STARK Is At It Again
Posted by Michelle Moquin on May 13th, 2014
Good morning!
From Think Progress:
The Supreme Court Just Blew A Gaping Hole In The Wall Of Separation Between Church And State
Town of Greece v. Galloway is the case that proponents of the separation of church and state have feared every since Justice Sandra Day O’Connor left the Supreme Court in 2006. It strikes at the heart of the constitutional prohibition on government endorsement of religious doctrine or belief. And it brings religious conservatives within inches of a victory they have sought for more than two decades. For the sort of people who believe America should be a “Christian nation,” today is a today to celebrate.
To explain, Justice O’Connor was the Court’s leading supporter of the view that government may not endorse a particular religious belief or take any action that could convey such a “message of endorsement to the reasonable observer.” This view placed her sharply at odds with the four other conservatives on the Rehnquist Court. Thus, when O’Connor was replaced with the much more conservative Justice Samuel Alito, most Court watchers expected this prohibition on government endorsements of religion to fall in short order. The most surprising thing about the Town of Greece decision isn’t that begins the process of doing so — it is that it took the Roberts Court this long to reach such a decision.
Though Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion in Town of Greece does not explicitly eliminate the ban on government endorsements of religion, it strongly suggests that the end of this ban is nigh. As Kennedy explains, this ban derives from a case called County of Allegheny v. ACLU, which “held that a crèche placed on the steps of a county courthouse to celebrate the Christmas season violated the Establishment Clause because it had ‘the effect of endorsing a patently Christian message.’” Four dissenters, according to Kennedy, “disputed that endorsement could be the proper test, as it likely would condemn a host of traditional practices that recognize the role religion plays in our society.” One of those dissenters was Kennedy.
Town of Greece is a case about legislative prayer — that is, it is about whether lawmaking bodies can open their session with a prayer that is often, if not always, explicitly Christian. On the surface, Kennedy limits his treatment of the ban on government endorsements of religion to the context of legislative prayer, writing that there was no suggestion in a key precedent “that the constitutionality of legislative prayer turns on the neutrality of its content.” That key precedent is a case known asMarsh v. Chambers, which gave legislative prayers special immunity from the Constitution’s ban on establishments of religion.
Given the fact that legislative prayer already enjoyed special constitutional status even before Town of Greece, supporters of a robust separation of church and state are likely to argue that the ban on government endorsements of religion still exists outside of the context of legislative prayer. They are unlikely to succeed, however, in the long run. There may have been four justices who opposed that ban when County of Allegheny was decided. But there are almost certainly five right now.
The later part of Kennedy’s opinion, which is joined only by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Alito, focuses on a weaker limit on government efforts to advance religious faith that Kennedy has supported in the past. Twenty-two years ago, Kennedy wrote for the Court that “government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise.” He reiterates that holding today, but he adds that the legislative prayer at issue in this case does not constitute religious coercion. “The analysis would be different if town board members directed the public to participate in the prayers,” Kennedy writes, or if they “singled out dissidents for opprobrium, or indicated that their decisions might be influenced by a person’s acquiescence in the prayer opportunity.” Similarly, “[a] practice that classified citizens based on their religious views would violate the Constitution, but that is not the case before this Court.”
This final portion of Kennedy’s analysis is joined by just three justices because Justice Antonin Scalia joins an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas calling for the Court to go even further. To Scalia and Thomas, the only kind of religious coercion banned by the Constitution is “coercion of religious orthodoxy and of financial support by force of law and threat of penalty” (emphasis in original). So unless the government threatens to jail or fine you for failing to pray, lawmakers can more or less do whatever they want. (Indeed, Thomas would go even further than that. In a section of his opinion that Scalia declines to join, Thomas writes that the “Establishment Clause is ‘best understood as a federalism provision.’” This means that Thomas believes that the separation of church and state applies to the federal government only.)
The upshot of today’s opinion is that Kennedy and his fellow conservatives have finally begun a project they were expected to begin the day O’Connor retired. By the time this project finishes, it is unlikely that many limits will remain on overt government endorsements of religious faith.
