Posted on 03/03/2014 9:34:03 AM PST by Olog-hai
Facial hair and teeth-whitening will be getting unusually prominent attention from the Supreme Court.
The court agreed Monday to hear two cases during its next term that involve matters of personal hygiene in vastly different settings.
In one case, the court will to decide whether an Arkansas prison inmate must be allowed to grow a short beard in accordance with his religious beliefs. The justices will hear an appeal from inmate Gregory Holt, who says his Muslim beliefs require him to grow a beard. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Elena Kagen is going to grow a beard?
If you are in prison, don’t you lose certain rights, such as the right to grow a beard for your religion? If you were so devoutly religious, why are you in prison in the first place? I’m guessing that devoutly religious people do not commit crimes in the same proportions as the irreligious, going out on that limb.
He’s not devoutly religious. He’s muslim.
Well that's the problem. In their culture, little things like raping 6 year olds or sawing people's heads off isn't a crime at all.
“In one case, the court will to decide whether an Arkansas prison inmate must be allowed to grow a short beard in accordance with his religious beliefs.”
I hope he’s not German or a Christian.
Oh wait a minute, the SCOTUS wouldn’t be hearing it then.
Nah, maybe Roberts [aka Lucy with the football] thought the case involved a different sort of beard.
Some rights are lost, some are restricted. I imagine this inmate is suing under the federal RLUIPA, a pro-religion bill passed by Congress that acts much the same way RFRA laws do but with a narrower focus.
“to grow a short beard in accordance with his religious beliefs”
But America won’t grant asylum to religious refugees who want to home school their children, and SCOTUS won’t hear their case.
If they had been muslims, they’d doubtless have been granted asylum and loaded down with welfare benefits, and held up as examples of America’s traditional concepts...
Yes; that’s mentioned at the very bottom of this AP article, too. Heaven forfend any disunity with the internationalist anti-freedom league.
Ahhhhhh.
Yes. I had not considered that.
You may very well be on to something.
Given the FTC is basing its authority to interfere with intrastate commerce on the unreasonably wide interpretation of interpretation of the Commerce Clause in Wickard v. Filburn by FDR's activist justices, please consider the following.
FDR's justices wrongly ignored that both Thomas Jefferson and a previous generation of justices had officially noted that the feds have no business sticking their big noses into intrastate commerce.
“For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively (emphasis added) with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.” –Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. (emphases added)” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Next he will be suing that his Second Amendment rights were violated because he is unarmed at prison.
As you say.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.