124 Matching Annotations
  1. May 2022
    1. The biggest barriers to coding are technical complexity around processes like collaboration and deployment, and social obstacles like gatekeeping and exclusion — so that's what we've got to fix
  2. Apr 2022
    1. We give everybody public health protection, but not a church. That's -- that's the law in my imaginary State. And I'm saying, does the Constitution, which guarantees free exercise of religion, permit such laws?

      Bryers line " We give everybody fire protection, but let the church burn down" leads me to believe this a a crucial spot in which the court would eventually favor the church. Bryer is asking on whether the constitution, a document that guarantees free exercise of religion, also stops the church from receiving benefits that many other institutions recieve. It is followed by Laytons attempt to dodge the question. I believe it makes a strong case for the church and directly ties in the constitution.

    2. I tend to think we don't need to, but at 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 believe this is a huge indication in the decision to rule in favor of the church. here we see justice Samuel attempting to ask Sonia, one who is against the church, a critical question that is followed by the petitioner courtman. Giving court-man a chance to plead his case after Sonia just attempted to question it.

    3. if for some reason someone prays one day there or they decide to go outside for -- for one event, that doesn't -- it's not the government there who's advancing religion. It's an incidental advancement that's -- that's done by the private party.

      I believe this is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that the court will rule in favor of the church. Cortman describes the act of praying by a kid on the playground as a personal decision. Strategically protecting the government by saying they are not the ones who advanced the religious act as well as stating that that is a private party issue.

    4. motivation behind operating this preschool is a religious motivation, doesn't mean that every single activity that occurs there happens to be religious.

      I believe Court-mans statement is crucial to the decision to rule in favor of the church, " Doesn't mean every single activity that occurs there happens to be religious', immediately stood out to me because even though its a religious school, Cortman is implying a notion that inversely supports the school without coming out and saying it.

  3. Mar 2022
  4. Feb 2022
    1. -- an epidemic?

      Also favors in the way of the church, as he believes that the church should also receive benefits that overall aid the children.

    2. One would be eligible, one would not be eligible?

      Samuel Alito is definitely in the majority because throughout the entire court case, the questions make it clear that the state of Missouri does seem to provide aid to certain church denominations in the face of helping create a safer place.

    3. that funding to a particular party based solely on that party's religious status.

      I think Elena's comment here shows that she will vote in favor of the church, as her comments show that she understand what Cortman is getting at with this case, and Elena will be in the majority.

  5. Jan 2022
    1. Very well. If it does not permit a law that pays money out of the treasury for the health of the children in the church, school, or even going to church, how does it permit Missouri to deny money to the same place for helping children not fall in the playground, cut their knees, get tetanus, break a leg, et cetera? What's the difference?

      Breyer seems to be a majority because when it comes to matters of safety and well being, which the playground upgrade is, that seperation of church and state doesn't apply

    2. in my last hypothetical about earthquake safety, any problem there with giving the money to a church and spending extra money for the cross in the window? It's all -- it's for public safety.

      I feel like this statement from justice Kennedy makes me believe that he is for the funding for the playground because he makes the point about public safety and isn't this playground being built so that kids can be more safe when they play outside?

    3. Isn't it the consequence of your argument that the church can use the playground for more religious activities if the public school can use the playground for other non-playground activities?

      I believe that Justice Roberts, Jr. Is making a point against the church receiving the funding because he is saying that if public schools can use their playgrounds for other activities, then can't religious schools use their playgrounds for other activities as well?

    4. Well, it doesn't really -- it's separate from the religious instruction that might be carried out over those computers.

      This makes me believe that Justice Kagan is for the funding of the playground because she is making the comparison that religious schools are able to get funding for technology if it is not for religious teachings.

    5. 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 because Justice Ginsburg is quoting an old court case claiming that the framers never wanted tax money to be used for religious purposes that this is a point in the case where I believe the church will lose in the court case.

    6. We give everybody public health protection, but not a church. That's -- that's the law in my imaginary State. And I'm saying, does the Constitution, which guarantees free exercise of religion, permit such laws?

      Judge Breyer seems as he is in favor of the church because he continuously asks questions that show how we change the law on many things when the word church comes into play. He kind of makes a point within these questions showing that it is slightly humane of us to disregard churches from things such as public health, fire protection, and police protection.

    7. the question is, is why would someone's religious status matter in the first place to receiving a government benefit?

      Judge Cortman seems as if he is in favor of the church because one he answers to Judge Kennedy question "...religious status can never be the basis for a governmental actions or governmental ordinance, governmental statute?" by saying he isn't sure it can be. Judge Cortmans question is an answer within it self because he doesn't see a solid reason why someone religion would matter enough on whether they were to receive funding or not.

  6. Nov 2021
  7. Oct 2021
    1. Facebook could say that its platform is not for everyone. It could sound an alarm for those who wander into the most dangerous corners of Facebook, and those who encounter disproportionately high levels of harmful content. It could hold its employees accountable for preventing users from finding these too-harmful versions of the platform, thereby preventing those versions from existing.

      The "moral majority" has screamed for years about the dark corners of the internet, and now they seem to be actively supporting a company that actively pushes people to those very extremes.