*****
Readers: Happy Monday. Are we surprised? Please leave your comments below by blogging me.
Peace out.
Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.
Gratefully your blog host,
michelle
Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)
If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)
Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:
Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129
Thank you for your loyal support!
All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2014
“Though she be but little, she be fierce.” – William Shakespeare Midsummer Night’s Dream
" Politics, god, Life, News, Music, Family, Personal, Travel, Random, Photography, Religion, Aliens, Art, Entertainment, Food, Books, Thoughts, Media, Culture, Love, Sex, Poetry, Prose, Friends, Technology, Humor, Health, Writing, Events, Movies, Sports, Video, Christianity, Atheist, Blogging, History, Work, Education, Business, Fashion, Barack Obama, People, Internet, Relationships, Faith, Photos, Videos, Hillary Clinton, School, Reviews, God, TV, Philosophy, Fun, Science, Environment, Design, The Page, Rants, Pictures, Church, Blog, Nature, Marketing, Television, Democrats, Parenting, Miscellaneous, Current Events, Film, Spirituality, Obama, Musings, Home, Human Rights, Society, Comedy, Me, Random Thoughts, Research, Government, Election 2008, Baseball, Opinion, Recipes, Children, Iraq, Funny, Women, Economics, America, Misc, Commentary, John McCain, Reflections, All, Celebrities, Inspiration, Lifestyle, Theology, Linux, Kids, Games, World, India, Literature, China, Ramblings, Fitness, Money, Review, War, Articles, Economy, Journal, Quotes, NBA, Crime, Anime, Islam, 2008, Stories, Prayer, Diary, Jesus, Buddha, Muslim, Israel, Europe, Links, Marriage, Fiction, American Idol, Software, Leadership, Pop culture, Rants, Video Games, Republicans, Updates, Political, Football, Healing, Blogs, Shopping, USA, Class, Matrix, Course, Work, Web 2.0, My Life, Psychology, Gay, Happiness, Advertising, Field Hockey, Hip-hop, sex, fucking, ass, Soccer, sox"
May 13th, 2014 at 9:38 am
What do you expect from a bunch of bought and paid for clowns.
May 13th, 2014 at 10:20 am
We must add this case to the other recent Supreme Court cases of concern to see the full picture. By extension, it would appear that we are being lead into a government ideology position reminiscent of the British crown of the 18th century. The founding fathers professed a desire to promulgate a civil society wherein the citizenry governed itself through elected representatives and tolerated all points of view.
We now find ourselves on the road to the destruction of this concept. Money is speech, power emanates from the bank accounts of those with the largest balances, religion is defined by those in power and other views are to be ignored or suppressed. Workers are at the mercy of their employers as to wages and working conditions, The concerns of the future,including the environment, safety, health and fulfillment are of little value and are to be ignored as well. Those in poverty have only themselves to blame and no help is forthcoming from the government.
Lincoln’s comments at Gettysburg are to be erased as irrelevant. Henceforth, only those of great wealth will determine the course the country will take. The Constitution is to become little more than an artifact of an earlier time. Perhaps the uncontrolled climate change, which these new leaders deny, will destroy the last vestiges of civil society leaving the elite with only their memories of the days of greater glory. I don’t expect to live long enough to see it. Thank God.
May 13th, 2014 at 10:51 am
I notice this article keeps refering to the clause “seperation of chuch and state” in the constitution. Can someone please tell me exactly where in the constitution this is?
May 13th, 2014 at 10:53 am
I’m not clear why nominally religius people, free to pray in the homes, churches, businesses, and silent prayers anywhere, are so determined to stick it to non-beleivers in government settings. The response to being forced to listen to sectarian prayers in public settings is to despise those praying for such an action. Is this the road we want to go down?
May 13th, 2014 at 11:04 am
In a related article we find that our resident marxist agitator attacked Christians and Christianity by nominiating three pro-baby-murder hominids for ambassador to the Vatican: http://www.theguardian.com/wor…
May 13th, 2014 at 11:05 am
Frank#3, Please don’t be dense. This is a very tired argument.
May 13th, 2014 at 11:09 am
Does the end of separation of church and state apply to all religions? I wonder what would happen if passages from the Torah or the Koran were read to students in a public school as part of a morning service to begin the day.
May 13th, 2014 at 11:10 am
Welcome to C.A.R.L. That is, Christian American Religious Law. Thanks to the S.T.A.R.K., the Supreme Corruptors of the United States.
May 13th, 2014 at 11:11 am
If I lived in this town, I’d simply show up late for every legislative meeting. If pressed about why, I’d tell them plainly: “I don’t believe in that crap you’re wasting the first 5 minutes with, I’m here to legislate”. And then drag the case back to court when they try to punish me for being late, because then they clearly ARE trying to force it on someone.
It shouldn’t have to require this kind of silly court back-and-forth, but our flawed system legal system demands it. Which, of course, means people who can’t afford to go to court are SOL, unless the ACLU is willing to pick up the bat for them. I.e., justice is (obviously) dependent on money.
May 13th, 2014 at 11:12 am
Don’t I wish this was a Christian nation! I mean the Christianity Jesus taught, not the Old Testament scare tactics used by the majority of ‘the men in black dresses’ in the Churches. That religion dominates this country. There are 3 essential requirements of any president of the USA:
Be at least 35 years old. (Constitutional requirement)
Be married.
Be Christian – preferably mainstream Protestant.
May 13th, 2014 at 11:12 am
Adam#6, Wow another person who can not explain it.. and you call me dense.
May 13th, 2014 at 11:14 am
Just because I love Guam. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/18/guam-travel-destination_n_4953530.html
May 13th, 2014 at 11:54 am
Frank#11 some have the intellectual capacity to interpolate this to mean that.
Jefferson wrote, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”[1]
Jefferson’s metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson’s comments “may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment.” In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: “In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state.
That being said there are still many like STARK on SCOTUS who will argue since it doesn’t specifically say that then…..
That is a fucked up piece of logic because Constitution doesn’t SPECIFICALLY say anything about most of the stuff that comes before SCOTUS today.
They “interpolate” from the general body of words in the Constitution with the same kinds of clarifications using the words form later writings of those that wrote it.
You are the type who use the “where is it in the Constitution..” when you want to get your way but insist that it doesn’t have to be in the Constitution specifically when you want to get you way on other topics. Like gun control or abortion, or police power, or gay rights, etc.
In other words you are being an asshole. How’s that for clarity? Or would you prefer the more precise dense asshole?
May 13th, 2014 at 12:56 pm
The Supreme Court Just Blew A Gaping Hole In The Wall Of Separation Between Church And State << LIE
LOL How can that be true if it's the way it has ALWAYS been? One of the things Kennedy said is that it is in keeping with American TRADITION it can be tradition if it's new.
Eh Liberals…
May 13th, 2014 at 12:58 pm
I can reason their narrow thread in this matter, being it involves other than the Federal Government. If the Court can declare “discrimination” in state employment practices or even schools, within the jurisdiction of Federal law, they could just as easily have made the opposite decision in this case.
But, the religious right is still vital to the “grass roots” of the Republican Party, so “conservatives” on the Court didn’t dare but give Bible folks a carrot, being so near to November elections.
May 13th, 2014 at 12:58 pm
Simple solution Is to back out the doorway so it don’t hit ya in the ass when they`re saying their prayer.
May 13th, 2014 at 12:59 pm
I don’t see any bricks flying at anyone’s faces here. Opening a meeting with a prayer session that all meeting attendees can use to pray or relax, regardless of religious preference, doesn’t tear down this wall separating the Church and State.
By letting the Christians, the Jews, the Muslims, the Buddhists, the Native Americans, the Scientologists, the Norse men, and the Atheists spend this time as they wish, no religion is promoted anymore than if meetings didn’t open with the prayer session.
May 13th, 2014 at 1:00 pm
We are celebrating here in Greece, NY. The town of Greece is mainly made up of conservative Christians Thank you Justice Kennedy!
May 13th, 2014 at 1:00 pm
So my question would be that this covers all Religions and that would mean if your boss in not a Christian and works for the Government then he or she also has the right to use their Religious prayer due to the fact that we do now have a State Religion right! We all know that Government cannot set religion right! Can you see where this is going now?
May 13th, 2014 at 1:04 pm
There is nothing in the Constitution about said wall, it simply states that the federal government cannot establish a state religion and people are free to worship as they choose.
It wasn’t until the twentieth century that this was extended to states. Prior to that, several states supported their choice of churches out of state treasuries.
Prior to Washington’s first inauguration, the Congress met and, among other things, selected a Congressional Chaplin. Immediately following Washington’s inauguration and address, the president and both houses of Congress proceeded to St. Paul’s Chapel for a church service. It is documented in the first congressional record.
May 13th, 2014 at 1:12 pm
Thinkprogress says it all ! That is a world in which you Progressives live in. It is duly noted that you Progressives want all to live in your world. So where is your diversity Progressive ?
May 13th, 2014 at 1:13 pm
As long as each belief gets to say their prayer also. and not have it all inclusive in the Christian prayer.. each should have their turn..
May 13th, 2014 at 1:13 pm
Linda#19, The Federal government did not establish a “State religion” with this decision. A state religion is one denomination i.e. Lutheran like in Germany, Anglican like in England, or Catholic like in Italy. Just like the decision says just because someone wants a prayer at a city meeting does not mean you have to participate.
May 13th, 2014 at 1:15 pm
Boz#20, No, it says Congress cannot pass any laws RESPECTING an establishment of religion. It’s not a ban on creating a state religion. It’s a ban on doing anything that defers to or gives official acknowledgement to any religion that already exists.
And if you notice, Washington and Congress attended that church service as PRIVATE individuals. Congress was not in session at the time. CONGRESS did not attend a church service. Nor can it under the Constitution.
May 13th, 2014 at 1:15 pm
Let me help you > Americans are celebrating today as the Supreme Court (who at this time are mostly liberal) continues to support the Bill of Rights one piece at a time and has finally after years of degrading rights…stood up for someone other than atheists.
May 13th, 2014 at 1:16 pm
Ed#14, Then you must say that the concept of equality when applied to a minority is out moded because that isn’t traditional either, especially when it comes to the basic civil right to the “civil contract of civil marriage”.
You’re speaking TRADITION as if it has a foundation in LAW, which is false. When the law and Tradition collide LAW takes the superior position.
Indeed in this case bringing public prayer into a civil law governed meeting may be Tradition, but that does not make it right or correct.
May 13th, 2014 at 1:18 pm
Lis#23, Correct and that will go for all Religion so when your Non-Christian boss starts practicing what ever it is he believes you will then feel the full extent as to what really happen today.
When the Counties make up who by the way is changing ever so quickly continues to change and Christianity will no longer be the main religious group, You will then feel what this ruling really means. You have just opened a can of worm or Pandora’s box!
May 13th, 2014 at 1:19 pm
Mickelson#20, It most certainly is a ban on establishing a state religion. I notice that the Congress DID choose a Chaplin and DID record the service following the inauguration in the congressional record.
May 13th, 2014 at 1:21 pm
Rebelle#25, This is the most conservative Supreme Court in over a century, possibly in the history of the United States. Sanctioning public prayer is a direct and blatant violation of the First Amendment.
May 13th, 2014 at 1:23 pm
Linda #27,What is the problem? If I go to a city meeting where there is no prayer I can sit there and a say a silent prayer if I want.
If a city council wants to open with a moment of silence so others can pray if they want there is really no problem.
May 13th, 2014 at 1:24 pm
Boz#28, The Congressional Chaplain is a violation of the First Amendment, though both Congress and the Supreme Court have ignored that for so long that there’s nothing to be done about it.
