Leave it to Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor (half of them appointed by Obama) to decide the way they did.

Here is an article with lots of info on the Greece New York case.

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday narrowly upheld the centuries-old tradition of offering prayers to open government meetings, even if the prayers are overwhelmingly Christian and citizens are encouraged to participate.

The 5-4 ruling, supported by the court's conservative justices and opposed by its liberals, was based in large part on the history of legislative prayer dating back to the Framers of the Constitution.

Defending a practice used by the town of Greece, N.Y., the majority ruled that opening local government meetings with sectarian prayers doesn't violate the Establishment Clause as long as no religion is advanced or disparaged, and residents aren't coerced.

The alternatives, the conservative justices said, would be worse: having government officials and courts "act as supervisors and censors of religious speech," or declaring all such prayers unconstitutional.

"As a practice that has long endured, legislative prayer has become part of our heritage and tradition, part of our expressive idiom, similar to the Pledge of Allegiance, inaugural prayer, or the recitation of 'God save the United States and this honorable court' at the opening of this court's sessions," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote the principal dissent for the court's liberal bloc, arguing that the intimate setting of local government meetings, the participation of average citizens and the dominance of Christian prayer-givers put the policy out of bounds.

"When the citizens of this country approach their government, they do so only as Americans, not as members of one faith or another," Kagan said. "And that means that even in a partly legislative body, they should not confront government-sponsored worship that divides them along religious lines."

The long-awaited ruling came seven years after two women -- a Jew and an atheist -- took the town to court, and six months after oral arguments in November.

SEVEN YEARS IN COURT

The legal tussle began in 2007, following eight years of nothing but Christian prayers in the town of nearly 100,000 people outside Rochester. Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens took the board to federal court and won by contending that its prayers – often spiced with references to Jesus, Christ and the Holy Spirit – aligned the town with one religion.

Once the legal battle was joined, town officials canvassed widely for volunteer prayer-givers and added a Jewish layman, a Wiccan priestess and a member of the Baha'i faith to the mix.

The two women contended that the prayers in Greece were unconstitutional because they pressured those in attendance to participate. They noted that unlike federal and state government sessions, town board meetings are frequented by residents who must appear for everything from business permits to zoning changes.

While the court had upheld the practice of legislative prayer in the past, most recently in a 1983 case involving the Nebraska Legislature, the case of Town of Greece v. Galloway therefore presented the justices with a new twist: mostly Christian clergy delivering frequently sectarian prayers before an audience that often included average citizens with business to conduct.

In the end, five justices said those facts didn't make what the Greece Town Board did unconstitutional, while four others said they did.

"The First Amendment is not a majority rule, and government may not seek to define permissible categories of religious speech," Kennedy said. "Once it invites prayer into the public sphere, government must permit a prayer-giver to address his or her own God or gods as conscience dictates."

Not so, Kagan argued for the losing side. She said the town's prayers differed from those delivered to federal and state legislators about to undertake the people's business. In Greece, she said, sectarian prayers were delivered to "ordinary citizens" who might feel ostracized or vulnerable if they didn't participate.

"No one can fairly read the prayers from Greece's town meetings as anything other than explicitly Christian – constantly and exclusively so," Kagan said. "The prayers betray no understanding that the American community is today, as it long has been, a rich mosaic of religious faiths."

Instead of the existing policy, Kagan said the town board should follow the example of Congress' chaplains by giving clergy guidance about avoiding sectarian or divisive prayers.

But several justices were doubtful during oral arguments last year any prayer could satisfy everyone, leaving the court little option but to reiterate its support of legislative prayer or remove it entirely from government meetings – something they clearly did not want to do.

Justice Samuel Alito drove home that point in a separate concurrence Monday in which he called the liberals' dissent "quite niggling."

"Not only is there no historical support for the proposition that only generic prayer is allowed," Alito said, "but as our country has become more diverse, composing a prayer that is acceptable to all members of the community who hold religious beliefs has become harder and harder."

THREE DECADES OF CONTROVERSY

The court's 30-year-old precedent, Marsh v. Chambers, upheld the Nebraska Legislature's funding of a chaplain who delivered daily prayers. Chief Justice Warren Burger ruled then that such prayers were "part of the fabric of our society." The decision prohibited only those prayers that take sides by advancing or disparaging a particular religion.

Since Marsh, backers of more church-state separation had made modest gains. In 1984, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's "endorsement test" established that every government practice must be examined to determine whether it endorses one religion. In 1989, the court ruled that a Christmas crèche display on a courthouse staircase went too far by endorsing Christianity and brought forth O'Connor's "reasonable observer" test.

The current court agreed to consider the case following a federal appeals court's ruling against the town. Judge Guido Calabresi of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals had said its actions "virtually ensured a Christian viewpoint" and featured a "steady drumbeat of often specifically sectarian Christian prayers."

