— though doing so reveals just how much our Constitution has already been degraded and deconstructed. Still, hurray for small victories, right? “Supreme Court delivers a knockout punch to the White House”:
Wednesday the United States Supreme Court delivered a knockout blow to the White House in the cause of religious liberty.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a unanimous court swatted away the government’s claim that the Lutheran Church did not have the right to fire a “minister of religion” who, after six years of Lutheran religious training had been commissioned as a minister, upon election by her congregation.
The fired minister — who also taught secular subjects — claimed discrimination in employment. The Obama administration, always looking for opportunities to undermine the bedrock of First Amendment religious liberty, eagerly agreed.
There was just one big problem standing in the way of the government’s plan: the U.S. Constitution. For a long time American courts have recognized the existence of a “ministerial exemption” which keeps government’s hands off the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers or clergy.
Here, in this case, the Department of Justice had the nerve to not only challenge the exemption’s application but also its very existence.
But, Chief Justice Roberts pushed back hard, telling the government essentially to butt out:
“Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the free exercise clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments. According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the establishment clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.”
Citing well-known legal precedent dating as far back as Reconstruction, the court made it clear that it is not up to the government to contradict a faith’s determination as to who should — and should not — be performing religious functions.
The Supreme Court clearly announced Wednesday that the First Amendment itself gives special recognition to the rights of religious organizations and rejected the government’s view that the Religion Clauses of the Constitution don’t apply to religious organizations’ freedom to select their own ministers, priests, rabbis and imams.
The Court also took aim at Plaintiff’s Cheryl Perich’s claims for back pay finding that such relief would operate as an unconstitutional penalty against a religious institution for terminating an unwanted minister and exercising its constitutional right to make decisions about internal church governance.
Horrific ruling. I mean, if the Court is going to uphold powers outside of the government, how is the government ever going to impose a radical egalitarian agenda on the entirety of the population, one in which it alone gets to decide every civic and social outcome — and for which it will become the de facto “benevolent” policing authority in our fundamentally transformed Utopian police state?
That is, why does the Court hate equality?
My guess is racism. But there’s probably some patriarchal impulse doing some work here, as well. Either way.
(thanks to JHo)
Wouldn’t it be wonderful to see a whole series of such smackdowns of an overreaching executive?
Why does the Court hate equality? heh. Because equality involves killing, and the Court is nothing if not a jumble of gutless pacifists.
For a moment, I thought the Court had bitch-slapped the Obamacrats twice back-to-back. I was a little disappointed when I realized that the link was to last week’s bitch-slap. Still, it’s enough to make me do my little happy dance again.
Wowzers! More unanimity.
Supreme Court rejects judge-drawn Texas election maps
Wouldn’t it be wonderful to see a whole series of such smackdowns of an overreaching executive?
Up in the near future: Obama administration requiring religious organizations to provide birth control coverage as part of their health insurance packages. (To be accurate: they’re refusing to allow a conscience exemption for religious organizations as part of the new health care reform regulations).
Keep the faith, Ernst. Obamacare will be overturned tout de suite.
And speaking of amendments, it would appear the a member of the Justice Department will be exercising #5 with regard to Fast And Furious
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/20/federal-official-in-arizona-to-plead-fifth-and-not-answer-questions-on-furious/
How awesome is that?
My guess on Obamacare: 5-4 That the individual mandate in unconstitutional; 5-4 That the individual mandate is in fact severable (despite the lack of severability language in the law). Justice Kennedy the only Justice joining in both majorities.
Now, if we’re really good and eat our peas and say our prayers at bedtime, maybe we get a 5-4 decision which not only tosses the whole unholy mess, but overturns Wickard as well. Justice Thomas writing for the majority.
Obamacare will be overturned tout de suite.
Excuse me, but that’s spelled toot-sweet.
Sheez. People just don’t know plain English anymore.
Yeah? You with your fancy-schmacy Spanish with the tildas and upside down punctuation? That just can’t be right.
Oh, we’re talking about the King’s Spanish, now?
First of all, this is a tilda and this is a tilde ~.
Second, in Spanish toot-sweet is spelled rapidíssimo.
So there.
link
Wickard… Kelo… Roe… maybe this is the vaunted reset that I’ve heard so much about.
Hey nr!
Tilda is stealing David Bowie’s look, there.
Did Bowie claim a patent or copyright? Is the look now unavailable to Bowie, or can they both use it simultaneously?
Oh, wait — that’s the other thread.
oh my
Cartoon at Cincinnati Dems’ Website: GOP ‘Protecting America’s Voting Whites’
I think it’s in the public domain, Squid. Annie Lennox laid claim to the androgynous look, too back in the 80’s. I do think Tilda pulls it off better, since Annie had breasts and all.
I thought the proper translation of immediately was “dale gas guey” but spelled properly dammit..
When was the last time SCOTUS handed down a unanimous decision?
Toot.
*hhhhhhhnk*
Sweet.
Dude! Crack a window.
The toot already did.
sweet.
HOORAY.
I’ll celebrate anyway because hell yeah.