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.

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.

Find this extremely interesting, when Sona said "The church is not going to close it doors...... because it doesn't have these tires". This leads me to ask the question on whether or not Sonia was invested in the case or if she tended to run in favor against the church solely so she could protect her political identity?

I had friends that attend private schools growing up and was constantly reminded of the high tuitions they payed and many times the difference in curriculum they were taught. I believe this is due to the fact that they don't have to follow state standards, however as Cortman says, do they have all funding take away since there are religious? Or do we see schools today that receive funding while operating as a religious school.

Ginsburg strong question that attempts to get Cortman to answer the question on whether the playground should be funded despite the admissions policy favors members of its church leads me to believe that she is not in favor of Cortmans notion that churches should be able to admit who they wish while recieving federal funding. I believe Ginsburg was one of the justices to vote against the church.

I believe Sotomayor is asking a question here that directly is against Cortmans advocation that not every thing that happens at a school is religious. Sotomayor is attempting to imply that religious schools often participate in religious acts and that how will the state know or how can it control such things on the basis of belief and viewpoints.

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.

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.

As a future teacher, can this explain why public schools tend to receive funding whereas private religious schools are usually self funded? Is a school with any religious ties automatically unalloyed to receive government aid?

So my understanding is that they do not let both govern the case? but instead pick one to follow? How is it deiced on which one will govern the case and act as the law?

While the presidents nomination must be approved by congress, are we a fan of presidents biased coming into play for a position that will be served for life? Trump was able to select multiple judges that will serve for many years to come.

The constitution provides rights that were given to the citizens by the founding fathers. shouldn't their be no question on what parts the judge's must obey? shouldn't they enforce it as it is for its entirety.