Same with the establishment of Christmas as a Federal holiday. That too is blatantly unconstitutional, but as it would be political suicide for any judge to try to enjoin Christmas, that will be with us forever as well.
May 13th, 2014 at 1:26 pm
Mathew#29, Alright. Lets get to the real point….who cares? Apparently it is not in any violation of the first amendment because all this court did was uphold a ruling from 1983. This isn’t really monumental.
All we did was reaffirm that this is not against the first amendment or our constitution in anyway. Again. So you’ll just have to get over it. Stop trying to take away the rights of others. Sorry.
May 13th, 2014 at 1:32 pm
Lis#30, Hey I saw that very same talking point on Fox tonight! :) The can of worms that was open is that when you have a non-Christian leading a pray oh lets say a Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan, Satanist, Santeria(thats a religion too) Hindu, and so on you will have to sit through that one too.
See the potential that we have here now. You must let any one from any Religion lead in Prayer you can not exclude anyone. Is it a problem now?
May 13th, 2014 at 1:35 pm
I want to briefly comment on the Tillett Wright post Michelle put up a few days ago, since I’ve been away and just saw it. I can’t believe how much hate there is on this blog sometimes. I really do shake my head frequently at the stupidity and ignorance that oft times abounds. People are so quick to judge and condemn what they don’t understand. Wright’s reality may not be mine and I may not understand it, but I don’t really have to for me to accept it. As a society, we need to let people just be themselves.
And in support of those dealing with confusing gender issues, I want to tell everyone about Camp “You Are You” (a pseudonym). It’s a four day camping experience for gender nonconforming boys and their parents. Photographer Lindsay Morris has written a book on the camp that is being released later this year, with the goal of helping parents cope with queer youth.
“For many of these children, their perceptions of their gender are misaligned with their bodies. They may later identify as gay, transgender, or somewhere in between. This is just one way of being that has always existed, but only now are we developing the ability to say it’s OK not to put everyone in a neat little box. It will require all of us to break the habit of assigning individuals a gender label and to start thinking of gender on a broader spectrum. I know how lonely, and at times traumatic, life for an LGBT child can be. Looking over your shoulder and navigating your way through curious classmates and the occasional bully can be exhausting. That need to explain one’s self does not exist at camp. Pure freedom of expression is a compelling and emotional thing to witness.”
You can read more about Lindsay and the camp, here:
http://dangerousminds.net/comments/adorably_daring_gender_nonconforming_kids
Maybe one day, we can all get along. One can hope.
/SB
May 13th, 2014 at 1:37 pm
Mickelson#31, The Congressional Chaplin is NOT a violation of the First Amendment…in case it slipped your mind, the people who wrote the Constitution were around and involved in the government at the time.
If it had gone against their intent, it would have been an issue from the time the BOR was ratified and that was not the case.
May 13th, 2014 at 1:42 pm
SB, Gays are an abomination against God. The gates of Hell sits wide open for the.
I am a catholic and if one of my six children told me he or she was gay, I would lock him/her in a closet until God saved them.
May 13th, 2014 at 1:44 pm
Anon#35, The Congressional Chaplin position was established before the First Amendment was ratified. A reasonable (if weak) argument might be made on that basis that the position was “grandfathered” as an exception to the First Amendment.
But the First Amendment certainly does not permit any expansion of that exception. Which is what the Supreme Court just did.
May 13th, 2014 at 1:45 pm
SB, Please, let’s keep gays out of this discussion. If you want to respond to that filth go to the day it was on a wallow in it.
May 13th, 2014 at 1:47 pm
Rebelle#32, Those of us who respect the Constitution.
May 13th, 2014 at 1:47 pm
I’m gay and I still can’t tell my family and friends.
May 13th, 2014 at 1:51 pm
Social Butterfly and uncensored blog like Michelle’s is a beacon to the sick racists and bigots that find this a spot to rant and rave at the world.
I am satisfied to know that good decent people like you occasionally come on to post what I am thinking.
That Trish is way too deranged to be a mother once much less 6 times. I pity her brood.
