SCOTUS

[cradleandshoot]

Nope, that's just flat wrong Joe. Read the series of posts Cradle made on this establishment court case and it's as obvious as the nose on your lecturing, baffling (repeated) interjections defending Cradle's un-informed ramblings... that it's almost as astonishing as cradle's off-base, knee jerk reactions to the story. They really aren't "opinions" they're just trolling, frankly. Cranky CLEARLY hadn't read the article. It's all there in black and white...there's absolutely NO disputing it. Defend specific points of his "point of view" on the objective information in the story. You can't.

..

I have a life Dis. When YOU post some bullchit link to a SALON article I consider the source of the link and what I know will be the content of the link. Why would I waste my time reading an article that only supports your narrow minded FLP vision of the world. I may be older but I have been on this forum long enough to become wiser. The odd fact is IMO with all the challenges facing high school kids today that some of you folks are tinkling down your pant leg about a coach who may or may not have overstepped his boundaries. My solution is interview the entire team, each and every player and ask them how they feel as to if they were coerced into praying.
All we have gotten here is "some" players and a younger version of deep throat who apparently is scared of retribution.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Nope, that's just flat wrong Joe. Read the series of posts Cradle made on this establishment court case and it's as obvious as the nose on your lecturing, baffling (repeated) interjections defending Cradle's un-informed ramblings... that it's almost as astonishing as cradle's off-base, knee jerk reactions to the story. They really aren't "opinions" they're just trolling, frankly. Cranky CLEARLY hadn't read the article. It's all there in black and white...there's absolutely NO disputing it. Defend specific points of his "point of view" on the objective information in the story. You can't.

..

I have a life Dis. When YOU post some bullchit link to a SALON article I consider the source of the link and what I know will be the content of the link. Why would I waste my time reading an article that only supports your narrow minded FLP vision of the world. I may be older but I have been on this forum long enough to become wiser. The odd fact is IMO with all the challenges facing high school kids today that some of you folks are tinkling down your pant leg about a coach who may or may not have overstepped his boundaries. My solution is interview the entire team, each and every player and ask them how they feel as to if they were coerced into praying.
All we have gotten here is "some" players and a younger version of deep throat who apparently is scared of retribution.

Respectfully, I think you are missing the point of the Establishment Clause, which is what all the reading material heaped upon you in the last day or so was intended to show. If there is a kid scared of retribution, that's enough to place "private" worship led by a public authority figure off-limits for his job. Ggait posted a very nice narrative on line drawing. I'd suggest reviewing it.

[cradleandshoot]

Do you read anything anyone posts?

no, he simply spots off longwinded screeds without doing bothering to do his homework. Nothing wrong with having an opinion, but popping off at others without even bothering to read what anyone else has said...well, we can picture a cranky old guy in his basement who would be better off out tilling the garden or walking the dog...spring needs to come soon for him...

cradle, here's the brief from the school:https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... 0FINAL.pdf

Thanks MDLaxFan. C&S, read pages 3 through 13, which summarizes the factual record. You will see that this is performative religion, where everyone is made to watch the spectacle and where younger people are forced to decide to be in, or be out.

I read them. I don't have your legal eagle ability to be able to break down what it all means. What I read describes to me a multi year verbal ping pong game between the coach and the HS administration. The school finally declared after publicity turned these impromptu prayer sessions into a 3 ring circus of people not involved with team storming the field knocking people over that it became a safety concern. What I did not read in those 13 pages and FTR I think there were a hundred pages more, was the coach ever making any statement saying his players HAD to pray to play. There were statements from some players saying that is what they were led to believe. This case now becomes a matter for the SCOTUS to decide. I'm not a lawyer but the basic premise is not that complicated. Where does a citizens right of free speech and religious freedom become restricted by a separation of church and state? That is the bottom line here after all when you cut to the chase. FTR coaster, there was nothing earth shattering in those 13 pages. IMO it was a recap about what the whole brewhaha was all about. Then again I'm not a lawyer. If you read further on some of these documents become so tedious and repetitive keeping your eyeballs in your head becomes quite a chore. It is amazing to me that SCOTUS justices don't have serious drinking issues if this is the sort of stuff they deal with on a daily basis. I believe the link posted went on to over a 100 pages. I guess you lawyers don't believe in the premise of KIS?