  8. Sep 2021
    1. any problem there with giving the money to a church and spending extra money for the cross in the window? It's all -- it's for public safety.

      I think this argument shows clear in favor of the church as he is saying all in all, if it is a necessity and about public safety, religion should not matter. He might be implying that a playground meant to keep kids healthy should be on the matter of public health not religion

    2. I don't think it does. Everson also said that we have to be careful in not establishing a church not to deprive religious people or organizations of general government benefits.

      This is an argument that most definitely argues in favor of the church as he clearly states they should not be deprived

    3. Okay? You know, the hypotheticals are obvious.

      J. Breyer's comments are strongly implying his disagreement in the principle that certain services that ensure the safety of citizens should not exclude religious organizations. I believe that this implies his vote lies with the majority in favor of the church.

    4. Do you think that that is the proper way to analyze this question?

      I agree with the previous annotation that this line of questioning from J. Alito, Jr. conveys his intent to vote in favor of the church by allowing Cortman the opportunity to counter-argue Sotomayer's dissenting claim.

    5. Stephen G. Breyer

      I believe Justice Breyer is part of the majority. Similar to Justice Alito, he gives Layton several hypotheticals. Layton's argument toward these hypotheticals show discrimination by not giving benefits, such as policemen, to a church simply because it is religious. Justice Breyer also sounds annoyed and short with Layton.

    6. Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

      I believe Justice Alito is part of the majority. He does not lay off with the pressing questions toward Layton. The way he gives several hypotheticals back to back and questions why state funds could not help these organizations, makes me think he is against Layton's argument.

    7. Well, discrimination on the basis of status of religion, there's no -- no line-drawing problem there.

      I think this is clear that the state not funding the religious school was discriminatory in this justice's point of view. He clearly states that there is no line to be drawn

    8. We give everybody public health protection, but not a church. That's -- that's the law in my imaginary State. And I'm saying, does the Constitution, which guarantees free exercise of religion, permit such laws?

      I think the types of questions asked are moreso in favor of the church because they probe about the protections of religious institutions and why State and federal law might protect it

    9. This is a New York City program that provides security -- money for security enhancements at schools where there's fear of shooting or other school violence.

      With all of these previous statements, it's clear that Justice Alito is on the majority side. With these statements and questions, he's arguing that it isn't fair under Missouri law that churches wouldn't be subjected to these different examples presented just because of their religious affiliation.

    10. Have they ever said that it prevents the State from, say, having a -- a border guard, you know, crossing guards or fire protection? Or, let's say, health inspections?

      With this question, it is clear that Justice Breyer is on the majority size. He is arguing that churches are subject to other government benefits that are similar to the one in this case.

    11. State money could not be used to actually erect or -- or operate or provide that kind of physical addition to a -- to a church or synagogue.

      It seems as if he states that the money that would be spent for the playground would not be used for any religious making. For example, if there as a grant for the playground, that grant would not be spent on building an expansion for the church.

    12. we're putting up a safer surface for when the kids play and fall,

      I believe he agrees with this decision. He believes that religion or not this is a safer surface for children to play. He believes that the religion can be separated from the playground itself.

    13. Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

      I think Justice Alito is apart of the Majority opinion. I think this because of the way he's questioning Layton. He asks him about a scenario involving anti-semetic synagogue group or a masque and if thats considered to be at high risk of attack by an anti muslim group. He follows up with asking how this Missouri constitution would interpret / permit this type of situation. he also asks for hi to define the meaning of a church and is a religious affiliated school not a church under the Missouri Constitution. All of this questioning and the way he keeps asking him these types of questions about specification lead me to believe he's in the Majority

    14. Anthony M. Kennedy

      I think Justice Kennedy is one of the Majority opinions because he begins by already saying there is no serious risk of an establishment violation. He also isn't going back and forth with Cortman like Sotoayor does so that in itself gives me a hint that Sotomyaor is one of the dissenting while Kennedy is a Majorty

    15. How is it that discrimination on the basis of religious exercise is better in selective government programs than general programs, first? And second, how do we tell the difference between the two, if that's the line we're going to draw?

      I feel like this line of questions by Justice Gorsuch shows that he is in align with the majority. This is because he sees that the line that the state is drawing around this particular case is two muddied and not fleshed out enough.

    16. Neil Gorsuch

      I think justice Gorsuch is another one of the majority voters here. He seems very secure on the basis of religious discrimination as opposed to the questions of sotomayor and kagan who seemed to recognize it as a possible issue with the inclusion of other religions. He already seems convinced that it was a case of discrimination against the church.

    17. Now you say no, it does not permit those laws.

      Breyer seems to almost be trying to direct Layton's line of argument, in order to identify and show why Layton's argument is at fault. With this line of statements and questions, Breyer is my guess for the 2nd majority.

    18. I hear you making a different argument,

      Given the overall back and forth so far, it would seem clear that Kagan is ultimately part of the 7-2 majority. Both here and in her question near the outset of the arguments, she is asking questions that seem to be favorable to Mr. Cortman's arguments while also steering the case ultimately toward a narrower holding. Here, in particular, she's essentially saying to both Mr. Cortman and her fellow justices, "I like what I read in your brief, but now I hear you saying something different. Stick to your strongest reasoning." If this case had been decided 5-4 or 6-3, it might be harder to determine whether Kagan was in the majority, but this is not particularly adversarial questioning.

