Posted on 06/29/2022 5:48:31 PM PDT by marshmallow
‘The founders believed in religious freedom, not religious suppression and persecution,’ conservative filmmaker Trevor Loudon responded.
WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews) – Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor is concerned that the “separation between church and state” is falling apart.
She shared those concerns in her dissent Tuesday in Carson v. Makin, a Supreme Court (SCOTUS) case about a Maine school choice program that prohibited parents from using vouchers to send kids to religious schools.
SCOTUS ruled that the Maine program violated the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution.
“This Court continues to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build,” Justice Sotomayor wrote to open her dissent.
She argued SCOTUS “revolutionized Free Exercise doctrine” in 2017 when it ruled in Trinity Lutheran v. Pauley that a Missouri program that excluded churches from a grant program to get recycled tires for playground materials violated the Constitution.
The Carson and Trinity Lutheran decisions have confirmed Sotomayor’s fear about SCOTUS and religious freedom, she wrote.
“As a result, in just a few years, the Court has upended constitutional doctrine,” she wrote. SCOTUS has “shift[ed] from a rule that permits States to decline to fund religious organizations to one that requires States in many circumstances to subsidize religious indoctrination with taxpayer dollars.”
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
Sotomayor is a Liar!
Indeed. Anyone with historical knowledge would know that no such was intended by the framers as she sees it.
So. Wait. Ok. Laws against murder are religious suppression? What?
What idiot Republican approved her nomination?
Lefty idiot.
The Wide Latina belches her dissent, again.
What does she say about churches being torched?
Yuh funny. As opposed to treating an organization differently, just because it's religious?
Some religious folks consider anti-religious chatter like yours to be religious indoctrination. Because you talk like a Marxist, and Marxism is entirely faith-based.
Do we have free speech--a First Amendment right--if we permit our government to curtail our speech for being religious?
And does anyone expect us believe that government employees' opinions and actions are not often religiously anti-religious in nature?
What does she say about a triple-beef-and-cheese-burrito being overdone?
Just wait until the rocket doctor is sworn in.
to subsidize religious indoctrination with taxpayer dollars.”
= = =
And do those taxpayers send their kids to school?
So maybe they get to put their tax toward their kid’s school.
First of all, there is clearly no separation, but instead a one-way screen. Isn’t that kind of obvious from reading the text? So, I should be able to impact the government whenever my religious beliefs are at stake.
"That's okay. I'll eat it anyway. Mmm... Do you have another?"
She’s not smart enough to lie, she is stupid enough to believe what she is saying.
Jefferson needs a good slap for coming up with that phrase.
The original meaning of that phrase has been twisted into meaning enforcement of state atheism that bears no resemblance to the founders intent.
Are you sure it was a belch? I’m thinking a lower level of exit for her blathering.
Sorry, but I disagree.
She subscribes to Marxist thought as shown by her rulings since she has been on the bench with the Supreme Court.
She is simply an evil person who puts her own selfishness above fidelity to the Constitution, honor, and morality.
“Congress shall make no law....” What about this does the Wide Latina not understand?
Definitely the dumbest member of SCOTUS. A wise Latina? I think not!
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.