[cradleandshoot]

Nope, that's just flat wrong Joe. Read the series of posts Cradle made on this establishment court case and it's as obvious as the nose on your lecturing, baffling (repeated) interjections defending Cradle's un-informed ramblings... that it's almost as astonishing as cradle's off-base, knee jerk reactions to the story. They really aren't "opinions" they're just trolling, frankly. Cranky CLEARLY hadn't read the article. It's all there in black and white...there's absolutely NO disputing it. Defend specific points of his "point of view" on the objective information in the story. You can't.

..

I have a life Dis. When YOU post some bullchit link to a SALON article I consider the source of the link and what I know will be the content of the link. Why would I waste my time reading an article that only supports your narrow minded FLP vision of the world. I may be older but I have been on this forum long enough to become wiser. The odd fact is IMO with all the challenges facing high school kids today that some of you folks are tinkling down your pant leg about a coach who may or may not have overstepped his boundaries. My solution is interview the entire team, each and every player and ask them how they feel as to if they were coerced into praying.
All we have gotten here is "some" players and a younger version of deep throat who apparently is scared of retribution.

Respectfully, I think you are missing the point of the Establishment Clause, which is what all the reading material heaped upon you in the last day or so was intended to show. If there is a kid scared of retribution, that's enough to place "private" worship led by a public authority figure off-limits for his job. Ggait posted a very nice narrative on line drawing. I'd suggest reviewing it.

Again to be scared of retribution there would have to be a threat, however subtle or blatant of retribution. Tell me where or how the coach made this threat? The player came to this conclusion all on his own with no apparent reason for doing so. So does the establishment clause include hypothetical logic outside of the facts because of what an individual might feel irregardless of reality?? If the coach never made any threat other than what the player feels is being implied is that the coaches problem or the players problem?? I'm guessing all this fine line legal walking is why your profession is so well paid. I guess for every legal argument to be made there is a lawyer on the opposing side with an equally persuasive counter point.

[dislaxxic]

Respectfully, I think you are missing the point of the Establishment Clause.

"Missing the point", thy name is cradleandshoot

Moving the goalposts while ALSO missing the point...that would be ol' Joe.

MD's point to C&S is "not valid"? Really Joe? An ACTUAL (very interesting) discussion is going on about this court case and the Establishment Clause. Cradle busts into it like Mr Ruff 'n Gruff and starts babbling about 1st Amendment this and "no one is coercing anyone" that. Clearly hadn't read the story to get the story of the entire issue at hand before the high court. Busting in and immediately missing the point is fine, it's kinda what Cradle does...and yeah, it gets push-back, and will continue to get push-back. When you (Joe) and he start spouting your nonsense about FLP this and far left that...it just (once again) shows us all how "Q" you guys quickly get when your position in the discussion is, shall we say, "off".

..

[dislaxxic]

I read them. I don't have your legal eagle ability to be able to break down what it all means. What I read describes to me a multi year verbal ping pong game between the coach and the HS administration. The school finally declared after publicity turned these impromptu prayer sessions into a 3 ring circus of people not involved with team storming the field knocking people over that it became a safety concern. What I did not read in those 13 pages and FTR I think there were a hundred pages more, was the coach ever making any statement saying his players HAD to pray to play. There were statements from some players saying that is what they were led to believe. This case now becomes a matter for the SCOTUS to decide. I'm not a lawyer but the basic premise is not that complicated. Where does a citizens right of free speech and religious freedom become restricted by a separation of church and state? That is the bottom line here after all when you cut to the chase. FTR coaster, there was nothing earth shattering in those 13 pages. IMO it was a recap about what the whole brewhaha was all about. Then again I'm not a lawyer. If you read further on some of these documents become so tedious and repetitive keeping your eyeballs in your head becomes quite a chore. It is amazing to me that SCOTUS justices don't have serious drinking issues if this is the sort of stuff they deal with on a daily basis. I believe the link posted went on to over a 100 pages. I guess you lawyers don't believe in the premise of KIS?