    19. Assuming that there's no serious risk of an establishment violation, that's off the table

      Knowing the decision was 7-2 in favor of the Church, it would seem that Kennedy is in that majority, based on the fact that he is trying to establish that there is no Establishment Clause violation. Even if there is no issue with the clause, I don't think a dissenting justice would interject after a minute in this way. Furthermore, his subsequent question seems to be asking Mr. Cortman whether his argument is that states would always need to provide funding to a church in situations like this, unless that funding would violate the Establishment Clause. This seems like quite an expansionist view, as compared to precedent, as Justice Sotomayor later points out, but Justice Kennedy does not challenge Mr. Cortman when he answers that states cannot use religious status to deny public benefits.

    20. So what is the definition of a church? So a religiously-affiliated school is not a church under the -- under the Missouri constitution?

      Similar to Kagan and her questioning earlier, Alito seems to press hard against Layton's defense of Missouri in not granting funds. Alito seems to be firmly on the side of Trinity at this point. I'm confident in making him my first guess as a majority.

    21. For example, in that case, we have independent decisionmaking, which has been key to many of this Court's decisions.

      Layton is in majority rule for the church funding the playground by his statement of independent decision making. He specifically says its in the hands of the state.

    22. Because I don't think this is one of the difficult cases.

      I think the simplicity of this statement demonstrates what side of the argument Cortman is on. Clearly, so far throughout the entire case he has been defending the funding of the playground. While other are challenging his idea, he flat out says this case is not that difficult.

    23. just a minute, why isn't the case moot?

      I feel like this question here by Justice Breyer shows that he agrees with the decision. It seems to not quite understand why it is in front of the court to begin with.

    24. Okay?

      Based on Justice Breyer's tone in this section, which seems to indicate annoyance with the respondant, I'm going to conclude that he was one of the Justices who voted with the majority. While it is possible that his tone is merely a tool to probe the strength of Layton's legal argument, it sounds more like he has already made up his mind and is growing impatient with having to hear Layton's case.

    25. Do you think that that is the proper way to analyze this question?

      In providing Cortman the opportunity to directly refute Justice Sotomayor's reasoning, I believe Justice Alito is revealing that he is part of the majority that will come to decide in favor of Trinity Lutheran.

    26. How do you separate out its secular function from its religious function?

      MAJORITY!! I think Justice Sotomayor is using textualization of the constitution here, this would make sense to me that she'll continue to build on / use this thought for her conclusion

    27. Framers didn't want was tax money imposed to pay for building or maintaining churches or church property.

      MAJORITY !! I think this shows Justice RBG's opinion / leads towards conclusion even though it is early on, she's bringing up precedent

    28. But -- see, but that's what makes the case a -- just a little bit -- in -- in -- in my last hypothetical about earthquake safety, any problem there with giving the money to a church and spending extra money for the cross in the window? It's all -- it's for public safety.

      I think this is one of the majority justices. It is still very early and his course may change but it seems like he is already convinced and suggesting that spending this money is not about advancing religion, as it would be similar for spending the earthquake proofing money on a church window.

    29. Stephen G. Breyer

      Justice Stephen Breyer is in the majority. Around 34:33, Justice Breyer is creating a scenario and a question for Layton, based off of his response to Justice Alito about how fire and police services are a public service because the treasury does not write a direct check. Justice Breyer chimed in by asking Layton to answer if the Constitution would allow for a state to provide protection to everyone except churches, which is what he was basically applying to how the Missouri government is willing to help all other organizations except churches. Additionally, at 35:50, Justice Breyer states that the Constitution does not permit those types of exclusion laws based on the free exercise of religion. He then takes this and makes the connection that if the Constitution does not allow for the state treasury's to pay for the health of children except ones that belong to a church, how are they able to deny money to an establishment that is trying to increase the safety of the playground for the children at the church.

    30. Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

      I believe that Justice Alito is in the majority. First, at about 19:09, Justice Alito rebuttals Justice Sotomayor's line of questioning, which was revolving around the idea that the first amendment has a respectable history that should be honored enough to not bring it in to this specific argument. Justice Alito asks Cortman if he thinks this is even a proper way to analyze this issue, thus giving Cortman the break he needed from Justice Sotomayor's interrogation to continue with his argument involving the first amendment. At about 31:08, Justice Alito interrogates Layton, the defendant and spokesperson for the Missouri government, about how different federal programs that would help different places of worship by creating additions or improvements. This came after Layton stated how the state wanted to stay separate from any religious affairs. He also questions the nature of how the Missouri government will provide assistance to religious-affiliated schools, but not churches. He demands that Layton provide definitions, examples, answer case-scenarios, and draw the fine line between the two.

    31. I'm asking, does the Constitution of the United States permit a State or a city to say, we give everybody in this city police protection, but not churches? We give everybody fire protection, but let the church burn down.

