate the rights of others, nor to perpetual employment.

I disagree a 100% I would never myself choose to pray because a coach on a team chose to do so. The solution is VERY VERY VERY simple. The coach says I'm going to pray now. Those of you who choose to join me are welcome. None of you students have to do anything you don't want to do. FTR, i would never have encouraged or discouraged my own two sons from praying if they chose to do so. Prayer has nothing to do with coercing students. Prayer is an act of faith that christians and muslims and folks of other religious beliefs engage in out of respect for their creator. Why that concept troubles so many of you is beyond me?? I'm more troubled by people who would burn our flag in public and claim that to be a patriotic display of their love for our country... also protected under the 1st amendment. I wonder if fellow flag burners are coerced into joining the flag burning festivities???

But that's not what the coach did according to the students' testimony. They felt coerced, based on his actions.

I have zero concern with anyone praying privately, nor with anyone praying publicly away from their role on behalf of the State. I'm also okay with a non-denominational, open prayer in certain public settings, though that needs to be super careful.

This is about the power of the State being abused.
Flag burning, as offensive as I find it to be, is an exercise not by the State but by the individual.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Good grief, Cranky READ THE FORKIN ARTICLE and get back to us with something approaching cogent commentary. You're flapping your gums here in an extraordinarily uninformed way. This author is actually TRYING to give Brett Kegenough? some credit here...

..

Here, spoonfeeding:

"Not every member of the football team shared their coach’s Christian faith. But virtually all of them felt compelled to participate. Team members later explained that praying with Kennedy was “expected.” The coach even encouraged his own players to recruit their opponents and their coaches into the prayer circle. Some students joined in only because they feared they “wouldn’t get to play as much” if they declined, or because “they did not wish to separate themselves from the team.”

These are exactly the issues that the Founders feared, whatever the context: state actors letting people subordinate to them know that there is a correct religion, and an incorrect one, or worse probably, irreligion. Pilgrims, Puritans and Anne Hutchinson anyone?

[jhu72]

Good grief, Cranky READ THE FORKIN ARTICLE and get back to us with something approaching cogent commentary. You're flapping your gums here in an extraordinarily uninformed way. This author is actually TRYING to give Brett Kegenough? some credit here...

..

Here, spoonfeeding:

"Not every member of the football team shared their coach’s Christian faith. But virtually all of them felt compelled to participate. Team members later explained that praying with Kennedy was “expected.” The coach even encouraged his own players to recruit their opponents and their coaches into the prayer circle. Some students joined in only because they feared they “wouldn’t get to play as much” if they declined, or because “they did not wish to separate themselves from the team.”

These are exactly the issues that the Founders feared, whatever the context: state actors letting people subordinate to them know that there is a correct religion, and an incorrect one, or worse probably, irreligion. Pilgrims, Puritans and Anne Hutchinson anyone?

... this stuff is only hard if it is your intention to make it hard

[AOD]

Good grief, Cranky READ THE FORKIN ARTICLE and get back to us with something approaching cogent commentary. You're flapping your gums here in an extraordinarily uninformed way. This author is actually TRYING to give Brett Kegenough? some credit here...

..

Here, spoonfeeding:

"Not every member of the football team shared their coach’s Christian faith. But virtually all of them felt compelled to participate. Team members later explained that praying with Kennedy was “expected.” The coach even encouraged his own players to recruit their opponents and their coaches into the prayer circle. Some students joined in only because they feared they “wouldn’t get to play as much” if they declined, or because “they did not wish to separate themselves from the team.”

These are exactly the issues that the Founders feared, whatever the context: state actors letting people subordinate to them know that there is a correct religion, and an incorrect one, or worse probably, irreligion. Pilgrims, Puritans and Anne Hutchinson anyone?

More, from Amy Howe (both on her blog and on Scotusblog):

Arguing for the school district, lawyer Richard Katskee told the justices that the problem was not Kennedy’s quiet prayer by himself. Instead, Katskee explained, the issue was that Kennedy “insisted on audible prayers at the 50-yard line with students,” because he believed that the prayers “are how he helps these kids be better people.” Kennedy’s actions, Katskee continued, put pressure on players to join the prayers, “divided the coaching staff, sparked vitriol against school officials, and led to the field being stormed and students getting knocked down.”

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/04/high ... -justices/

This personal belief cannot take the form of state action.

Clement, whose advocacy I generally both admire (notwithstanding his representation of Huguely) and disagree with, says incredibly the facts aren't clear (Clement’s response prompted Kagan to ask whether the main question in the case before the justices is what the correct version of the facts is. Clement answered that it is “one of the questions in this case,” ) while Alito unsurprisingly says the facts may not matter (because he knows how he'll decide the case).

This is a low risk opportunity for Kavanaugh to fend off the cynics by following his line of questioning in his decision.