The case hinged on these words from the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That has come to be known as the Establishment Clause.

The Obama administration came down forcefully on the town's side – most notably because both houses of Congress have opened with prayers since 1789. But the prayers delivered there these days are far less sectarian than those heard in churches, temples and synagogues.

Most state legislatures open their sessions with a prayer, nearly half of them with guidelines. Many county legislatures open meetings with a prayer, according to an informal survey by the National Association of Counties. National data on prayer practices at the city, town and village levels do not exist.

The Supreme Court cracked down on prayer in schools in the 1960s, ruling against Bible readings, the Lord's Prayer or an official state prayer.

In Lemon v. Kurtzman, a 1971 case involving religion in legislation, the high court devised what became known as the "Lemon test." Government action, it said, should have a secular purpose, cannot advance or inhibit religion and must avoid too much government entanglement with religion.

Then came Marsh, in which the court gave a green light to legislative prayer that does not advance or disparage any faith.

Kennedy said Monday's decision follows in that spirit.

"The inclusion of a brief, ceremonial prayer as part of a larger exercise in civic recognition suggests that its purpose and effect are to acknowledge religious leaders and the institutions they represent, rather than to exclude or coerce non-believers," he said.

This a state court ruling, but quite interesting opinion. I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS adopts its logic:

http://news.msn.com/us/massachusetts-pledge-of-allegiance-not-religious

Another one bites the dust:

http://news.msn.com/us/arkansas-judge-strikes-down-gay-marriage-ban

Notice how these bans keep getting overruled by individual judges. And then you even have some attorneys general in some states who refuse to defend their state's ban on gay marriage. Only liberals could have this level of arrogance.

Actually not just liberals. Our Republican governor refused to appeal a state appellate court's ruling that the recently passed Republican-passed voter ID laws were unconstitutional despite an outcry from the legislators who sponsored the bill.

At the same time he rolled his eyes at the attempts of a few state reps, who want to bring impeachment proceedings against our AG, who was elected as the first Democratic and female AG in the state in 2012 on a platform expressing marriage equality.

By the way, when she opined that the law banning gay marriage lacked sufficient basis under state and federal constitution, the governor (as they've done in the past) went to the Office of General Counselor in PA where he couldn't find a state lawyer who thought the law was constitutional, so he hired outside counsel to defend a law that is repeatedly found to be unconstitutional, and which an ever-expanding majority of Pennsylvanians don't want.

UCSB Shooter's Manifesto Transcript
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-transcript-ucsb-shootings-video-20140524-story.html

GOLETA, Calif. — A Hollywood director believes his son was the lone gunman who went on a shooting rampage near the University of California at Santa Barbara that killed six people — weeks after the family had called police about disturbing YouTube videos he had posted, his lawyer said Saturday.

Alan Shifman — a lawyer who represents Peter Rodger, one of the assistant directors on “The Hunger Games” — issued a statement on behalf of the family saying they believe Rodger’s son, Elliot Rodger, was the shooter.

“On behalf of the Rodgers family they want to make sure that the victims and the victims’ families are aware that this is the tragedy of the most extreme,” Shifman said. “They want to send their deepest condolences to all of the victims’ families involved.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/3...a809_story.html

I know this story has been all over the news, and tho I knew the basics, I'm just now seeing the video the Lilo posted. Wow, how chilling is that?

His whole demeanor is calm, calculating and just plain evil (that laugh). How awful. I feel so badly for the families of victims.

He obviously had issues but appeared to know exactly what he wanted to do.



TIS

no pussy will drive somebody crazy

he's a hollywood director's son, he should've been fucking 4 different chicks a week

shit broke men can fuck 2,3,4 different chicks a day in college

Same-sex marriage stands in Oregon after Supreme Court denies stay of ruling.

In a one-line order, the US Supreme Court denied a stay of a federal judge's ruling that Oregon's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Oregon officials had ceased to defend the ban.

It's not as if women teachers are a new phenomenon but it does seem as if cases like this are more common. Maybe they were happening all along but were hushed up? Or maybe this is just part of societal moral decay?



http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/quee...ticle-1.1816790

And her husband's the gym teacher .

Another college shooting:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/05/justice/seattle-campus-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

It's the result of hiring too many heterosexual teachers.

I saw that Massachusetts recently ruled that a lifetime parole for sex offenders was unconstitutional. I would like to know which POS even brought this up. Can the public view which way the panel of whatever voted. Anyways the systems a fucking joke. I mean WTF, I can just picture some fucking idiot lib bringing this up, "Well we wont know if their truly rehabilitated if their on lifetime parole". Well fuck em they don't deserve another chance I mean whats more important than my child's, our children's safety.

http://m.wcvb.com/news/lifetime-parole-of-mass-sex-offenders-ruled-unconstitutional/26438774

You need to read the actual decision as well as the MA constitution. The decision doesn't state that which you imply.