      Justice Breyer takes a tactic similar to Justice Alito in providing hypotheticals that cast the respondent's position in a negative light. He says he fails to see a difference between providing funds for playground resurfacing--a potential health issue if the playground surface is in bad shape--and providing things such as police and fire protection or vaccines under a public health program. Here he is making his view on the constitutionality of such an approach more explicit than Alito did, though, by asking if they should let a church burn down rather than send in the fire department just because it is a religious institution. It seems pretty obvious this is more or less a hypothetical question.

    32. So if you have a -- a synagogue that is at high risk for an attack by an anti-Semitic group or a mosque that is considered to be at high risk for attack by an anti-Muslim group, would the Missouri constitution permit the erection of bollards like we have around the court here?

      I have little doubt that Alito took the majority opinion on this case. The hypothetical quests he poses here offer a pretty scathing rebuke to the respondent's logic on not only legal but emotional grounds. He is putting the respondent in the uncomfortable position of having to argue in favor of denying funds to victims or potential victims of terrorism on the grounds that they are religious institutions, which casts it in a light of being discriminatory rather than a reasonable precaution against unconstitutional behavior.

    33. Elena Kagan

      Kagan also seems to be on the side of the church in this case. Her focus seems to be that as long as the money is used for playground services, and not for religious services, there is no foul play.

    34. Stephen G. Breyer

      I think this line here is a point that shows how Breyer is for the church in this case. He argues that the state provide protection from fire, crime, and health issues universally, and so should also provide money for grants universally.

  9. Apr 2021
    1. I recently played a prototype of an upcoming game called Bronze. This takes the tile-laying/ territory claiming mechanic and builds on it by adding abilities to each of the tiles. they benefit you in some way if you claim them. The result is a very similar feel to Fjords (competing for a share of the map) but with greater depth.
  10. Mar 2021
    1. Democrat Chicago to allow the economy to open up less than a week after Biden's inauguration...it's all planned to make Biden appear successful! Democrats allowed millions of people to suffer and lose businesses all for their own greed and power!
  11. Dec 2020
    1. Princeton professor Robert P. George, a specialist in moral and political philosophy and the theory of conscience, uses the example of slavery to demonstrate that every serious moral dilemma reveals two categories of people: the majority, who go along with the popular zeitgeist no matter how atrocious it is; and the minority, who risk their very existence to fight it.

      Does the majority always goes along with the popular zeitgeist?

  12. Oct 2020
  13. Aug 2020
    1. my point is that using "into" in such a case is just as incorrect as using "inas" would be. The fact that people make mistakes doesn't change this.

      "Log in" is the only correct way to spell the verb, and the only way to be consistent with 1000s of other phrasal verbs that are spelled with a space in them.

      We don't need nor want an exception to the general rule just for "login" just because so many people have made that mistake.

  14. Jun 2020
  15. Apr 2020
    1. Less than 1% of users in the world have Javascript turned off. So honestly, it's not worth anyones time accommodating for such a small audience when a large majority of websites rely on Javascript. Been developing websites for a very long time now, and 100% of my sites use Javascript and rely on it heavily. If users have Javascript turned off, that's their own problem and choice, not mine. They'll be unable to visit or use at least 90% of websites online with it turned off.
    1. The tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses) is an inherent weakness to majority rule in which the majority of an electorate pursues exclusively its own interests at the expense of those in the minority. This results in oppression of minority groups comparable to that of a tyrant or despot
    1. Direct democracy was not what the framers of the United States Constitution envisioned for the nation. They saw a danger in tyranny of the majority. As a result, they advocated a representative democracy in the form of a constitutional republic over a direct democracy. For example, James Madison, in Federalist No. 10, advocates a constitutional republic over direct democracy precisely to protect the individual from the will of the majority
  16. Jan 2020
    1. And the answer to that is, for example, even though the motivation behind operating this preschool is a religious motivation, doesn't mean that every single activity that occurs there happens to be religious.

      I believe that David suggesting that every single activity happening at the preschool has to be religious , is him suggesting that these kids deserve the playground regardless. I believe that he would have voted with the majority.

    2. There's a constitutional principle. It's as strong as any constitutional principle that there is, that when we have a program of funding -- and here we're funding playground surfaces -- that everybody is entitled to that funding, to -- to that particular funding,

      Elena is showing that she is for the group getting the money for the playground, and she makes this point very clear in stating that it is a constitutional principle, and that everyone is entitled to these principles.

    3. This is a New York City program that provides security -- money for security enhancements at schools where there's fear of shooting or other school violence.

      Through the three rounds of questions asked by Alito I believe he was a part of the majority because he tried to poke holes in Layton's understanding and representation of the Missouri constitution and whether or not they should give Money to places that need the safety/ protection

    4. hat means what your position is, if there is no Establishment violation, there can never be a distinction based on religion.

      I think this entire portion about Establishment between Kennedy and Cortman makes me believe Kennedy was in the majority, he took the focus off of the religious aspects and on to safety and that was quite a distinction from what the justices that had spoke before made

    5. all we're talking about is a -- is a surface, a safer surface on the playground for when -- when kids p

      I think Cortman is in the majority of passing for the church to receive benefits from the recycle program. He states several times that it is for a safe play surface, not necessarily a religious surface.

