59 Matching Annotations
  1. Jun 2020
  2. Jan 2020
    1. On that -- on that question, I guess rather long ago now in the Everson case back in 1947, this Court said in no uncertain terms what the Framers didn't want was tax money imposed to pay for building or maintaining churches or church property. And doesn't that fit this case? And if so, is Everson passé?

      I believe that Ruth was another person that chose to dissent on this cause, because she mentions that she doesn't agree that the framers envisioned tax payers money being spent on church organizations.

    2. the beginning of the line of questioning that Justice Sotomayor just finished, she began with the suggestion that perhaps this amendment reflects an admirable historical tradition that should be respected. Do you think that that is the proper way to analyze this question?

      I think that Samuel Justice was suggesting that Justie Sotomayor believes that these old traditions suggest that the people shouldn't get the playground , money because of the way things use to be and should still e.

    3. And if so, is Everson passé?

      I think Ginsburg may have been one to dissent because her statements here show precedent and that the court did not give tax money in the Everson case so why should they in this one.

    4. I hear you making a different argument, or a broader argument now,

      Kagan, in this question, makes be believe she was one to dissent because she questions how he is changing and altering his brief. She also makes a point to say the state can say we really don't want to fund religious exercise but they can do religious exercise.

    5. I believe that this playground is part of the ministry of this church. And, in fact, I look at its bylaws, I look at its advertisements, and it includes play and conducted in a religiously valuable way.

      Justice Sotomayor is very clear in her belief that the church should not receive funding for the playground. She admits and strongly support that what she sees, reads and observes is everything religious inside and outside of the church building ( including the preschool).

    6. Here, there's nothing being taken away from.

      I think Sotomayor is one of the justices that dissents from the overall result of this case because she is strictly arguing that the religious school is not having anything taken away from them and they are not being kept from receiving public benefit.

    7. In that case, why, just -- just like you and the other side to spend a minute on this, just a minute, why isn't the case moot? That is, we have a governor.

      This seems to me that Breyer is not thrilled about arguing this case any further and believes that there is no need for further action, therefore, I think he dissents from the final decision.

    8. this Court said in no uncertain terms what the Framers didn't want was tax money imposed to pay for building or maintaining churches or church property.

      I believe that this quote shows that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was one of the justices who dissented. Right from the beginning of the oral argument she brings up a previous case that set a precedent that church and state should remain separate, no matter what the funding is going towards.

    9. They're just saying we don't want to be involved with the church

      I think this discussion and questions that Sonia Sotomayor is having/asking shows that she is one of the justices who dissented. She is making the point that nobody is trying to take away their religious beliefs or practices, just that the state should not be involved with the funding and to keep the church and state separate. They are free to have their school and practice their religion, but should do so without public funding.

    10. hat are we going to end up with when secular people say religious people are being discriminated in favor of and against us? If status should not be an effect on free exercise, what are we going to do with tax benefits?

      It seems Sotomayor is very cautious and being strategic about what would happen if Cortman won his case. She's explaining that if the public funding is granted, then how will secular organizations react?

    11. Elena Kagan

      I'm quite sure she dissented. She's very legalistic in the way she separates the Foundation clause. She mentions, that religious institutions can exercise religious activities, and the state simply doesn't fund them.

    12. And the essence of that history is, basically, we don't want to, as a country -- well, the vast majority of States, to fund houses of worship

      This points to Justice Sotomayor as one who dissented. Along the same lines as Justice Ginsburg she believes there is a long history of keeping State funds away from houses of worship.

    13. On that -- on that question, I guess rather long ago now in the Everson case back in 1947, this Court said in no uncertain terms what the Framers didn't want was tax money imposed to pay for building or maintaining churches or church property. And doesn't that fit this case?

      I believe Justice Ginsburg was one who dissented. She points out that that there is precedent in the Everson case and given the language of the Constitution no tax money should go to maintaining church property.

    1. I believe that this playground is part of the ministry of this church. And, in fact, I look at its bylaws, I look at its advertisements, and it includes play and conducted in a religiously valuable way.

      Sotomayor is very clear in her beliefs against the church receiving the funding for a playground. She admits and strongly supports that what she sees, reads and observes is everything religious inside or outside of the church building.

    2. guess rather long ago now in the Everson case back in 1947, this Court said in no uncertain terms what the Framers didn't want was tax money imposed to pay for building or maintaining churches or church property.

      Ginsburg did not seem to budge on her predetermined decision against the church receiving any government money. I think she was one who dissented from the beginning.

  3. Sep 2019
    1. How does the State know or how can it control without then controlling on the -- on the basis of belief and viewpoint? How could they control against that involvement?

      Justice Sotomayor seems to lay out a valid argument for what many would look at as the main issue in this case, that the State of Missouri would be paying out funds directly to a church to spread its religious message.

    2. in the Everson case back in 1947, this Court said in no uncertain terms what the Framers didn't want was tax money imposed to pay for building or maintaining churches or church property. And doesn't that fit this case?

      Justice Ginsburg, very early in this case, seemed to lay out her case for dissenting from what she believes will be the ultimate outcome of this case by using the example of a case in 1947 that said that tax money collected should not be used to improve any sort of religious property.

    3. And the essence of that history is, basically, we don't want to, as a country -- well, the vast majority of States, to fund houses of worship.

      I believe this section of Sotomayor's questioning suggests that she was one of the justices who dissented. I have that take away from this section because in it, she appears to greatly defend the state for not wanting to get involved with the church financially, and even goes on to say that the church will not shut down its religious practices without the funding, therefore implying that it is not necessary.

    4. On that -- on that question, I guess rather long ago now in the Everson case back in 1947, this Court said in no uncertain terms what the Framers didn't want was tax money imposed to pay for building or maintaining churches or church property. And doesn't that fit this case? And if so, is Everson passé?

      This section of Ginsburg's commentary leads me to believe that she was one of the dissenters, because as she asks Cortman if the case of Everson in 1947 is applicable to their present case and he replies that it is not, she almost directly distinguishes that they are on opposing sides.

    5. They want the paving of their playground. Could -- could this -- could they demand as a matter of Federal constitutional right that that playground be funded, even though they have an -- an admissions policy that favors members of their church?

      I believe this hypothetical situation identifies Justice Ginsburg as the 2nd dissenting Justice. In this hypothetical she is proposing that they can demand the playground be funded and have an admissions policy, which would not be allowed, as it would violate the Establishment Clause in favor of the members that church over others with different political views. I believe by discussing these hypotheticals Justice Ginsburg was trying to showcase the fine line of church and state and why we must tread very carefully in these situations.

    6. I think that's the materials that you're -- that the church is advertising. How do you separate out its secular function from its religious function?

      I believe this statement by Justice Sotomayor identifies her was one of two dissenting Justices because she asks the question of how the religious function of the church will be used on the playground, previously stating that she believes the playground is a ministry of the church and with the notion that play can be conducted in a religious valuable way, how can you separate secular and religious functions of the playground.

    7. Or how about if it chooses on a sunny day to do its religious instruction outside. How does the State know or how can it control without then controlling on the -- on the basis of belief and viewpoint? How could they control against that involvement

      I think that Justice Sotomayor is a dissenter because of the way she is forming these questions. She is trying to get the underlining ideas behind why Cortman is arguing in favor of the church receiving funding. She is very particular in the way she is asking these questions.

    8. Everson case back in 1947, this Court said in no uncertain terms what the Framers didn't want was tax money imposed to pay for building or maintaining churches or church property.

      Due to Ginsburg talking about what the framers had intended, I would assume that she is one of the dissenters. She claims that the Framers did not want to use tax money to pay for maintaining churches, or their property. This shows that she is in favor of what the framers had originally stated and intended.

    9. They're just saying we don't want to be involved with the church.

      This would point towards being dissent because Justice Sotomayor is saying that money is being confused with religious practice and that the church isn't going to drop everything because of the playground. It doesn't seem like she thinks anything should change.

    10. Okay. Okay. Fine.

      I believe that Judge Breyer would be one of the judges to dissent because first of all, he sounds a little annoyed towards the reason of this case. Also, he doesn't seem like he thinks there should be any change because the states have decided about this matter.

    11. They want the paving of their playground. Could -- could this -- could they demand as a matter of Federal constitutional right that that playground be funded, even though they have an -- an admissions policy that favors members of their church?

      Justice Ginsburg seems to be sowing us that both the religious and the non-religious have perks that come with being what they are. Here she uses an example of admission policy that positively impact other church members

    12. I see that. What case would you cite?

      Throughout this section Justice Breyer doesn't seem convinced that this case needs the Court's input since the states have already ruled on the matter. He's looking for more than just a fear of change in political opinions to justify taking action.

    13. But you can have a playground here.

      As Justice Sotomayer points out a few times there is still a playground at the church, it just can't be financed by this grant due to the ruling in the lower courts. That said, nothing is stopping the playground from existing, and nothing is stopping the church from putting money into the playground either. This makes it different than the clerk McDaniel example because he was stopped from doing both.

    14. I'm thinking that Elena Kagan might be a dissent because she seems to be in favor of the state making the decision and the state didn't decide in favor of funding the safer playground.

    15. Justice Sonia Sotomayor I believe is one of the dissent who were against Trinity Lutheran, she has a very strong view on keeping the church and state separate and believes the playground to be strictly there for religious purposes.

    16. -- not under -- not under Locke, right? Locke drew a distinction between assistance for devotional, theological education and scholarship and others.

