High Court Sides With Inmates on Religion

Associated Press ^ | May 31, 2005 | Gina Holland

[SittinYonder]

Oh crap. What a bad week this is going to be with the court handing down new laws ... oops, sorry, interpreting the constitution.

[Psalm 73]

"Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said....."

Hey, thanks Bubba, for the idiot on the bench.

[kcvl]

USA WAITS FOR NEW SUPREME COURT RULINGS... MEDICAL POT? INTERNET DOWNLOADS? TEN COMMANDMENTS?... DEVELOPING...



http://www.drudgereport.com/

[IMissPresidentReagan]

Beautiful. My father runs his own company that provides food service for jails and prisons. When I first started law school what seems like ages ago, he had a case where an inmate said due to his religion he needed to be provided with bat's blood to drink on certain occasions. I wonder if that too will be honored? It's not that I think religious freedom isn't important, but in some instances inmates only request certain things to cause hardship on others. Allowing them to request whatever on the basis of religion could open the door for problems down the road. I don't have a problem with allowing the inmates to worship whichever way the please, but as for the extras, I kinda feel as though we can be too accommodating to those inside prisons, yet those who wish to pray over lunch at school are treated as though they are the real criminals and threat to the fabric of America.

I would like to read the opinion though. I'll bet it'll be a good one.

[Brilliant]

This is the Supreme Court's way of slapping two important political groups at once, namely those of faith, and those who want tougher sentencing.

The Supreme Court gives criminals more rights, and the rest of us will have to pay for it. The Supreme Court expands religious freedoms, but only for those in prison, who should not enjoy the same rights the rest of us have anyway.

[AntiGuv]

The Johnnie Cochran free-speech ruling was issued today as well, but I don't know what it was yet. I just know that it reversed the lower court (but I don't know what the lower court had ruled).

The case involved a disgruntled client who had been ordered to stop picketing Johnnie Cochran's offices.

[muawiyah]

Sounds like the Court, even the crazoid Justices like that Ginzburg broad, are quite willing to kick the "don't say nothin' 'bout religion" crowd right out onto the street.

Problem for the Satanist crowd, though, is the other inmates may take away their dildoes and do evil things to them.

[tkathy]

The mullahs and their lawyers will go crazy with this.

[SittinYonder]

I remember the case, I think the lower court said the guy had to pay Cochran and leave him alone.

[EQAndyBuzz]

"The Supreme Court gives criminals more rights, and the rest of us will have to pay for it. The Supreme Court expands religious freedoms, but only for those in prison, who should not enjoy the same rights the rest of us have anyway."

I think this will benefit schools. Have you can have institutialized religion in one section that the taxpayers finance but not another.

This will turn into pandoras box. If little Johnny wants to bring a bible to school and read it, the ACLU better be prepared to take religion out of prisons.

[JusticeForAll76]

"The Supreme Court expands religious freedom"

How? Congress wrote the law, not the court. The Court simply upheld it.

While I yeild to no one in my disdain for Judicial Activisim, I think my of what we call Judicial Activism, is legislative activism.

[Noachian]

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the 2000 law, which was intended to protect the rights of prisoners, is not an unconstitutional government promotion of religion.

Of course it is.

What part of "...shall make no law..." doesn't Ginsburg understand?

We get saddled with these idiot judges, who make laws from the bench, and our Congressmen look the other way when something like this happens.

[BikerNYC]

The Supreme Court gives criminals more rights...

Hey...Congress made this law up, not the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the constitutionality of a federal law requiring state prisons to accommodate inmate religions.

[AntiGuv]

If y'all want to criticize someone, why don't you criticize Congress? They are the ones who passed the law as a pander to the religious right. The Supreme Court merely ruled that it's not unconstitutional for Congress to pass the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act , and that's correct IMO.

[AmishDude]

Court ping.

[Howlin]

Thanks. Two down.

[AntiGuv]

It would be nice for Congress to once in a while start thinking about the implications of the laws that they pass, instead of proceeding with the usual thought ('if there's anything wrong with this, the courts can just clean it up').

[Chiapet]

I think this will benefit schools. Have you can have institutialized religion in one section that the taxpayers finance but not another.

This will turn into pandoras box. If little Johnny wants to bring a bible to school and read it, the ACLU better be prepared to take religion out of prisons.

Nah, no Pandora's box here. Little Johnny has other forums in which to practice his religion. Prisoners don't.

[wireplay]

When it is the Supreme Court and it is unanimous then they were probably correct in their interpretation. I'll defer to their wisdom and understanding even if some of them are as liberal as they come.