Mercedes Schneider writes about Neil Gorsuch’s opinion on behalf of the Supreme Court’s extremist supermajority, upholding a coach’s right to engage in “personal” and “private” prayer.
The problem, she points out, is that his prayer was neither personal nor private.
Why did Gorsuch distort/PREVARICATE/LIE ABOUT the facts? My guess is that he is advancing an incremental plan by the Court’s extremists to restore prayer in the schools and overturn the 1962 decision that banned it (Engel v. Vitale).
Mercedes S. does something unusual but necessary. She goes beyond the Gorsuch opinion and reads the rulings against the coach in the appellate court, which show how Gorsuch simply ignored the facts of the case.
The appellate court rejected Coach Kennedy’s claim that he was engaged in personal, private prayer:
Below is the Kennedy backstory as detailed by Ninth Circuit Judge Milan Smith (beginning at page 9), who calls Appellant Kennedy’s supposed silent, private prayer narrative “false.” Smith begins by calling out a colleague on the bench, Judge O’Scannlain, for being taken in by it:
Unlike Odysseus, who was able to resist the seductive song of the Sirens by being tied to a mast and having his shipmates stop their ears with bees’ wax, our colleague, Judge O’Scannlain, appears to have succumbed to the Siren song of a deceitful narrative of this case spun by counsel for Appellant, to the effect that Joseph Kennedy, a Bremerton High School (BHS) football coach, was disciplined for holding silent, private prayers. That narrative is false.
Although I discuss the events in greater detail below, the reader should know the following basic truth ab initio: Kennedy was never disciplined by BHS for offering silent, private prayers. In fact, the record shows clearly that Kennedy initially offered silent, private prayers while on the job from the time he began working at BHS, but added an increasingly public and audible element to his prayers over the next approximately seven years before the Bremerton School District (BSD) leadership became aware that he had invited the players and a coach from another school to join him and his players in prayer at the fifty-yard line after the conclusion of a football game. He was disciplined only after BSD tried in vain to reach an accommodation with him after he (in a letter from his counsel) demanded the right to pray in the middle of the football field immediately after the conclusion of games while the players were on the field, and the crowd was still in the stands. He advertised in the area’s largest newspaper, and local and national TV stations, that he intended to defy BSD’s instructions not to publicly pray with his players while still on duty even though he said he might lose his job as a result.
As he said he would, Kennedy prayed out loud in the middle of the football field immediately after the conclusion of the first game after his lawyer’s letter was sent, surrounded by players, members of the opposing team, parents, a local politician, and members of the news media with television cameras recording the event, all of whom had been advised of Kennedy’s intended actions through the local news and social media.
She adds additional details, all of which demonstrate that Justice Gorsuch and his colleagues bought a fictional tale to advance their zeal to restore prayer in the schools.
If a major political party’s agenda is built on fictions, it logically follows that the laws it interprets have their convenient, useful fictions as well.
The coach’s prayer was a provocative act to test the limits of so-called “religious freedom.” He could have prayed alone on the sidelines, but he chose to make it a spectacle. With the Christian Sharia Court deciding on the case, Kennedy managed to push those limits.
Was there anyone who was not fundamentally (pun intended) dishonest in this whole sorry affair?
“Why did Gorsuch distort the facts? ”
He didn’t just “distort” the facts, he reversed them, made them the opposite of true(ie, false)
They were no longer “facts” when he got through with them. They were lies.
Gorsuch is an antiJustice carrying out antijustice, as are all of his partners in crime on the Majority: John Robbers, Brett Kavemanaugh, Samuel Benito, Amy Phoney Barrister and Clarence UncleThomas
The absolute worst thing a judge can do is lie to get the outcome he wants.
All of those folks should be impeached over behavior that is the very antithesis of justice.
But they won’t be because most members of Congress understand that it is just “lawyers being lawyers”
Lawyers will be lawyers”
And lawyers will be lawyers
And liars will be liars
And coaches will be coachers
And Justices, deniers
As we have seen these new justices have no problem lying. They committed perjury with regard to Roe V Wade during their congressional hearings.
But it’s not just the new ones and, as a judge, it’s hard to top lying in order to “fix” the outcome of a Supreme Court ruling that potentially affects millions of people.
People really need to quit characterizing what these judges did with euphemisms like “distorting the facts” and “presenting alternate facts” (as Harvard Law prof Laurence Tribe characterized it) because these things actually tend to minimize the egregiousness of the behavior.
The reality is that they lied and deceived the American public to get the outcome they wanted.
“The reality is that they lied and deceived the American public to get the outcome they wanted.”
Bingo, bangle, boingle, We have a winner. Give that man a Kewpie doll!
LOVE your last paragraph, SDHP!!! So funny (&, sadly, true)!
My 11:06 PM comment to SDHP was sorely misplaced, but I can’t find where I’d intended it to go (because SDHP’s comments @ 10:37 AM above are not funny).