      I think justice Roberts also voted against the church. This statement to me makes it seem like the government has the right to deny funding for the church.

    17. They can do religious exercise. We don't want to fund religious exercise.

      I feel like Justice Kagan is a dissenting vote. I feel like this statement makes it seem like her opinion is that the state should not fund any religious activities.

    18. get the public money.

      I think this segment clues in to Ginsburg being one of the dissenters. I think she is cautious about the idea of religious institutions being funded in some way by a general public.

    19. You have a playground. No one is taking the playground away from you.

      I think this points toward Sotomayor being one of the dissenters. In this passage, I think it is clear that she believes that the government is not technically taking anything away from the church, or in this case, not allowing the playground to open.

    20. On that -- on that question, I guess rather long ago now in the Everson case back in 1947, this Court said in no uncertain terms what the Framers didn't want was tax money imposed to pay for building or maintaining churches or church property.

      I think that Justice Ginsburg is dissenting on this case because she brings up an earlier case that states that no tax money should be imposed to improve a church property.

    21. And, in fact, I look at its bylaws, I look at its advertisements, and it includes play and conducted in a religiously valuable way.

      Justice Sotomayor is asking how its secular functions differ from its religious functions. I think by asking this question Sotomayor is dissenting against the church because she knows that the playground can be used in a religious way.

    22. They want the paving of their playground. Could -- could this -- could they demand as a matter of Federal constitutional right that that playground be funded, even though they have an -- an admissions policy that favors members of their church?

      I think this is a time where Ginsburg is attempting to relate a situation where funding would be more obviously denied by the state in an attempt to link that to this case. I believe that Ginsburg is the other dissenting in this case.

    23. We seem to be confusing money with religious practice.

      I think this is a great point in which it seems Sotomayor is one of the dissenting votes in this case. She seems to be taking the side of the state very heavily here and pointing out things that would disprove Mr. Cortman's points

    24. So how is the building separate from the religious exercise therein? I believe that this playground is part of the ministry of this church.

      I think here Sonia Sotomayor is expressing that the building being part of the church should not include it in state funding. I think based off of her stating that she does not see a difference, she is one of the two that voted against the church.

    25. e did say in this case -- well, I think you stipulated that this school has a nondiscriminatory admissions policy. But suppose it didn't. Suppose its policy was we prefer Lutheran children, and then if we have any space left over after that, we'll take other Christians. And then after that, maybe Jews, and then everyone else. Everything else is the same.

      I think Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the other judge that had a dissenting vote based off her questions she is looking at how a church has the right pick and choose where public schools do not and she has an issue funding the private idea of this.

    26. On that -- on that question, I guess rather long ago now in the Everson case back in 1947, this Court said in no uncertain terms what the Framers didn't want was tax money imposed to pay for building or maintaining churches or church property. And doesn't that fit this case? And if so, is Everson passé?

      I think Justice Ginsburg was one of the two dissenters. Right from the beginning I thought it was clear that she was never going to agree with the church in this case. She strongly believes that this is violating the seperation of church and state and was not going to change her mind about that, no matter what Cortman said.

    27. We seem to be confusing money with religious practice. I don't think the two are tied. This church is not going to close its religious practices or its doors because its playground doesn't have these tires. So I'm not sure how this is a free-exercise question, because there is no effect on the religious beliefs.

      I believe that Sotomayor is a dissenter in this case. By reading this and hearing her tone of voice, I do not think that she believes this case should even be here based on the precedents set before this and does not vote in favor of the church in the end. I think she believes that religion and state funding should stay completely seperate.

    28. They want the paving of their playground. Could -- could this -- could they demand as a matter of Federal constitutional right that that playground be funded, even though they have an -- an admissions policy that favors members of their church?

      DISSENT When reading Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg thinking with her hypothetical of acceptance policy it seems as if the way she is trying to push Cortmans argument towards being all about the religion and acceptance of only religious children is to stage the thinking that the church would go behind the governments back.

    29. One would think that if there's play in the joints, that that would include the concept that States are free to say we don't want to spend money from the public FIs on houses of worship. Now, you say this affects free exercise. We seem to be confusing money with religious practice.

      Justice Sotomayor would be my second guess for the two justices that dissented themselves from the decision. I think this statement here validates her thoughts by saying "we". Now this may just be her generalizing who believes this, but to me it came across as part of her duties do not include the concepts of funding houses of worship.

    30. Or how about if it chooses on a sunny day to do its religious instruction outside. How does the State know or how can it control without then controlling on the -- on the basis of belief and viewpoint? How could they control against that involvement?

      DISSENT I believe Sonia is one of the Justices that will dissent because in her many questions you can understand that she is against any connection of the government to a religious organization considering they can't completely know or have controller how the church uses that space.