    6. But -- see, but that's what makes the case a -- just a little bit -- in -- in -- in my last hypothetical about earthquake safety, any problem there with giving the money to a church and spending extra money for the cross in the window? It's all -- it's for public safety.

      I think this statement shows that Kennedy is in favor of Trinity Lutheran because he puts his hypothetical situation under the same umbrella as the current case and says "it's all for public safety". This shows that he is less worried about the religious aspect and more worried about the safety of the children.

    7. t 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?

      Alito seems to be disagreeing with Sotomayor and giving Cortman another chance to look at this question a different way, so I think that he is also in favor of Trinity Lutheran.

    8. Well, discrimination on the basis of status of religion, there's no -- no line-drawing problem there. We know that's happened in this case, right?

      I believe this is pointing to Neil Gorsuch voting yes with the majority. He is making the case a point of discrimination and the fact the church could not receive funding for a playground simply because of their religious beliefs. He's recognizing that the playground is not promoting religion, it's merely an addition for the school, the same as many public schools have.

    9. It's as strong as any constitutional principle that there is, that when we have a program of funding -- and here we're funding playground surfaces -- that everybody is entitled to that funding, to -- to that particular funding, whether or not they exercise a constitutional right; in other words, here, whether or not they are a religious institution doing religious things.

      This points to the fact that Elena Kagen is in favor of the church and will vote with the majority. She is recognizing that the funding is going towards a playground, which funding should be available for whether religious or not. The church is not trying to take money to promote their religion or for their beliefs, it is just for the playground for the children.

    10. And -- and so long as the money is granted based on neutral criteria that are faithfully applied, I don't know how you can draw a distinction between a program that's open to everybody and a selective program

      In one long example, I think Alito showed his support for cert here. He's trying to show Layton the state is not being selective and showing favoritism. Instead, there might be a perception of favoritism. I think Alito is trying to ask Layton to make something of that distinction

    11. Stephen G. Breyer Have they ever said that it prevents the State from, say, having a -- a border guard, you know, crossing guards or fire protection? Or, let's say, health inspections?

      Breyer seems to be building an argument here that churches and religious institutions have always been given basic safety rights like police protection and health inspections. I believe he's affirming and building the argument for it here.

    12. You have to have a position. And -- and it seems to me that if you can't answer the question whether or not you could prohibit tours for religious schools while allowing tours for other schools, I don't understand the basis of your program -- your position

      This points towards Justice Roberts being in favor of the church. My takeaway is that he feels that if the State can't have a position on refusing tours to religious schools then they don't truly have a position in this matter.

    13. Very well. If it does not permit a law that pays money out of the treasury for the health of the children in the church, school, or even going to church, how does it permit Missouri to deny money to the same place for helping children not fall in the playground, cut their knees, get tetanus, break a leg, et cetera? What's the difference?

      This points to Justice Breyer being in favor of the church. He points out that there is no difference in providing money in health context then there is in this case as this new surface could be construed in a health conscious way.

    1. ut the question is, how are we going to interpret the constitutional right? What are we -- so -- so I guess what I'm asking is, do you see value in the other side in having some flexibility here for States to make these sorts of choices?

      I think Elena Kagan is trying to state her belief on the states constitutional rights. That the states should have some flexibility within these rights to have choices.

    2. Let's suppose that the public school sometimes uses its playground for things other than children playing, whatever they're going to have, a -- you know, an auction or anything else.

      I think Justice Roberts is supporting the church receive funding for the recycle playground surface. He states that even though the playground is located on a religious property, this does not mean it will be used for religious activities.

    3. They don't think they should -- David A Cortman They should be able to deny it on that ground. And the reason I say that is, is all we're talking about is a -- is a surface, a safer surface on the playground for when -- when kids play

      I think Cortman is in the majority of passing for the church to receive benefits from the recycle program. He states several times that it is for a safe play surface, not necessarily a religious surface.

    4. Everson also said that we have to be careful in not establishing a church not to deprive religious people or organizations of general government benefits.

      Cortman is trying to explain that there is a necessity in taking steps to protect the equality of not depriving things from religious group of organization based on that reason along.

  17. Sep 2019
    1. Then you have to do it.

      I think what Justice Breyer is arguing here is that health and safety is the responsibility of the public/state, therefore it should be funded on this notion. This leads me to believe that he is another justice who voted in the majority.

    2. As long as you're using the money for playground services, you're not disentitled from that program because you're a religious institution doing religious things. And I would have thought that that's a pretty strong principle in our constitutional law.

      This statement points me to believe that Kagan was one of the justices who voted in favor of the church, as she defends it's right not to be excluded from funding based solely on the fact that they are a religious institution doing religious things.

    3. So what is the definition of a church? So a religiously-affiliated school is not a church under the -- under the Missouri constitution?

      Based on the direction of Justice Alito's questioning in this exchange, he seems to be intentionally leading Mr. Layton down a path of why there seems to be a double-standard between this case and a previous case argued in the Missouri Supreme Court. This leads me to believe that Justice Alito's mind is already made up in which way he is leaning in this case.

