Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: When does government discrimination against churches violate 1A. SCOTUS Cert.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161

    When does government discrimination against churches violate 1A. SCOTUS Cert.

    The Supreme Court will consider: When does government discrimination against churches violate the First Amendment? H/T Eugene Volokh Conspiracy.com

    Trinity Lutheran Church’s application was, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, “ranked fifth out of forty four applications in 2012, and . . . fourteen projects were funded.” But Trinity’s application was rejected; in the words of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources,

    The department is unable to provide this financial assistance directly to the church as contemplated by the grant application. Please note that Article I, Section 7 of the Missouri Constitution specifically provides that “no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, section or denomination of religion.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...rst-amendment/

    SCOTUS Docket No. 15-577

    Title: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc., Petitioner
    v.
    Sara Parker Pauley, Director, Missouri Department of Natural Resources
    Docketed: November 5, 2015

    Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
    Case Nos.: (14-1382)
    Decision Date: May 29, 2015
    Rehearing Denied: August 11, 2015
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    The states constitution is pretty clear. I don't see how this would contrast the first since it isn't impeding anyone's exercise of religion.

    Of course they shouldn't be stealing money to give to anyone.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    That is not the criterion and is not among the criteria for SCOTUS Certiorari. I suspect that there are differences among the Federal Courts of Appeal.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    The states constitution is pretty clear. I don't see how this would contrast the first since it isn't impeding anyone's exercise of religion.

    Of course they shouldn't be stealing money to give to anyone.
    Of course if the US Constitution says one thing and a state's constitution says another ... who wins?

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Of course if the US Constitution says one thing and a state's constitution says another ... who wins?
    Well the doctrine of incorporation is just a made up stupid doctrine by the Judges.

    Even then they are so wishy washy on it they don't even apply it equally across the board.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Well the doctrine of incorporation is just a made up stupid doctrine by the Judges.

    Even then they are so wishy washy on it they don't even apply it equally across the board.
    The courts cannot control themselves in making up crap ... I would prefer all court cases decided by coin flips ... win and your opponent is put to death; lose and you are put to death. People would be nicer to each other.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •