Supreme Court allows atheists’ lawsuit against Florida city over prayer vigil to continue
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 10:09:35 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Supreme Court allows atheists’ lawsuit against Florida city over prayer vigil to continue
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Supreme Court allows atheists’ lawsuit against Florida city over prayer vigil to continue  (Read 633 times)
NewYorkExpress
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,823
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 07, 2023, 01:18:49 PM »

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/06/politics/ocala-florida-prayer-case-supreme-court/index.html

Quote
The Supreme Court declined on Monday to take up an appeal brought by a Florida city that was sued by individuals who argued it had violated the Constitution when it held a prayer vigil in 2014 in response to a local shooting.

The city of Ocala, Florida, had asked the Supreme Court to intervene in the case, arguing that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the lawsuit. The city said the justices should reject the atheists’ argument for why they had been injured with the prayer ceremony, making it appropriate for courts to hear their case.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the court’s decision not to take up the case. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a statement with the denial but did not dissent from the court’s move.

Thomas wrote that he had “serious doubts” about the atheists’ arguments for why they should be allowed to sue Ocala and said the Supreme Court should examine questions around the so-called “offended observer standing” theory, which allowed the case to proceed at the lower court level.

“We should have granted certiorari to review whether respondents had standing to bring their claims,” he wrote.

Gorsuch, however, expressed sympathy to the city’s arguments and said that its request that the justices intervene now was “understandable.” But he saw “no need for the Court’s intervention at this juncture.”

“Really, most every governmental action probably offends somebody,” he wrote. “But recourse for disagreement and offense does not lie in federal litigation.”

I'm mildly surprised that other than Thomas and Gorsuch (sort of) none of the other conservatives were interested in taking up this case.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 07, 2023, 02:29:36 PM »

That's too bad. Although Gorsuch is kind of right.
Logged
Ferguson97
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,812
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 07, 2023, 03:33:56 PM »

One of those cases where the ruling is legally correct, but the plaintiff just wanted to be annoying.
Logged
Tintrlvr
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,289


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 07, 2023, 04:50:15 PM »

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/06/politics/ocala-florida-prayer-case-supreme-court/index.html

Quote
The Supreme Court declined on Monday to take up an appeal brought by a Florida city that was sued by individuals who argued it had violated the Constitution when it held a prayer vigil in 2014 in response to a local shooting.

The city of Ocala, Florida, had asked the Supreme Court to intervene in the case, arguing that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the lawsuit. The city said the justices should reject the atheists’ argument for why they had been injured with the prayer ceremony, making it appropriate for courts to hear their case.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the court’s decision not to take up the case. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a statement with the denial but did not dissent from the court’s move.

Thomas wrote that he had “serious doubts” about the atheists’ arguments for why they should be allowed to sue Ocala and said the Supreme Court should examine questions around the so-called “offended observer standing” theory, which allowed the case to proceed at the lower court level.

“We should have granted certiorari to review whether respondents had standing to bring their claims,” he wrote.

Gorsuch, however, expressed sympathy to the city’s arguments and said that its request that the justices intervene now was “understandable.” But he saw “no need for the Court’s intervention at this juncture.”

“Really, most every governmental action probably offends somebody,” he wrote. “But recourse for disagreement and offense does not lie in federal litigation.”

I'm mildly surprised that other than Thomas and Gorsuch (sort of) none of the other conservatives were interested in taking up this case.

The other Justices didn't say they aren't interested in ever taking up this case. They just said (well, implicitly) that they don't want to hear an interlocutory appeal now. The Supreme Court, other than Thomas, tends to be very active in trying to reduce the number of cases it hears. They would likely hear an appeal once there's a judgment in the underlying case if the judgment is against the city, and the appellate court upholds it, but they won't hear the case until and unless they feel like they have to (so they'll probably never hear it if the lower court and the appellate court ultimately find for the city).
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 07, 2023, 07:34:35 PM »

Since Gorsuch is one of the only interesting thinkers on the Court right now, it's always jarring to get samples of what an atrocious writer he is.
Logged
Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins
johnzaharoff
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 925


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 08, 2023, 11:37:32 AM »

Since Gorsuch is one of the only interesting thinkers on the Court right now, it's always jarring to get samples of what an atrocious writer he is.

I find him to be one of the better writers on the Court. Kennedy was the worst of the ones who were on the Court since I've followed it closely. Whose writing do you like? 
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 08, 2023, 12:09:48 PM »

Since Gorsuch is one of the only interesting thinkers on the Court right now, it's always jarring to get samples of what an atrocious writer he is.
What? His Bostock v. Clayton County decision was masterful.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 08, 2023, 02:26:40 PM »
« Edited: March 08, 2023, 07:06:57 PM by Taylor Swift Boat Veterans for Truth »

Since Gorsuch is one of the only interesting thinkers on the Court right now, it's always jarring to get samples of what an atrocious writer he is.

I find him to be one of the better writers on the Court. Kennedy was the worst of the ones who were on the Court since I've followed it closely. Whose writing do you like? 
Gorsuch certainly thinks of himself as a great writer, and consciously aspires to be one. This is why he is a bad writer. People tend to overlook this tendency when he's writing something they agree with (see BRTD referencing Bostock, and I'll make excuses for his writing in McGirt), but it's a thread through most of his opinions. What reads as appropriately bombastic in one context ("At the end of the Trail of Tears there was a promise.") comes off looking pompous and overwrought when he's writing about something like the permissible restrictions on the removal of inferior federal officers. If he'd just, you know, tone it all down a notch or two, he'd be excellent.

The best writer on the Court is Kagan, followed by Roberts.
Logged
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 08, 2023, 02:47:33 PM »

Since Gorsuch is one of the only interesting thinkers on the Court right now, it's always jarring to get samples of what an atrocious writer he is.

I find him to be one of the better writers on the Court. Kennedy was the worst of the ones who were on the Court since I've followed it closely. Whose writing do you like? 
Gorsuch certainly thinks of himself as a great writer, and consciously aspires to be one. This is why he is a bad writer. People tend to overlook this tendency when he's writing something they agree with (see BRTD referencing Bostock, and I'll make excuses for his writing in McGirt), but it's a thread through most of his opinions.

The best writer on the Court is Kagan, followed by Roberts.

I completely agree on your last point. Scalia was also a great writer when he was on the Court. Gorsuch, however, seems to write for a more general audience. His opinions seem to read more as essays or something along those lines. I don't think it makes him a bad writer, but he is certainly quite different stylistically.

I'm far more unnerved by what Gorsuch and Thomas are saying in their comments on this. The level of standing they presuppose for cases such as these would effectively make it nearly impossible to challenge a violation of the Establishment Clause. I've already had a suspicion that Gorsuch and some of the other Justices were looking at much more than what was suggested in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. I am very concerned that Engel and its progeny might be next on the chopping block (and I'm not one to light my hair on fire with this current Court).
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 08, 2023, 03:06:12 PM »

Since Gorsuch is one of the only interesting thinkers on the Court right now, it's always jarring to get samples of what an atrocious writer he is.

I find him to be one of the better writers on the Court. Kennedy was the worst of the ones who were on the Court since I've followed it closely. Whose writing do you like? 
Gorsuch certainly thinks of himself as a great writer, and consciously aspires to be one. This is why he is a bad writer. People tend to overlook this tendency when he's writing something they agree with (see BRTD referencing Bostock, and I'll make excuses for his writing in McGirt), but it's a thread through most of his opinions.

The best writer on the Court is Kagan, followed by Roberts.

I completely agree on your last point. Scalia was also a great writer when he was on the Court. Gorsuch, however, seems to write for a more general audience. His opinions seem to read more as essays or something along those lines. I don't think it makes him a bad writer, but he is certainly quite different stylistically.

I'll grant that Gorsuch's writing is approachable and his arguments in it are generally easy to follow, but in the quotes in the OP alone we have the overwritten phrase "intervention at this juncture", a sentence that begins with "really" followed by a comma, and another sentence (the next, it looks like?) that begins with "but". I think one or two of these features would be refreshingly informal for judicial writing, and I definitely think that's part of what Gorsuch is aiming for, but all three starts to look sophomoric, at least to me.

Quote
I'm far more unnerved by what Gorsuch and Thomas are saying in their comments on this. The level of standing they presuppose for cases such as these would effectively make it nearly impossible to challenge a violation of the Establishment Clause. I've already had a suspicion that Gorsuch and some of the other Justices were looking at much more than what was suggested in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. I am very concerned that Engel and its progeny might be next on the chopping block (and I'm not one to light my hair on fire with this current Court).

This Court is definitely inclined to be extremely deferential towards religious institutions, religious practices, and religious ideas in ways that could get downright dangerous pretty soon, yeah--and I'm saying this as one of the more vocally religious people on the forum.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 09, 2023, 09:53:22 AM »

Since Gorsuch is one of the only interesting thinkers on the Court right now, it's always jarring to get samples of what an atrocious writer he is.

What bit of Gorsuch's prose triggered you here? Please share.

I wonder why Congress having a chaplain that leads prayers before a session opens has not bit the dust. That seems a use of state funds to promote religion, where the atheist in Congress actually has to listen to it as part of the legislator's job.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.042 seconds with 11 queries.