See? That wasn't so hard. Although still a little "off" (IMO)...this is taking part in the discussion. All that other stuff you threw against the wall earlier, evidently because seeing "Salon" got your hackles up, could've been avoided.

Thanks for reading it. We'll see what happens in the case now, OK?

..

[MDlaxfan76]

Do you read anything anyone posts?

no, he simply spots off longwinded screeds without doing bothering to do his homework. Nothing wrong with having an opinion, but popping off at others without even bothering to read what anyone else has said...well, we can picture a cranky old guy in his basement who would be better off out tilling the garden or walking the dog...spring needs to come soon for him...

cradle, here's the brief from the school:https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... 0FINAL.pdf

What you talking about Willis?? You want to criticize me for being long-winded?? Pot meet kettle. I can spout off in 2 paragraphs. You could never condense your spouting to that level on your best day. Too cold to rototill the garden. This weekend is suppose to be sunny and mild. I may grab a couple of bundles of peat moss and till it in. Roxy is my sweetheart. She has a history that even a cold hearted orb like yourself would respect. She was abused/neglected and spent the 1st 2 years of her life being barepawed and pregnant. When she came to rescued treasures she was scared and pregnant.She gave birth to 8 pups, 1 did not make it. Two weeks later her foster parents took in 8 abandoned puppies. My little Roxy nursed those pups as if they were her own. So when you make fun of me about her, remember this.. if more humans possessed the capacity for love and unselfishness that she does, the world would be a much better place. As I write this she is staring up at me pawing at my leg. Time for our stroll. You can go back to spewing your anger and hatred towards trump and your party. This old guy has more important things to do...

I'm glad you got my joke about long-winded.
I also know your love of Roxy and your pleasure in your gardens.
We share a number of such common pleasures. Just a reminder.

I provided the brief, so that you could read it for yourself rather than simply rejecting reading an article from a source you refuse to read.

Your fundamental presumption that there was no coercion, thus the exact same as the experiences you recounted, is simply mistaken. The testimony in the case was that the coach made his players feel pressure to participate and actually retaliated against one who did not. The coach is definitely in a power position and is a representative of the State. The school was clear that a private prayer was perfectly acceptable but nothing that implied pressure on others to participate. It was only when the coach ratcheted up such public display and pressure that he was fired.

I quite agreed with your comment that such a coach would be better suited to a private school setting in which such a religious display was part of the school's mission. Not an instrument of the State.

The current SCOTUS may nevertheless decide to rule on the coach's behalf, which would be a quite serious departure from all precedent and would open up a very large can of worms for all sorts of religious coercion in various State settings. Or they may not.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Do you read anything anyone posts?

no, he simply spots off longwinded screeds without doing bothering to do his homework. Nothing wrong with having an opinion, but popping off at others without even bothering to read what anyone else has said...well, we can picture a cranky old guy in his basement who would be better off out tilling the garden or walking the dog...spring needs to come soon for him...

cradle, here's the brief from the school:https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... 0FINAL.pdf

What you talking about Willis?? You want to criticize me for being long-winded?? Pot meet kettle. I can spout off in 2 paragraphs. You could never condense your spouting to that level on your best day. Too cold to rototill the garden. This weekend is suppose to be sunny and mild. I may grab a couple of bundles of peat moss and till it in. Roxy is my sweetheart. She has a history that even a cold hearted orb like yourself would respect. She was abused/neglected and spent the 1st 2 years of her life being barepawed and pregnant. When she came to rescued treasures she was scared and pregnant.She gave birth to 8 pups, 1 did not make it. Two weeks later her foster parents took in 8 abandoned puppies. My little Roxy nursed those pups as if they were her own. So when you make fun of me about her, remember this.. if more humans possessed the capacity for love and unselfishness that she does, the world would be a much better place. As I write this she is staring up at me pawing at my leg. Time for our stroll. You can go back to spewing your anger and hatred towards trump and your party. This old guy has more important things to do...