    4. Has the -- has the -- the State courts, have they ever said the amendment prevents the State from giving grants or from spending money on police protection for churches

      Based on this line of questioning, Justice Breyer seems to show his opinion of the case that the church should be entitled to the money because of his references to other ways that the state spends its money on other programs that benefit the church, such as police and fire protection, something that people would generally not bat an eye at.

    5. This is a Federal program that provided grants for the repair of buildings near the Federal building in Oklahoma City that were damaged by the bombing there. Would that be permitted?

      I believe that Alito is one of the majority members for this case. He brings up a good point here of possible discrimination against institutions solely based on their religious affiliation. If a bomb (or fire) had damaged a row of both non-religious as well as religious buildings, would it be unfair if the religious buildings were denied money to help repair their structure?

    6. it's separate from the religious instruction that might be carried out over those computers.

      I think Kagan is included in the majority vote. While she isn't necessarily taking sides here, I think she is comparing this to a previous case where a religious institution was able to receive funds because they were able to show the separation between education and their religious intent.

    7. Very well. If it does not permit a law that pays money out of the treasury for the health of the children in the church, school, or even going to church, how does it permit Missouri to deny money to the same place for helping children not fall in the playground, cut their knees, get tetanus, break a leg, et cetera? What's the difference?

      I believe the this statement identifies Justice Breyer as part of the majority, in support of the church. If we are unable to say that we can withhold funds for fire protection and public health protection, how can we deny money to the same place for the playground? A place where a child could potentially injure themselves or a fire could break out.

    8. So one of them is a Federal nonprofit security grant program providing grants through the Department of Homeland Security to harden -- harden nonprofit organization facilities that are deemed to be at high risk for terrorist attacks.

      I believe this statement by Justice Alito identifies him as part of the majority for he inquires about certain federal grants that are in-place to provide security to organizations deemed high risk of terrorism attacks, asking if the state of Missouri would permit these grants to a Synagogue. The nature of his question I believe supports the church because it is showing federal grants that are currently being used to fund places of worship within the United States.

    9. I think this answer by Cortman may have swayed Roberts. Im putting Roberts on the side of the majority as a result of this exchange.

    10. It would depend on the nature of the two.

      I believe that Justice Layton is also apart of the majority. Due to him saying that it "depends on the nature of the two". He is saying that depending on what the private school is asking, one may be eligible to funding and another may not.

    11. Kennedy is showing support for the church, it seems his overwhelming concern is for safety and doesnt believe the church should be excluded because of previous decisions as is RBG.

    12. Let's suppose that the public school sometimes uses its playground for things other than children playing, whatever they're going to have, a -- you know, an auction or anything else. Isn't it the consequence of your argument that the church can use the playground for more religious activities if the public school can use the playground for other non-playground activities?

      I believe Roberts is part of the majority. He is claiming that if a public school can use their playground for something other than what it is intended, why can't a private school also do that?

    13. And why shouldn't this be one of those cases?

      I think that Judge Kagan is trying to get all the other judges to understand where Mr. Cortman is coming from. It also seems like she is allowing more time for Mr. Cortman to get himself together and get himself back on track.

    14. But still the question is whether some people can be disentitled from applying to that program and from receiving that money if they are qualified based on other completely nonreligious attributes, and they're disqualified solely because they are a religious institution doing religious things.

      This is pointing towards the fact that it isn't fair to basically deny somebody because of their religious beliefs and this goes the same towards an religious institution.

    15. So it's -- it's not -- now your line is the benefit, if the benefit is physical, that's okay; but if it's not, it's not?

      I think here Justice Roberts raises a good point about the almost arbitrary distinction between funding that effects the physical realm and funding that does not

    16. One would be eligible, one would not be eligible?

      Justice Alito is trying to force the State to answer the question about why it's so different to give to churches for this particular reason when religiously affiliated schools can receive public funds which supports the Lutheran Church's argument.

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

      Chief Justice Roberts, as well as other Justices who are leaning toward the majority, have pointed out several times that the playground and the church building itself are different entities, Therefore, there is no violation because so long as the money is used for repairing the playground and not repairing the church itself, the state is not using religion with state funds. By pointing out the distinction Locke drew, Chief Justice Roberts further supports his view.

    18. Justice Anthony Kennedy is hinting in favor of Trinity Lutheran here, again safety is his concern. He is pointing out that religion could be practiced anywhere, and just because its practiced doesn't mean that the government shouldn't contribute to the safety of the building or in this case the playground.

    19. I believe that this justice is hinting in favor of Trinity Lutheran by pointing out that both public school playgrounds and non-public school playgrounds are able to use the playground for practices other than school and other than practicing religion. I feel that he's concerned with safety at any playground.

    20. We don't want -- we don't -- we don't want to because they're a church. That's why not. Same with fire protection. Same with vaccination programs. Same with public health. Same with helping children who get sick at school. Okay? You know, the hypotheticals are obvious.

      I feel like Justice Breyer voted in the majority for the church. This statement seems like he is very defensive about the state not providing what I assume he thinks are proper funds.

    21. So suppose you -- we have the -- a school that's run by the Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia. And then next to it we have a -- a Jesuit elementary and secondary school. One would be eligible, one would not be eligible?

