It is not neutral in all respects toward religion and is part of an attempt to channel funds to wealthy citizens who send their children to religious schools. Only certain religious groups are free to participate.
In fact, the program is neutral in regards to religion and is designed to allow lower-income families to send their children to better school, regardless of religious affiliation.
does relate to suppressing a form of expression.
does not relate to suppressing a form of expression
is a permissible regulation of speech.
is not a permissible regulation of speech
there is no evidence of an expressive element in his actions.
fell into the category of expressive conduct and had a distinctly political nature
Dissent by Justince Kennedy
Concurring Kennedy
Second
First
Arthur Smith, painted an American flag on his bare chest, but painted it upside down.
Gregory Lee Johnson unfurled the flag, doused it with kerosene, and set it on fire
is not one
was one
challenges
Establishment clause challenges
schools
religious schools
most likely
is not readily subject to
dissenting
concurring
7–2
5-4
5 percent
96.7%
10 percent
80%
Baltimore
Cleveland
Epstein and Walker, p194
536 U.S 639 (2002)
(1982)
2002
Its means are adequate to its ends, and on those means alone was it expected to rely for the accomplishment of its ends. To impose on it the necessity of resorting to means which it cannot control, which another Government may furnish or withhold, would render its course precarious, the result of its measures uncertain, and create a dependence on other Governments which might disappoint its most important designs, and is incompatible with the language of the Constitution.
I struggle to follow this portion. What are the means and ends he's referring to, and why not at least name them once?
It would probably never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves.
Is this another way of describing the difference between formal and informal power?
No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass.
Is this an attempt at sarcasm by Justice Marshall or am I reading into it too much?
to rid itself of that power and give it to the president.
Congress neither rid itself of that power or delegated it to the President
can be upheld
cannot be upheld
Roberts: dissenting
Roberts did not give opinion
Congress
Can the President take over is the issue
ruled against
ruled in favor of
secretary of commerce
this is a title, should be capitalized
dissenting
concurring
Vietnam
Korean
sugar
Steel
I dont understand the use of this example here considering the context. Can anyone provide some insight into why this is used here?
Anyone care to break this down for me? So, that which is fundamental to the fabric of America should not be frequently repeated? Should we not continue to evolve with our society and its needs?
Am I right to assume the reference here is to foreign dignitaries, and not our own?
Anyone else think that some of those 39 states may sit on the other side of the fence if we were to reopen the discussion on state support of religion?
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.
Does anyone else think that this statement by Cortman regarding the softness of the ground making it more or less religious an excellent way to frame the argument? I thought it was rather simple, yet concise.
Is anyone familiar with either the amicus or World Vision brief?
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.
I believe Sotomayor is the other dissenter. She makes it clear that she doesnt see a difference between the church and the other structures on church property. Her mind seems made up.
Going out on a limb to say that RBG is one of the dissenters. She may be playing devils advocate here early in the proceeding, but she jumped in before contrary opinions were able to be established. i think she did that for a reason.