I'm glad you got my joke about long-winded.
I also know your love of Roxy and your pleasure in your gardens.
We share a number of such common pleasures. Just a reminder.

I provided the brief, so that you could read it for yourself rather than simply rejecting reading an article from a source you refuse to read.

Your fundamental presumption that there was no coercion, thus the exact same as the experiences you recounted, is simply mistaken. The testimony in the case was that the coach made his players feel pressure to participate and actually retaliated against one who did not. The coach is definitely in a power position and is a representative of the State. The school was clear that a private prayer was perfectly acceptable but nothing that implied pressure on others to participate. It was only when the coach ratcheted up such public display and pressure that he was fired.

I quite agreed with your comment that such a coach would be better suited to a private school setting in which such a religious display was part of the school's mission. Not an instrument of the State.

The current SCOTUS may nevertheless decide to rule on the coach's behalf, which would be a quite serious departure from all precedent and would open up a very large can of worms for all sorts of religious coercion in various State settings. Or they may not.

+1. Good post.

[AOD]

Again to be scared of retribution there would have to be a threat, however subtle or blatant of retribution. Tell me where or how the coach made this threat? The player came to this conclusion all on his own with no apparent reason for doing so.

Now you're interposing a test the Court has not - Proof of threat. In fact, Kavanaugh recognizes the difficulty in dealing with precisely this issue. Again, from the Slate article:

Kavanaugh . . ask[ed]: “What about the player who thinks, if I don’t participate in this, I won’t start next week? Or the player who thinks, if I do participate in this, I will start next week?” Clement responded that the school could issue “a clear message that that’s inappropriate,” but Kavanaugh pushed back. “How will you ferret that out?” the justice asked. “Because every player’s trying to get on the good side of the coach. And every parent is worried about the coach exercising favoritism in terms of the starting lineup, playing time, recommendations for colleges, etc.”

Kavanaugh [then] launched into a monologue about his still-unaddressed concerns:

I guess the problem at the heart of it is you’re not going to know. The coach is probably not going to say anything like “The reason I’m starting you is that you knelt at the 50-yard line.” You’re never going to know. And that leads to the suspicions by parents—I think, I’m just playing out what the other side is saying here—the suspicion by parents that the reason Johnny’s starting and you’re not is [because] he was part of the prayer circle. I don’t think you can get around that. That’s a real thing out there. That’s going to be a real thing in situations like this. I don’t know how to deal with that, frankly.

I realize you haven't read the record entirely, but the "no apparent reason" comment made above is not supported by the record. In fact, Kavanaugh - a coach himself - recognizes the risk each player assumes when that player fails to conform to on-field conduct promoted by the coach.

[ggait]

I realize you haven't read the record entirely, but the "no apparent reason" comment made above is not supported by the record. In fact, Kavanaugh - a coach himself - recognizes the risk each player assumes when that player fails to conform to on-field conduct promoted by the coach.

That is an interesting angle. The two most centrist conservatives (Roberts, Kav) are the two most sporty guys on SCOTUS. Both were multi-sport HS athletes, Kav tried to walk onto the hoops team at Yale, and Kav is also a long time coach of his daughters' hoops teams.

Possible that they would see this case as being mostly about sports team dynamics rather than religious liberty. Where pleasing the coach has a lot to do with how successful you are on the team. If you want PT, you need to show up and participate in lots of activities in order to show you are a good teammate -- off-season workouts, study hall, charity food drive...and the team prayer at mid-field.