Sorry.
The SCOTUS justifications for their rulings are no longer meaningful as Constitutional arguments. They do they want with barely a the pretense of legitimacy.
Allegedly overheard in Supreme Court cafeteria: “We don’t need no stinkin’ precedent. We’ve got history and tradition on our side.”
Well, there actually are precedents for dishonest rulings: Dred Scott and Plessy, among others.
And of course, Bush v Gore
Good point. Who would have thought any contemporary justice would ever cite any part of either, as Thomas did with Scott, as a precedent today demonstrates how Looney Tunes this Court is.
UncleThomas is Dredful, all right.
The Georgetown (Catholic) University historian explained why the school did not admit Black students until the 1960’s, “It was…prejudice that they didn’t think that it was in their tradition to admit African-American students,” as reported by the student newspaper. (Hoya, 3-15- 2012).
In 2022, Georgetown hired Ilya Shapiro for a top position in its law school. His tweet about women and Black people in reference to deliberations about a SCOTUS replacement were widely reported by media. On June 6, he resigned. The University did not fire him (or, rescind the offer of employment) whichever the situation was.
But the next step will then be to answer the issue of teacher/government lead prayer in school with 100% choice, 100% voucher privatization of the school system except for special needs students and those students kicked out of private schools.
The end goal for social conservatives is not prayer in school but for their to be no public schools.
“And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men.”
Matthew 6 5
Or, “You cannot be serious!!”
John McEnroe
Yep. My exact quote the other day when I heard of this decision. How very “Christlike” of Gorsuch.
A literature reference in a court ruling! Impressive. It is too bad only a handful of people, Mercedes Schneider thank you, actually read decisions! The courts operate in a vacuum. Rulings are rulings but much can be learned to INFORM society and culture – not just a the black and white headline bumper sticker decision.
As for the ruling – It was not front page and is outshadowed understandably by life-changing rulings and events. And, in the few commentaries there is barely a mention of STUDENTS!
Sorry folks, but the cliche “do what’s best for kids” principle still works. It’s the “I gotta be able to sleep at night” litmus test of a decision.
In this case – – – – millions of kids will internalize the pressure to get on the good side or impress a coach or teacher. These are not outliers – these are regular every day kids who think if they carry the equipment or run the extra lap or do the extra credit, they’ll impress the coach or teacher.
And what normal (whatever that is) everyday kid wants to go against the adult. Not acts of defiance, but when the adult talks, you are supposed to listen.
Well, the adult is talking on the 50 yard line with a bunch of players or is talking in the help session – – but the talk is “optional” prayer – and how many ADULTS have the confidence to not sit with the group.
Weren’t any of these justices 13 years old?
(one more) –
The GOP and suburban and rural parents went crazy over bullying, silent intimidation, and ostracizing. Rightfully so! The effects are dreadful. They are the root of many disorders and even school shootings.
Where are they now?
This is just another version – only this is government protected adult intimidation – intended or not.
From 2006, but even funnier/sadder today:
Thanks for the link-the ticket to high political office in the nation’s largest state- lifting heavy objects while wearing underpants
When the dissent by Sotomayor includes photographs of Kennedy’s very NOT private prayers, you know there’s something. Images in Supreme Court decisions are very rare. I can’t think of another decision that uses them.
As they say, a picture will expose a thousand lies.
Coach praying showboat, he’s going to bring his devotional act to a sports arena near you. With lights, fireworks, dancing monkeys and synchronized praying mantises.
Oooh! I’d go for the synchronized praying mantises! Just kidding of course
He already stood (!) holding up the helmets of both teams. With media and people rushing the field so much that members of the marching band were run over. Not private in my book.
But he will do his show in private before an audience.
I posted this several days ago
The Praying Mantis
Praying Mantis
Crouched in prayer
Waits to draw
The district fire
Traps it’s prey
In legal jaws
Prayer in school
Was basal cause
Did anyone else notice the ruling the Supreme Mendacious Majority (minus Gorsuch this time) just handed down regarding the right of states to prosecute crimes committed on Native lands?
The ruling dealt specifically with the right of the state of Oklahoma to prosecute nonnative Americans who commit crimes against Native Americans on tribal lands, which flies in the face of treaties and even previous Court rulings which give Native Americans the right to carry out the prosecutions themselves and effectively govern their own domains.
Not only is the ruling very racist (assuming Native Americans are not capable of implementing laws), but the ruling (not coincidentally) will almost certainly be used to justify prosecution of any doctor who sets up an abortion clinic on Native Lands. In fact, given that Oklahoma is one of the states where an abortion ban just went into effect, I am sure that making such prosecution possible is precisely the reason for the ruling.
Could this Court be any more corrupt? And any more obvious?
In a macabre way, its very funny.