The Parole Board has the right to supervise parolees and lodge detainers against those, who violate the terms of their parole while the max date of the original sentence is still in effect. The MA constitution, like those of the other states, requires a separation of powers, and where the Parole Board (a creation of the executive branch) is imposing incarceration on defendants for periods beyond the scope of their original sentences without judge, lawyer or due process, they are violating the separation of powers and performing a function reserved to the judiciary by constitutional order. They are essentially resentencing the criminal defendant.

The SJC's decision rightfully asserted that in order to make the practice constitutional, the legislature may provide a means for resentencing, but only the judiciary may impose the additional sentence, and the state and federal constitution require due process when liberty interests are at stake.

Nobody is advocating allowing child-sex offenders to run free in Massachusetts (except maybe the Church :/). The decision merely recognizes the constitutionally mandated roles of the branches of government. Because the case involves parolees, who are child molesters, the emotion may temporarily cloud one's reason, but the principle evoked is designed to protect us all.

A Queens gym teacher accused of raping a student wrestler was charged Wednesday with having sex with a second underage student.
Joy Morsi, 39, hooked up with the second 16-year-old student Saturday morning inside of Grover Cleveland High School in Ridgewood — shortly after her relationship with the student wrestler fell apart because he asked a girl to prom, prosecutors said."

The gym teacher has a nice set of tits. The 16 year old is he a women? I screwed my next door neighbor Joanie when I was 15 or so. She was in her mid 30s. I still get a hard on when I think about it. Except when I figure out how old she is now apx 90s if she us still alive. Then I have to puke.

They're re-running a "Blue Bloods" right now that I saw earlier this season. Donnie Wahlberg's character, an NYPD detective, ends up on jury duty and causes a mistrial because he believes the defendant is innocent.

Now aside from his being super-cop and a psychic, is it really believable that a police detective, whose father is the police commissioner, and whose sister is a Manhattan district attorney, can end up on a jury?

Quite honestly, there isn't really anything believable about Blue Bloods.

When you're right, you're right.

True, but it is an entertaining show

No Fly List Declared Unconstitutional

(Reuters) - The U.S. government's no-fly list banning people accused of links to terrorism from commercial flights violates their constitutional rights because it gives them no meaningful way to contest that decision, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday.

10th circuit Court strikes down gay marriage ban:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/utah-ga...age-ban-n140656

Are ya'll paying attention tot he spate of recent Supreme Court rulings. One today cited some of the President's recess appointments as unconstitutional. Thus, some of the decisions made by those appointees may be invalid and throws the effects of their decisions into disarray.

In addition, the Court ruled that Massachusetts' buffer zones around abortion clinics are unconstitutional. That ruling involves the intersection of several Supreme Court approaches to its rulings: least restrictive means; strict scrutiny; compelling government need. In other words, if government is going to restrict freedom of assembly and press, it better be able to illustrate a dang good reason.

When I was draft-eligible eons ago, I got it into my head that compulsory selective service was unconstitutional because it was "involuntary servitude" as banned by the 13th Amendment. I hounded all my lawyer and law-student acquaintances about this, not realizing how specialized Constitutional law was. Some said the draft was legal because the Constitution gave Congress the power to raise and maintain standing armies. Others said the Constitution made the President Commander-in-Chief (which was why draft notices began with "greetings from the President of the United States"). Still others said that the intent of the framers of the 13th Amendment was to outlaw "negro slavery," not anything else.

I finally figured it out years later: the 14th Amendment's due process clause protected the draft. The Selective Service Act had a plethora of exemptions and deferments; subjected potential draftees to physical and mental exams, and provided a process to appeal your classification to various boards--and ultimately to the President. So much for "involuntary servitude."

Good analysis TB. Of course, original intent of the drafters and ratifiers of the Constitution and its amendments must always be taken into account. Also, various Constitutional provisions must be balanced against one another (e.g., free speech vs. an impartial jury).

As you state, Constitutional interpretation is so very complex. Yet, some Board members insist on trying to, against all reason, ignore that complexity.

Pop had to pull a lot of strings to get you a deferment.

I didn't ask for a deferment -- and I didn't want it. Ya know Tom, maybe I can't beat the crap out of Sonny, but I'll turn your butt inside out my kraut/mick step-brother!

When you lose 9-0 the Court might have been trying to tell you something.
Seriously though, the Court reaffirmed that the Senate, not the President, gets to decide when the Senate is in session. The question is what happens to any decisions handed down by NLRB members who had no right to be there?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/us/supreme-court-president-recess-appointments.html