It is one thing for the coach to expect the kids to gather around post-game and sing the school fight song. Even if a kid hates to sing in public, that's what teammates do. But praying in public as a public school team activity is not the same thing.

[Seacoaster(1)]

I realize you haven't read the record entirely, but the "no apparent reason" comment made above is not supported by the record. In fact, Kavanaugh - a coach himself - recognizes the risk each player assumes when that player fails to conform to on-field conduct promoted by the coach.

That is an interesting angle. The two most centrist conservatives (Roberts, Kav) are the two most sporty guys on SCOTUS. Both were multi-sport HS athletes, Kav tried to walk onto the hoops team at Yale, and Kav is also a long time coach of his daughters' hoops teams.

Possible that they would see this case as being mostly about sports team dynamics rather than religious liberty. Where pleasing the coach has a lot to do with how successful you are on the team. If you want PT, you need to show up and participate in lots of activities in order to show you are a good teammate -- off-season workouts, study hall, charity food drive...and the team prayer at mid-field.

It is one thing for the coach to expect the kids to gather around post-game and sing the school fight song. Even if a kid hates to sing in public, that's what teammates do. But praying in public as a public school team activity is not the same thing.

I wonder if Roberts is in the majority with Breyer, Soto, Kagan and Kav he might assign the opinion to Kavanaugh to help burnish Kav's "moderate" credentials?

[jhu72]

I realize you haven't read the record entirely, but the "no apparent reason" comment made above is not supported by the record. In fact, Kavanaugh - a coach himself - recognizes the risk each player assumes when that player fails to conform to on-field conduct promoted by the coach.

That is an interesting angle. The two most centrist conservatives (Roberts, Kav) are the two most sporty guys on SCOTUS. Both were multi-sport HS athletes, Kav tried to walk onto the hoops team at Yale, and Kav is also a long time coach of his daughters' hoops teams.

Possible that they would see this case as being mostly about sports team dynamics rather than religious liberty. Where pleasing the coach has a lot to do with how successful you are on the team. If you want PT, you need to show up and participate in lots of activities in order to show you are a good teammate -- off-season workouts, study hall, charity food drive...and the team prayer at mid-field.

It is one thing for the coach to expect the kids to gather around post-game and sing the school fight song. Even if a kid hates to sing in public, that's what teammates do. But praying in public as a public school team activity is not the same thing.

I wonder if Roberts is in the majority with Breyer, Soto, Kagan and Kav he might assign the opinion to Kavanaugh to help burnish Kav's "moderate" credentials?

... I think Roberts is aligned with the liberals. That is why I referred to the others as the 5 chuckleheads - not 6.

[cradleandshoot]

Do you read anything anyone posts?

no, he simply spots off longwinded screeds without doing bothering to do his homework. Nothing wrong with having an opinion, but popping off at others without even bothering to read what anyone else has said...well, we can picture a cranky old guy in his basement who would be better off out tilling the garden or walking the dog...spring needs to come soon for him...

cradle, here's the brief from the school:https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... 0FINAL.pdf

What you talking about Willis?? You want to criticize me for being long-winded?? Pot meet kettle. I can spout off in 2 paragraphs. You could never condense your spouting to that level on your best day. Too cold to rototill the garden. This weekend is suppose to be sunny and mild. I may grab a couple of bundles of peat moss and till it in. Roxy is my sweetheart. She has a history that even a cold hearted orb like yourself would respect. She was abused/neglected and spent the 1st 2 years of her life being barepawed and pregnant. When she came to rescued treasures she was scared and pregnant.She gave birth to 8 pups, 1 did not make it. Two weeks later her foster parents took in 8 abandoned puppies. My little Roxy nursed those pups as if they were her own. So when you make fun of me about her, remember this.. if more humans possessed the capacity for love and unselfishness that she does, the world would be a much better place. As I write this she is staring up at me pawing at my leg. Time for our stroll. You can go back to spewing your anger and hatred towards trump and your party. This old guy has more important things to do...

