- Jan 2022
-
mmcr.education mmcr.education
-
We don't want to be in a position where we are making a visible, physical improvement on church property.
Judge James Layton seems as if he is dissenting because of his statement of not wanting to make improvements on church property.
-
So how is the building separate from the religious exercise therein? I believe that this playground is part of the ministry of this church.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor is very strong on her opinion that the play ground would be part of the religious exercise of the church which would make it acceptable that they were not allowed to be apart of the program.
-
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.
-
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.
-
is Everson passé?
How old is a case when we decide to stop using writ of stare decisis?
-
why would someone's religious status matter in the first place to receiving a government benefit?
Wouldn't this be because of the separation of church and state that was established and also because the government is not allowed to fund "inherently religious" activities?
-
churches are not eligible for the benefit here.
Wouldn't this be unconstitutional due to the fact that the playground most likely would be used as a way for kids to have fun and not as a religious worship place?
-