    31. Everson case back in 1947, this Court said in no uncertain terms what the Framers didn't want was tax money imposed to pay for building or maintaining churches or church property.

      I think this for sure makes it obvious that Justice Ginsburg is not for the church. She states right from the beginning that the framers said that money cannot go toward church property and she includes a previous case where that was decided.

    32. So how is the building separate from the religious exercise therein? I believe that this playground is part of the ministry of this church. And, in fact, I look at its bylaws, I look at its advertisements, and it includes play and conducted in a religiously valuable way. I think that's the materials that you're -- that the church is advertising. How do you separate out its secular function from its religious function?

      I think by this statement you can tell that Sonia Sotomayor is not for the church. She actually states "I believe" which means to actually thinks this. She thinks that because the playground is apart of the church it cannot be funded by the state. She even goes into looking at the rules of the playground and how it is connected to the church.

    33. On that -- on that question, I guess rather long ago now in the Everson case back in 1947, this Court said in no uncertain terms what the Framers didn't want was tax money imposed to pay for building or maintaining churches or church property

      I believe that what Justice Ginsburg is stating here is that that, because the Framers did not want tax money from a program implemented by a government institution to go towards a church. Which makes me believe that she was one of the dissenters.

    34. And the essence of that history is, basically, we don't want to, as a country -- well, the vast majority of States, to fund houses of worship.

      Well from the statement Justice Sotomayor made, it is clear that she does not agree with funds from this government program to fund a church

  4. Sep 2017
    1. the fundamental rights are not isolated and separate but protect a common thread of liberty and freedom
    2. Preventive detention, which is dealt with an Article 22, also amounts to deprivation of personal liberty which is referred to in Article 21, and is a violation of the right of freedom of movement dealt with in Article 19(1)(d)
  5. Mar 2017
    1. for illegal uses houses by using Big

      Aha: Big Data based community policing. Da werden sich die Rechten freuen, wenn ihnen die Linken dafür die Grundlagen und die Akzeptanz für die Einführung schaffen. Das einmal etablierte System auf allgemeines Fehlverhalten ausweiten schaffen sie dann demnächst selbst...

    2. Public services must be "digital by default

      Warum? Dort wo es einen Gebrauchswertgewinn in der Bereitstellung des Dienstes gibt, dort: ja. Aber generell? Warum muss alles digitalisiert werden? Und was ist mit Öffentlichen Angeboten, die per se nicht digitalisierbar sind (z.B. ein Park)? Fallen die aus dem Blick (und aus dem Angebot)?

    3. appropriate public policies and instruments

      Krasser Techno-Optimismus, der mit "angemessenen" Mitteln durchzusetzen ist. Das aus der Feder einer sich als progressiv verstehenden Stadtverwaltungs-Strategin. Da krieg ich irgendwie Angst.

    4. None   of   this   is   to   say   that,   somehow,   the   maker   movement   or   3D   printers   cannot   be  repurposed   to   serve   a   different

      Hinter der doppelten Verneinung in diesem Satz ist eine Aussage versteckt, die mehrere Jahrzehnte kritische Technologietheorie einfach so vom Tisch wischt: Technologie ist nicht neutral. Die Zwecke sind ihr eingeschrieben, nur ein sozialer und politischer Prozess der den Zweck der gesellschaftlichen Produktion adressiert kann auch Zweck und damit Charakter von Technologie verändern. Einfach "rumdrehen" lässt sich der Zweck von Technologie nicht.

      S. 24 heißt es übrigens m.E. schon sehr viel näher dran an einer angemessenen Sichtweise: "building hi-tech socialism using neoliberal infrastructure might very well be impossible."

    5. degree  of  non-­‐ideological

      Das Versprechen des Nicht-Ideologischen ist unter den gegebenen Bedingungen immer schon gleich Ideologie. Da gibts nichts abzuwarten ("remains to be seen"), außer man bezieht selbst den Standpunkt des "nicht-ideologischen" und also bürgerlichen Ideologen.

    6. The idea was that technology would provide easy fixes to complex social problems while too often forgettingthe ultimate reason for the application of these technologies, which is serving the citizens and deliver better public services.

      Die Idee war also gut, nur bei der Umsetzung wurde was vergessen??! Das fällt ja nochmal meilenweit hinter die kritischen Bestimmungen des ersten Teils zurück. Bzw. zeigt, dass die beiden Teile wenig miteinander zu tun haben im Sinne einer kritisch-analytischen Textgenese, wie ich sie von einer Fallstudie mit vorangestelltem Theorieteil erwarten würde.

    7. for ordinary u

      "ordinary users" von airbnb sind also ok? da hätte ich ja auch noch mal diskussionsbedarf. und außerdem widerspricht es den schlussfolgerungen des eigenen papiers an anderer stelle (aufbau eigener infrastruktur).