I'm glad you got my joke about long-winded.
I also know your love of Roxy and your pleasure in your gardens.
We share a number of such common pleasures. Just a reminder.

I provided the brief, so that you could read it for yourself rather than simply rejecting reading an article from a source you refuse to read.

Your fundamental presumption that there was no coercion, thus the exact same as the experiences you recounted, is simply mistaken. The testimony in the case was that the coach made his players feel pressure to participate and actually retaliated against one who did not. The coach is definitely in a power position and is a representative of the State. The school was clear that a private prayer was perfectly acceptable but nothing that implied pressure on others to participate. It was only when the coach ratcheted up such public display and pressure that he was fired.

I quite agreed with your comment that such a coach would be better suited to a private school setting in which such a religious display was part of the school's mission. Not an instrument of the State.

The current SCOTUS may nevertheless decide to rule on the coach's behalf, which would be a quite serious departure from all precedent and would open up a very large can of worms for all sorts of religious coercion in various State settings. Or they may not.

+ one more. The more I read and think about what this coach is doing is not helpful to his team or his players. If the coach had decided to do his thing at the 50 yard line on his own and kept it at that, I have no problem with that. If he openly invited any player or coach from either team to join him, I have no problem with that. IMO the coach got exactly what he wanted.. a date in front of the SCOTUS. I see his point. The first amendment is pretty damn clear about his right to free speech. If he wins and he probably will, that will open up a whole new can of worms in the case of free speech vs separation of church and state.

[Andersen]

The coach has "free speech" when the school told him to stop? Sure wouldn't fly at my work place.

[cradleandshoot]

The coach has "free speech" when the school told him to stop? Sure wouldn't fly at my work place.

If a player took a knee during the National Anthem that is also free speech. This is not your workplace, this is a public school. The right to free speech is why a bunch of skinheads can have a KKK rally and burn the American flag as a protected right of free speech. Maybe you think the right to free speech is something to be cherry picked depending on our individual moral outrage? It doesn't work that way. FTR, it wouldn't fly were I work either.

[Andersen]

The coach was an employee of the school, correct? His employer told him several times to stop.

[Seacoaster(1)]

The coach was an employee of the school, correct? His employer told him several times to stop.

Actually, the record on appeal is pretty much very clear that the School District worked hard to convince him to stop the 50 yard line business, without ever impeding his ability to quietly say the prayers he thought he needed to say. The reality is that this was a performative Christianity intended to provoke this very dispute and employ the Speech Clause and Free Exercise Clause to force the school district -- and other public employers (schools, you know, where the "parent's rights fight is going on...) -- to yield to his religiosity and personal religious mandates. Charlatan, with right wing lawyers?

[ggait]

If a player took a knee during the National Anthem that is also free speech. This is not your workplace, this is a public school.

The rules differ based on circumstances.

Rules in HS and grammar school are different than in college.

Rules for private schools different tha for public schools.

Rules for students are different than for employees and for persons in positions of authority.

There's even different rules for shouting fire in a theater. No free speech if the theater is not on fire. Go ahead and yell, however, if theater really is on fire.

Etc. etc. etc. etc.

[lagerhead]

Finally, lacrosse was played for religious reasons: "for the pleasure of the Creator," and to collectively pray for something.[10] Wikipedia

Guess we should deny all public school funds for lax.

[MDlaxfan76]

Finally, lacrosse was played for religious reasons: "for the pleasure of the Creator," and to collectively pray for something.[10] Wikipedia

Guess we should deny all public school funds for lax.

Now that's a dumb comment.

But sure, if a public school required all lacrosse players to agree to say a prayer to the Creator before each game, they'd have a problem...so, they don't.