May 13th, 2014 at 1:53 pm
//SB, you have had my experience. The fact is I have had that experience several times on this blog. The intolerance on this planet is mind boggling!
Let the aliens come and feast.
May 13th, 2014 at 1:54 pm
Mathew#39, Well, friend, per this extremely whiny poll, clearly you do not. That’s your issue. The rest of America is quite happy with the SC upholding the constitution in this ruling.
May 13th, 2014 at 1:55 pm
Mathew, tell Rebelle that the Christians need to stop pushing their rights off on others.. If as non believer, I should step to the back of the bus.. I don’t freaking think so.. For some reason the ding dong has me blocked.. must be because I don’t believe in his religious nonsense..
May 13th, 2014 at 1:59 pm
Victor#40, And well you should keep your mouth shut about your condition until you have gotten God’s blessing and are cured of that evil.
I can assure you that none in a God fearing family want to hear about your love for another man. If you can’t find a cure in God’s love, castrate yourself or jump off a bridge so that the waters will carry your disgusting body to the sea.
May 13th, 2014 at 2:01 pm
Victor#40, I’m not gay but I know so many straights that wouldn’t care what your sexual preference is. Pay no attention to the haters.
There is plenty of love to go round, you will find yours.
May 13th, 2014 at 2:03 pm
kerri#38, You are one sick person. Unfortunately, I have met way too many of your kind.
May 13th, 2014 at 2:05 pm
Howie, are there any gay aliens out there?
May 13th, 2014 at 2:08 pm
#32 – “So you’ll just have to get over it. Stop trying to take away the rights of others.”
Too bad you righties can’t take that attitude when you lose a court decision. Gay rights, gay marriage, equal treatment for women, minimum wage, abortion rights, ect.
May 13th, 2014 at 2:09 pm
Niggers and near niggers have no right to dictate to whites what we can or cannot do.
May 13th, 2014 at 2:13 pm
…Can’t we all just get along?.. Evidently not. That’s why you liberals need to take your asses to the polls and vote these inane bigoted idiots out of the House.
This blog is a small very small example of the intolerance and ignorance in this nation.
Let it be your mission to keep them out of elective office.
May 13th, 2014 at 2:50 pm
Amen, Lucy #51.
And to all you haters, let me remind you, in religious words that you purport to understand: LOVE THEY NEIGHBOR.
Victor, #40 I just wanted to say, I feel for you. I too had a hard time coming out. It’s a unique experience for everyone. Maybe one day, you will have the strength to tell your truth.
For me, it wasn’t that I was afraid so much of what others thought of me, although I did fear it. But now, as I am able to look back on it, I realize my hesitation stemmed from what I thought of myself. Once I loved and accepted myself, it was easy to tell other people who I was and what I was about. But it took time for me to shed the labels society put on me and the programming that I should feel ashamed of myself for who I was, or that something was wrong with me.
I’ve since discovered that I’m pretty awesome, just how I am. I know you are too!
/SB
May 13th, 2014 at 5:24 pm
/SB, right on. I read earlier but didn’t have time to post the ‘love thy neighbor’ clearly some of our religious zealots may be reading the good book but are not feeling the love, and sorry to Jesus (but don’t care if I offend your ‘followers’ ) bc I believe he would be appalled by your twisting of his message, the sweet message of unconditional love – or at least, live and let live.
And some of you racists and nights will also be appalled to know that we are all connected so deal with it.
And think about it long and hard, why is it your business who another person loves or if they live their life as one gender and then the other, why is that offensive to YOU? The ONLY thing I disagreed w that till or said was that we all seek like types, and oh hell no, I don’t I love hearing from all others bc I can always find one commonality and that needn’t be that we share the same color, sex, or that garbage…remember that intelligent people discuss ideas not other people (nor how they should BE according to our own standards)
& I am off the soapbox.
