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.
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.
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.
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.
One would be eligible, one would not be eligible?
So what I'm getting from this is that justice Alto Jr is trying to make Mr. Layton understand why providing for one school and not the other is making him (Mr.Layton) a hypocrite
we will take only Lutheran children.
If they have the place to say they only want certain members, doesn't that make them a private organization?
Establishment Clause problem,
What is the establishment clause and why does this have anything to do with the state?