[NobleFree]

Justice Sotomayor wrote a sharply worded dissent (Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined) claiming that the Court’s decision “profoundly changes” the relationship between church and state “by holding, for the first time, that the Constitution requires the government to provide public funds directly to a church.” But this is overwrought. Again, given existing precedent, the “profound change” would have been a ruling against the church. The Court would have sanctioned outright anti-religious discrimination in areas as benign as tire-recycling and playground-resurfacing. That would have pushed Establishment Clause jurisprudence back from its trending neutrality to the outright anti-religious hostility of the most far-left judicial activists.

The "wise Latina" talks out her @ss - and RBG proclaims it a bouquet.

[RebelTXRose]

Does she not think federal funds are going DIRECTLY to churches who supply immigration “services”?

[nikos1121]

Amazing how truly ignorant this woman is. Truly amazing. Most of us on this forum know that there is no such thing as a separation of church and state. We need more church, more imput into our public conscience.

[klsparrow]

The words separation between church & state comes from Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist in 1/1/1802. Assuring the Baptist that the government would not interfere with religion. The complete letter was used till 1947.

In 1947 Everson v Board of Education a liberal court took the words separation between church & state out of the letter and used just those words out of context. This is where the so-called separation of church & state comes from. This his been uses ever since to remove religion from everything. The court need to put those words back in the letter and look at the complete meaning