37 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
  2. Nov 2021
    1. Dissent by Justince Kennedy

      not true only stevens

    2. Second

      First

    3. painted an American flag on his bare chest, but painted it upside down. Johnson was arrested and charged with violating the Texas flag desecration law.

      This was about burning a flag and not painting anything

    4. Arthur Smith

      It was not Arthur Smith, it was Gregory Lee Johnson

    1. nd Souter)

      add Ginsburg

    2. would think a neutral program of private choice,

      This is because private citizens choose to pay for these religious institutions

    3. O'Connor: dissenting

      concurring

    4. No. By a vote of 7–2 the Court ruled in favor of Zelman.

      This is not the correct number, it was a closer call than this

    5. 4th Amendment to the Constitution?

      More focused on if it was a violation of the establishment cause

    6. First Amendment's free exercise clause

      establishment cause

    7. students

      it was more so parents than it was students

    8. Baltimore

      Not Baltimore, it should be Cleveland

    9. Epstein and Walker, p194

      This is a citation from the textbook, the citation should be 536 U.S. 639 (2002)

    10. (1982)

      The year for this should be 2002 and to 1982.

  3. Oct 2021
    1. Its means are adequate to its ends, and on those means alone was it expected to rely for the accomplishment of its ends.

      This whole phrase is really confusing me? I'm not able to even figure out what any of the parts mean, could anybody help me out?

    2. CONFIDENCE.

      Is this something that is actively being said? If so, is this something that was yelled a little but louder? Or was this only written and capitalized for effect.

    3. We

      I saw "we" being mentioned throughout this whole thing but I'm still a little bit confused as to where the introductions would be. Is this just assumed or am I missing something?

    1. Separate Opinions

      It should show all 9 opinions, not just 7 of them.

    2. several provisions of the Constitution

      there are no provisions of the Constitution

    3. Constitution

      The constitution does not give him power to do this

    4. Yes

      No, it was voted that he could not hold the mills.

    5. prevent a union from striking?

      order seizure of the steel mills

    6. Because the nation was involved in the Vietnam War

      The Vietnam War was from 1955-1975

    7. 343 U.S. 579 (1952)

      There should be page numbers for this, especially with the year that this happened.

    8. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)

      It should say where the case was decided.

  4. Sep 2021
    1. It is then the opinion of the court,

      How can a court's opinion change? When there are different people on the court would that maybe produce a different outcome? How would you be able to be sure that things are standard?

    2. If this obloquy is to be cast on the jurisprudence of our country, it must arise from the peculiar character of the case....

      This whole phrase is just completely in one ear and out the other for me. Would anybody be able to explain what this means? It is just a fancy way for getting into the opinion on the case?

    3. If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?

      This is confusing to me because I don't understand how this is an opinion answered question. If something has gone wrong shouldn't there be a remedy owed?

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. Well, how about if the school does a prayer before the children start playing?

      This makes me think that she dissented from this decision. She sees how it could be hard to draw the line between a religious activity funding area and religious activity.

    4. Had prayer services there, for example.

      Again, I think that Elena may have been a dissenting justice. She sees the blurry lines between the money and the religious practices.

    5. Establishment Clause,

      What is this? I see that it is used throughout this case and I'm struggling to understand the base terms.

    6. It's just the surface that doesn't enable any religious activity

      I'm wondering if the argument would be the same if the surface of the playground was SOMETIMES used for religious activities, would this change the argument?

    7. funding of religious activities and funding secular activities of religious organization.

      Where is the line drawn between the two? Could one argue that any religious organization may have trouble with purly secular activities?