As Twitchy reported earlier, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that California must allow prayer meetings in private residences. Slate staff writer Mark Joseph Stern, whose beat is courts and the law, thinks that those five justices have established a new First Amendment rule that accommodates churches and religious activity the same as secular activities and establishments.
Stern has read the First Amendment, right? It’s not just about freedom of speech.
Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett have used the shadow docket to establish a new First Amendment rule: Whenever the government grants an accommodation to secular activities or establishments, it MUST give that same accommodation to churches and religious activity.
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) April 10, 2021
And?
— CaptainWombat (@techroach98) April 10, 2021
Okay, so?
— C’mon Man! Chica'sBailBonds (@IrinaMoises) April 10, 2021
So our constitutional rights are only ours when the government “grants an accommodation”?
Good grief. They didn’t establish anything. They affirmed the 1st Amendment.
— The Streeter (@thestreeter) April 10, 2021
Another way of putting this, that might be a useful shorthand, is that four justices thought that the government could prohibit prayer meetings in one's home, even while allowing other similar non- religious activities. Seems bad!
— Clifton Fels (@cbfels) April 10, 2021
Exactly right.
— North Texan (@north_texan) April 10, 2021
As opposed to… what? That it's perfectly satisfactory under 1A to treat religious organizations and activities worse than similarly situated secular organizations and activities?
— John Toogood (@toog416) April 10, 2021
That's……how the first amendment works
— Andrew (@AndrewDahDude) April 10, 2021
"new"
— Ryan Ellis (@RyanLEllis) April 10, 2021
“New rule,” he says, as if the rule isn’t literally in the first amendment
— Mara (formerly @titansowell) (@misstinydancer) April 10, 2021
Yes… this isnt new.
— Best snowgirl Tsukky ☃️☃️☃️ (@bestgirltsukky) April 10, 2021
how controversial
— OHMS (@ohms___) April 10, 2021
The horror
— Kevin Davis SN15_BN2 (@kevindavis338) April 10, 2021
That seems very fair.
— Mike Parker (@MJP1313) April 10, 2021
Huh, weird. It’s like there is an amendment or something about the free exercise of religion.
— Zach (@zcr86) April 10, 2021
Wait you say this like a bad thing.
Are you aware of the constitutional foundations of this country? Take your communist ass to China.— Ron Bassilian (@Ron4California) April 10, 2021
You have it backwards. The government doesn’t grant first amendment accommodations, but in fact is restrained from infringing on a right we already possess irrespective of government.
— Matt Anderson (@MattyAThinks) April 10, 2021
Yes… that is in fact what the 1st Amendment says. I’m glad the secular religiously bigoted society is at least seeing it.
— M0ser (@TM0s41) April 10, 2021
Oh no! Are you okay?
— I got your #Unity right here (@jtLOL) April 10, 2021
You mean, equal treatment under the law?
*clutches pearls*— #CMFL (@seeemmeffell) April 10, 2021
Anyone that is sane should read this tweet and be like …”ummm…so?”
— FilmScoreLove (@ScoreAndOST) April 10, 2021
This is just an amazingly bad take on a really simple matter. What is it you do for a living? Oh, you work for Slate. Well, that clears this up nicely.
— Bob Crampton (@rwcrampton) April 10, 2021
This isn’t a “new rule,” dimwit.
Religious discrimination—prohibited under the 1st Amendment—would mean treating religious institutions and practices differently than secular spaces.
That is what the ruling fights against and decries. ?
— The Issues of My Time (@IssuesOfMyTime) April 10, 2021
How is this a “new rule”? Forgot low-info voters. The real problem in America is low-info journalists.
— Jaihawkk (@Jaihawkk) April 10, 2021
This is not a bad thing, why do you think it is?
— ContrarianDelight (@fitz_ct) April 10, 2021
You mean that the government can't discriminate against an institution solely on the grounds that they are a religious one? It's almost like that's part of the First Amendment or something
— Destructive Chemistry (@DestructiveChem) April 10, 2021
Yes, I agree this is preposterous. The actual ruling should be that if people want to worship in any way, at any time, the government does not get a fucking vote.
— Upstate Federalist (@upstatefederlst) April 10, 2021
This is great news. Finally the court is protecting religious rights.
— *resident Hair Sniffer (@HairBiden) April 10, 2021
The fact that you say this like it is a bad thing is wild.
— Nick (@InaudibleShoutX) April 10, 2021
Cry about it.
— FirstGen (@FirstGenShooter) April 10, 2021
DNC propagandist is upset that the government can’t discriminate against people of faith. pic.twitter.com/tbFJ2LUgqH
— Dr. Doctor ? (@FlaRenegade) April 10, 2021
Oh my goodness, you mean the 1st Amendment applies to all equally? Like it's a right or something.
I'm shocked.
— ArmaliteAR-180B ?? (@ArSpade) April 10, 2021
I’m just a corporate lawyer — so certainly no constitutional expert — but this sounds like an exceptionally stupid tweet based on my fading memories from law school.
— Ya Dumb Fooking Wanker (@Fookingwanker) April 10, 2021
Won’t lie. I love it when our Bill of Rights busts up your plans.
Thankfully, the Thomas Court continues to deny the government’s ability to be the all powerful overlord you wish it were.
Freedom is a real bitch, huh…— Dr. Gonzo (@DrGonzoB522) April 10, 2021
Weird how a writer at Slate is unaware about how the Constitution works…
— Not_Papa_P (@NotPapaP1) April 10, 2021
What’s shocking is that the verdict wasn’t 9-0.
Related:
Read Biden’s EO on SCOTUS while remembering when Dems warned of Trump being a threat to ‘sacred institutional norms’ https://t.co/0M8f63c1nq
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) April 9, 2021
Join the conversation as a VIP Member