      Here, Justice Alto Jr. is supporting the Lutheran Church because he is trying to point out the hypocrisy of providing for some religiously affiliated schools but not others.

    22. Here, the justice strengthens the argument for the church by giving an example where the computers would be used for more than just religious instruction.

    23. States have their own very longstanding law.

      I have a feeling that the only reason they have to have this court case is because of just a law that has been going on for decades, but not something that she actually believes in.

    24. Okay. Last one. This is a New York City program that provides security -- money for security enhancements at schools where there's fear of shooting or other school violence.

      I think here Alito is attempting to show how this law is unjust in some ways. On a moral view, if children are at risk of getting hurt and the state does nothing to help, the state is in the wrong morally, but not wrong legally. I believe this possibly shows Alito leaning towards the majority.

    25. It's an issue on which I -- I guess I'm going to say nobody is completely sure that they have it right. And -- and so I guess there's something attractive about having some play in the joints where States can go their own way and make their own choices. And why shouldn't this be one of those cases?

      I think this section highlights where Elena Kagan is trying to clarify the churches point a little. It almost seems like a set up questions so that Mr. Cortman can explain himself a little more. I think this shows that Kagan is leaning towards the majority.

    26. We don't want -- we don't -- we don't want to because they're a church. That's why not. Same with fire protection. Same with vaccination programs. Same with public health. Same with helping children

      I think Stephen Breyer voted in the majority because he feels as though he is attacking the idea of not funding the church in any sense. Because he is talking about protection and helping people and it feels as though the service of providing a pavement could go along with these other fundings. He has clearly showed this pavement will protect children and we should help children.

    27. But the State is entitled to say you can't use this money for religious activity, and maybe I'll bring you a little bit further, we're entitled to take certain prophylactic measures to make sure that you don't use the money for religious activity.

      Here I think Elena may be moving towards agreement with the church because she is talking about how regulation could be used so she could possibly be in the majority.

    28. So if it's controlled.

      I think Samuel A. voted in the majority because his questions are very much searching for an answer and feel as though he is not asking difficult questions that will stick him in an awkward place, but to help him move his point along.

    29. I'm asking, does the Constitution of the United States permit a State or a city to say, we give everybody in this city police protection, but not churches? We give everybody fire protection, but let the church burn down. We give everybody public health protection, but not a church. That's -- that's the law in my imaginary State. And I'm saying, does the Constitution, which guarantees free exercise of religion, permit such laws?

      I think that Breyer is another Justice that sides with the church in this case. He keeps referring to points that circle around the fact that a playground is a public benefit and the fact that children who go to a religious school use it, but not for a religious activity. These kids use it just to run around as kids and get some energy out and that it should not be a religious funding issue because religious activites are not happening on it.

    30. Oh. So suppose you -- we have the -- a school that's run by the Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia. And then next to it we have a -- a Jesuit elementary and secondary school. One would be eligible, one would not be eligible?

      I believe that Alito is a majority in this case ruling. He is drilling Mr. Layton about the differences in religious groups and buildings and the question about different fundings given. I believe he thinks there is no overlapping issue with the seperation of church and state with the money given to a playground that is not being used for a religious purpose.

    31. Very well. If it does not permit a law that pays money out of the treasury for the health of the children in the church, school, or even going to church, how does it permit Missouri to deny money to the same place for helping children not fall in the playground, cut their knees, get tetanus, break a leg, et cetera? What's the difference?

      MAJORITY I feel like the way Justice Stephen G Breyer is phrasing his questions and leading this conversation in a way that he is definitely voting in the way of the church. I say this because he is trying to find the weak spot in Laytons argument and to make a point that he can't win the argument and be a good man in the eyes of the people.

    32. As long as you're using the money for playground services, you're not disentitled from that program because you're a religious institution doing religious things. And I would have thought that that's a pretty strong principle in our constitutional law.

      MAJORITY Justice Elena Kagan is stating that even if the playground is built on a churches ground that they should still be allowed to get the money because the main purpose of that playground is not based on religious attitudes or actions.

    33. What if you had a program at the -- the State capital? You had tours for school groups, and you had someone who, you know, coordinated, tied it into the social studies program; school groups can come in, but no religious schools. Is that okay?

      I think Justice Roberts is another Justice in the majority. He seems to be poking holes in Layton's argument about how this is conditional issue. He then rips into Layton for having two competing lines, and Layton changing those lines as he is trying to respond to Roberts.

    34. that when we have a program of funding -- and here we're funding playground surfaces -- that everybody is entitled to that funding, to -- to that particular funding, whether or not they exercise a constitutional right; in other words, here, whether or not they are a religious institution doing religious things.

      I think Justice Kagan is part of the majority. She states that everyone is eligible and entitled to the funding whether or not the group is participating in religious activities. And she backs it up by saying that the money is not being put toward religious activities, it's just going to the playground, regardless of who uses it.

    35. So if you have a -- a synagogue that is at high risk for an attack by an anti-Semitic group or a mosque that is considered to be at high risk for attack by an anti-Muslim group, would the Missouri constitution permit the erection of bollards like we have around the court here?

