Replies

Here is what the appeals court had to say about Frieler in denial of rehearing en banc

That is what the dissenters said, in objecting to the denial of rehearing - as a matter of law, it is a nullity. It has no value as precedent - it merely reflects the opinions of those who would have reheard the case. Unfortunately for them, the rehearing was denied, and they were limited to this little legal spitball ;)

As for the actual holding in Freiler, there is this:

Against this jurisprudential backdrop, the School Board argues that the contested disclaimer's primary effect is "to communicate to students that they are free to form their own opinions or maintain beliefs taught by parents concerning the origin of life and matter." According to the School Board, the disclaimer advances freedom of thought, as well as sensitivity to, and tolerance for, diverse beliefs in a pluralistic society. We disagree.

In assessing the primary effect of the contested disclaimer, we focus on the message conveyed by the disclaimer to the students who are its intended audience. See County of Allegheny , 492 U.S. at 620, 109 S. Ct. at 3115. After careful consideration of the oral arguments, the briefs, the record on appeal, and the language of the disclaimer, we conclude that the primary effect of the disclaimer is to protect and maintain a particular religious viewpoint, namely belief in the Biblical version of creation.

...which is pretty much what Jones was on about.

Le's hear from the conservatives on the court on Freiler.

That and a buck will...well, you know ;)

As for whether I think it's constitutional or not, my opinion doesn't mean much, as a matter of law - I don't sit on any bench anywhere. For the moment, it is the law. Perhaps Cobb will provide a vehicle for SCOTUS to revisit the issue - but I tend to doubt that they have the stomach for it.

You' re wrong on the facts. The statement I posted was from the appeals court holding on denial of rehearing en banc, not from the dissenters. The dissenters were a bit more, shall we say, exercised.

Jones expanded on a divided courts holding and ignored SCOTUS precedent, to wit, "there is "no realistic danger that the community would think that the [School Board] was endorsing religion or any particular creed, and any benefit to religion or to the Church would have been no more than incidental". Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 395 (1993).

And we haven't even started on his activism in setting himself up as a peer reviewer absent any qualification whatsoever.

I would say this however, SCOTUS establishment and free exercise clause jurisprudence is a disgrace. With Alito joining the court their may be a nice little majority available to clean it all up.