Luv, Zen Lill
May 13th, 2014 at 5:26 pm
Sorry two typos – that racists and bigots in 2nd para. & Tillot*
May 13th, 2014 at 6:40 pm
Fix the Supreme Court
“A majority of Americans have lost faith in the Supreme Court. As Chief Justice, it’s your duty to implement changes to protect the court’s integrity and impartiality and restore the confidence of the American people. The Roberts’ Court must adopt its own code of conduct that includes the five canons of the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, requires that all justices disclose any activities they engage in that are paid for by others, and ends the practice whereby justices are the sole decision makers for their own recusals.”
Unleashing unlimited money into politics. Gutting the Voting Rights Act. Striking down affirmative action. Giving corporations personhood. The damage inflicted by Chief Justice John Roberts’ Supreme Court continues to mount.
A survey released last week shows shows an extreme lack of trust in the court that cuts across party lines, and gives us a new opportunity to urge action. A staggering 60% of people believe that justices often let their own personal or political views influence their decision making. The integrity of the court is so damaged that almost 75% of respondents would support the end of lifetime appointments.1
The survey provides an opening to pressure the chief justice to bring the Supreme Court under a code of ethics. It’s a move he has resisted, despite several recent examples of justices participating in cases where they had a clear conflict of interest. Now, with the legacy of his court at stake, he may finally be willing to act.
It’s shocking that the Supreme Court is exempt from the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, a common sense set of guidelines meant to ensure that judges rule fairly and conduct themselves in ways that uphold the impartiality and integrity of the judiciary. Without it, the doors are open for justices to engage in a range of activities that undermine the credibility of the court.
They are free to participate in cases where they have a clear conflict of interest. Justice Thomas participated in the Bowman v. Monsanto and Monsanto v. Geerston cases despite his years as a lawyer for the company. Thomas’ wife Ginni was paid over $600,000 by the Heritage Foundation, which among other things aims to expand the rights of corporations, yet he still participated deciding Citizens United. And though his wife was a frequent critic of the Affordable Care Act, and advertised herself to conservative groups who had an explicit agenda of overturning health care reform as a lobbyist who has “experience and connections,” he did not recuse himself in the case that could have overturned the law. This term, Justice Scalia participated in oral arguments for an abortion clinic buffer zone case despite his wife’s longtime work with crisis pregnancy centers, one of many groups that would be negatively impacted by attempts to protect women seeking abortion from harassment outside clinics.2
Supreme Court Justices are also currently free to engage in political activity, as Justices Thomas and Scalia have done in appearances at Koch brother-sponsored seminars to advance “free society.”3 Justice Thomas has also headlined a fundraiser for the Federalist Society, a conservative legal advocacy organization.4
It’s this kind of behavior that has diminished the integrity of the court, and led so many Americans to question the impartiality of judges they believe more often than not make decisions based on politics and personal beliefs.
If Chief Justice Roberts wants to protect the honor of the highest court in the land, and the legacy of his tenure as chief justice, he’ll take action to implement reforms now. Click the link below to automatically sign the petition.
http://act.credoaction.com/go/4292?t=5&akid=10660.2147902.uUJQdt
Thanks for protecting the integrity of the court.
Heidi Hess, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets
Learn more about this campaign
“Survey: Majority of Americans want term limits for Supreme Court justices, think high court is too political,” Katie McDonough, Salon, 05/07/2014.
“Scalia’s recusal dilemma: Is he conflicted on antiabortion “sidewalk counselors”?,” Lauren Rankin, Salon, 4/21/14.
“Justices Scalia And Thomas’s Attendance At Koch Event Sparks Judicial Ethics Debate,” Sam Stein, Huffington Post, 10/20/2010.
“Clarence Thomas Federalist Society Appearance Sparks Renewed Calls for Supreme Court Ethics Reform ,” Jessica Mason Pieklo, RH Reality Check, 11/18/2013.
——————————————————————————–
May 14th, 2014 at 6:59 am
Dal #48;
To answer your question, I don’t know if they consider it as being “Gay”, but remember the Time Travelers, Adam and Alexander? they share a love for each other. Call it what you wish, it is no secret.
HOWIE