Posted on 03/09/2021 7:12:42 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Chief Justice John Roberts was the only dissenter in the U.S Supreme Court’s most recent ruling favoring a couple of Christian students who challenged their university for restricting when, where, and how they could speak about their faith and disseminate materials on campus.
Today's 8-1 decision in Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski marks the first time Chief Justice John Roberts has ever been the sole dissenting justice during his entire tenure. https://t.co/6Ux9HvXiDL
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) March 8, 2021
Uzuegbunam et al. v. Preczewski et al. first materialized after Chike Uzuegbunam, a student at Georgia Gwinnett College, was stopped by campus police for handing out religious materials on campus, a reported violation of the school’s “Freedom of Expression Policy,” which limited distributions and other expressions to free speech zones only with permission from the administration. Even after Uzuegbunam moved to the designated areas with permission, however, campus police attempted to stop him from speaking and handing out religious literature, prompting him and another student, Joseph Bradford, to take legal action against the university for violating their First and 14th Amendment rights and seek nominal damages.
The students’ attempts to sue the school, however, were shot down by both a district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit after Georgia Gwinnett College changed its “Freedom of Expression” policy to remove barriers on when and where students could speak on campus and filed a motion to dismiss the case as moot. The Supreme Court took up the case after Uzuegbunam and Bradford noted that their rights were still violated no matter what the university modified its policy to reflect and still required a ruling on nominal damages.
Justice Clarence Thomas authored the opinion of the court, agreeing with the students’ case.
“Applying this principle here is straightforward. For purposes of this appeal, it is undisputed that Uzuegbunam experienced a completed violation of his constitutional rights when respondents enforced their speech policies against him. Because ‘every violation [of a right] imports damage,’ Webb, 29 F. Cas., at 509, nominal damages can redress Uzuegbunam’s injury even if he cannot or chooses not to quantify that harm in economic terms,” Thomas concluded.
Roberts, however, in his first solo dissent, wrote that the court was acting as “a moot court” in deciding this case and their ruling.
“When plaintiffs like Uzuegbunam and Bradford allege neither actual damages nor the prospect of future injury, an award of
nominal damages does not change their status or condition at all. Such an award instead represents a judicial determination that the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the law is correct — nothing more,” Roberts stated.
“Who owns Roberts?”
The Liberals and especially the democratic party.
His legacy is actually worse than Obama.
Obama pissed me off more, but Bush is worse.
Also, Bush begat Obama.
Everything you need to know about Roberts in one ruling.
We were set-up for failure by the RINO establishment.
Roberts has no standing
But remember now Muslims can hand out religious stuff too. I might have voted no too.
The state or organization can do what it wants, after several years when it gets to the Supreme Court steps, modify its policy, in Roberts view it is then moot. The next week, the state or organization modifies it back, maybe with a slight change, and then the plaintiff has to sue again.
I know how the band felt and the old men at the bar felt on the Titanic.
= = =
I was going to ask, ‘Was there a Chapel on the Titanic?’, but remembered the band’s (alleged)last song, “Nearer, My God, to Thee”.
Maybe I should listen to it. Not a bad song to have stuck in my head, perhaps.
Although he could probably be defended for dissenting on the grounds that the case was moot - the plaintiff having graduated - it was more likely an act of cowardice, meant to shield him from the Chicago Way moves on the left and the scrutiny on the right. We’re entitled to a bit of courage in our SCOTUS critters.
“Demonic Moloch worshippers gonna worship Moloch”
You can have whatever preference you want, but a supreme court justice is supposed to base his opinions on the Constitution, which is very clear about freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
He has been against religious liberty lately.
“Who owns Roberts?”
The globalist satanist cabal.
Souter part II. Roberts is now left of Kagan and Sotomayor.
bttt
The plaintiff is seeking damages for past harm, not just relief, therefore the case is not moot. One would thing that the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court would understand this.
I’m no fan of Roberts, and actually disagree quite strongly with him about his reasoning in this case. However, if you actually read his dissent it’s really nothing more than an argument about standing, not about the merits of the case. Even the opinion, authored by Thomas was really just a procedural one that said the individuals do, in fact, have standing to sue.
That is the price of FREEDOM OF RELIGION.
Dominating, enslaving or killing Infidels is required of Muslims. Islam should be declared to be not a religion but a cult.
Harriet Miers was nominated for the seat subsequently taken by Samuel Alito.
I bet she would have been much worse than Justice Alito because that’s the person who was nominated after her nomination was withdrawn.
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.