7 Matching Annotations
  1. Jan 2020
    1. I don't think --

      Why is it that people always seem to cut off David whenever he's talking, after listening it seems that he's-possibly the ;east listened to and respected, is the true?

    2. On that -- on that question, I guess rather long ago now in the Everson case back in 1947, this Court said in no uncertain terms what the Framers didn't want was tax money imposed to pay for building or maintaining churches or church property. And doesn't that fit this case? And if so, is Everson passé?

      I believe that Ruth was another person that chose to dissent on this cause, because she mentions that she doesn't agree that the framers envisioned tax payers money being spent on church organizations.

    3. the beginning of the line of questioning that Justice Sotomayor just finished, she began with the suggestion that perhaps this amendment reflects an admirable historical tradition that should be respected. Do you think that that is the proper way to analyze this question?

      I think that Samuel Justice was suggesting that Justie Sotomayor believes that these old traditions suggest that the people shouldn't get the playground , money because of the way things use to be and should still e.

    4. But once you get to the fact that there is no Establishment Clause problem, which is what we have here, the question then is can you single out religious people or religious organizations for a penalty from this benefit?

      I don't understand why some members are arguing that there is an establishment clause while others are sayimg that there isnt. Are they referring to this because it's on the foundation of religion, or do some members just not believe in the establishment clause.

    5. So if it's controlled.

      Is he agreeing with David or being more sarcastic in terms of controlling the church, for it to be able to reap the benefits of government aid?

    6. And the answer to that is, for example, even though the motivation behind operating this preschool is a religious motivation, doesn't mean that every single activity that occurs there happens to be religious.

      I believe that David suggesting that every single activity happening at the preschool has to be religious , is him suggesting that these kids deserve the playground regardless. I believe that he would have voted with the majority.

    7. There's a constitutional principle. It's as strong as any constitutional principle that there is, that when we have a program of funding -- and here we're funding playground surfaces -- that everybody is entitled to that funding, to -- to that particular funding,

      Elena is showing that she is for the group getting the money for the playground, and she makes this point very clear in stating that it is a constitutional principle, and that everyone is entitled to these principles.