      I believe Samuel A. Alto, Jr. makes a good point here and almost seems like he is seeing the side of the church. He is talking about all of the terrorist attacks pointed towards religious buildings and asking how it is fait that government buildings are protected by religious buildings are not.

    36. The problem is this church has come in with a very competitive application. We want to give money to this church. Let's say, you know, a Protestant church. There's a Catholic church across the street. Catholic church applies, doesn't get money, this happens five years running. And people start thinking, well, why is the Protestant church keeping on getting the money and the Catholic church never gets the money? And the State says, we just won't -- don't want to sow that kind of division, that kind of mistrust, that kind of

      I think here Elena Kagan might be looking at the side of the church. I think this because she is talking about the church is competitive and how there could be problems in the way. One of these problems is that the Catholic church get no funding. What if a Protestant church ends up getting funding then the Catholic church is going to be upset. So she is looking at it more in a way of "how would this work?".

    37. Let's suppose that the public school sometimes uses its playground for things other than children playing, whatever they're going to have, a -- you know, an auction or anything else. Isn't it the consequence of your argument that the church can use the playground for more religious activities if the public school can use the playground for other non-playground activities?

      Justice Roberts brings up a great point. A public school could use a non-playground activity, which could be a religious activity, does that mean they do not deserve funding from a public program. Even though, the church is a religious organization it does not necessarily mean that the playground is going to be used for religious activities.

    38. I don't think it does. Everson also said that we have to be careful in not establishing a church not to deprive religious people or organizations of general government benefits

      I believe that what Justice Cortman is saying is that the Court cannot deprive a church or any organizations of general government benefits. Which means that the program money could go towards the church, because it would be discriminatory towards the church, and in turn would make it harder for this church to provide for their community. Which might led to the church from performing its religious duties. A clear violation of Free Exercise Clause.

  18. Jun 2016
    1. Title: House Democrats Stage a Sit-in on the House Floor on Gun Control - The Atlantic

      Keywords: john lewis, democratic majority, wednesday afternoon

      Summary: He tweeted during the sit-in Wednesday afternoon that GOP leaders should put his proposal to prohibit suspected terrorists from buying guns on the floor.<br>Politico reports that Speaker Ryan’s office does not seem amenable to Democrats’ move.<br>This is reminiscent of when Republicans staged a protest against the Democratic majority during the summer recess in 2008, speaking in a darkened chamber to demand action on energy legislation.<br>Can we see?<br>CSPAN is still not broadcasting a live feed of the chambers, but the network is replaying members’ speeches online.<br>John Lewis has championed nonviolent protest his entire career.<br>House Democrats, led by civil-rights pioneer and Georgia Representative John Lewis, are staging a sit-in on the House floor to protest what they see as congressional inaction on gun control.<br>“We have to occupy the floor of the House until there is action,” Connecticut Democrat John Larson said, as his fellow members began to sit down late Wednesday morning.<br>Members have instead taken to Twitter to spread awareness of their action, tweeting statements and pictures from the floor.<br>#NoBillNoBreak #DisarmHate pic.twitter.com/C7BZpzNvxL<br>The 15-hour Senate filibuster led to votes Monday on four gun-control-related measures, but all failed.<br>Connecticut Democratic Senator Chris Murphy is reportedly headed to the House floor to join his House counterparts.<br>Mr. Speaker, not one thing.”<br>She said a minority of pro-gun voices “are forcing a false choice between constitutional rights and safe streets.”<br>—Nora Kelly<br>

  19. Feb 2014
    1. Majority Reasoning: (Justice Blackmun) A. Rule: The State of Texas asserts it’s rule (a law banning all abortions) is furthered by 2 interests: (1) Protecting prenatal life and (2) the medical safety of woman. The court accepts these interests, but rejects Texas’s absolute rule because: 1. There are 2 counter-weighing interests of the woman: a. The woman has a privacy right grounded in a "penumbra" of Amendments 1, 4, 5, 9, 14, because "activities relating to marriage, procreation, family relationships, and child rearing and education" are "fundamental" and "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." b. The woman also has an interest in avoiding possible severe physical and psychological harm if an abortion is denied. 2. Also, a fetus is not a "person" within the meaning of the constitution, so it doesn’t get protection as a person. 3. Therefore, a proper rule balances the interests of the state v. the interests of the woman: in the early stages of pregnancy, the woman has stronger interests than the state, but as a fetus becomes more advanced, the state interests in prenatal life and a woman’s health grow to be "compelling," thus overriding the woman’s interests. This results in a 3-part RULE (trimester framework) the court announces: a. first trimester of pregnancy: no/little state interest in regulating abortion, so most abortion regulations are invalid. b. second trimester: moderate state interest (medical health of woman) so most medical regulations are okay. c. third trimester: Compelling state interest (fetal viability) so can outlaw abortion except to save woman’s life. B. Application: Here (in this case) Texas’s law violates this framework, because it outlaws abortions not just in the third trimester, but also in the first and second trimesters of pregnancy.
  20. Oct 2013
    1. We must not, therefore, start from any and every accepted opinion, but only from those we have defined -- those accepted by our judges or by those whose authority they recognize

      "Truth" as defined by social opinion.