In trying to cover their bases, they are exposing their Justasses
Thanks for drawing the connection to abortion- another win for THE religious sect.
We can only imagine the discussions these majority Just-asses must have in their private (conspiracy) chambers.
Oh, to be a fly on the ceiling…
But who knows, maybe some ,”agency” actually did record the conversations.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if such information came out in an impeachment hearing?
When religious indoctrination is involved, it may be unnecessary for the conservatives to engage in overt reinforcement of each other. They are, by training, of like thought. Their legal defenses are no more than an exercise in manipulating information and, they likely have help with that from religio-legal experts. The same people helped them with their obfuscations during their confirmation hearings.
As I’ve said before, the right wing Church is very good at what it does. Consider how many people at this blog deliberately couch their responses to avoid identifying the source of the theft of our rights.
Linda
You are probably right.
The basic outline of the conspiracy was written by the Church long ago and they are just following the rules like obedient, mindless children filling in the details on a paint by number drawing.
The Last Supper
Paint by number
Mindless filling
Unencumbered
Thoughtless drilling
Much as I agree that these judges are hypocrites and that they violate their own Christian precepts, the most important point is that they are using blatant lies/ deception to justify the ruling that they quite clearly intended from the getgo.
Though it would be laughable for anyone to claim these folks are acting as Christians, lying to effectively fix the outcome of a Supreme Court case (as both the lawyers bringing the suit AND the Mendacious Majority (TM) did) goes far beyond religious ethics.
It’s the equivalent of dry labbing in science (also known as fraud).
Justice Gorsuch and his colleagues did not buy a fictional tale to advance their zeal to restore prayer in the schools.
They simply recited the tale* word for word, which is not the same as actually buying into/believing it. There is not a snowball’s chance in hell that they didn’t actually know that the story was a fiction. In fact, Sotomayor proves that beyond any reasonable doubt with her photo, which the others almost certainly also saw.
*A tale told by a liar, full of dishonesty and deception, signifying everything.
public service announcement- advise women of child bearing ages that a hospital affiliated with a Catholic health network halted emergency contraception in response to state and SCOTUS decisions. CBS station 13KRCG in Kansas City reported today about St. Luke’s hospital. After the state’s A.G. became aware of the recent ban, he offered an opinion which led the hospital to reverse itself, for now.
I hope the preceding message is not buried under comments that Catholics are discriminated against. The evidence that the claim is untrue follows. The public, its politicians and, its legal representatives have made possible the situation where one in 6 U.S. hospitals are Catholic, made possible Catholic organizations as the 3rd largest U.S. employer, made possible a Catholic majority on SCOTUS, made possible Don McGahn, Pat Cipiloone and Lenard Leo’s efforts to fill courts with conservative judges.
In terms of public school obstacles- school choice rallies have been co-hosted by state Catholic Conferences and the Koch’s AFP, Notre Dames’s ACE formed a Pahara-like Institute, Catholic legal shops have advanced privatization cases and Catholic media have hosted privatization’s advocates.
In a tangential example of Church reach, there is a recent case out of New Orleans. The owner of the New Orleans Saints NFL team, who received an award from Pope Benedict XVI for her service to the Catholic Church, is under scrutiny for the alleged Saints’ PR campaign for the Church, referenced in a current sex abuse case in the courts. Media report the FBI became involved yesterday. The lawyers for the abuse victims have been described as concerned about the outcome of the evidence and case if it reaches SCOTUS. (Btw-Ten years ago the owner was involved in an employment lawsuit brought by a Black man (Rodney Henry) who had worked as an assistant for the family. His charges related to racial discrimination. Reported by NOLA.Com, 7-17-2019).
The extent of Catholic influence in various power structures can be ignored but, I hope it won’t be, in the case of women’s health. Because of religion’s immunity card, women may be unaware of the institutional religious decisions that impact their health and lives.
If ever there was a reason for the President, states and the American people to disregard a Supreme Court ruling, the one they just handed down regarding the EPA is it.
There is nothing more absurd than a bunch of lawyers ruling on a fundamentally scientific issue.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/06/30/us-supreme-court-drops-carbon-bomb-planet
This makes their other rulings of late inconsequential by comparison.
This has the potential to impact every person (not to mention other species) on the planet.
But unfortunately, even if Biden disregarded the Supreme’s that would still allow many states to ignore EPA rulings.
IF, as Gorsuch maintains, the coach was engaged in personal, private prayer, then the SCOTUS ruling breaks no new ground. Of course, personal, private prayer is permitted.
IF there’s a new case, and this time a coach is obviously not praying in private, then this case would not be precedent, would it?
Do you suppose the Republican justices could not get enough votes to support a case based on the facts? Do you suppose that’s why Gorsuch had to lie?
Who would Gorsuch lie to? The justices all have the same facts?
They clearly had to lie to rule the way they did, because if they had admitted it was public prayer, they would have had to rule against.
And that would have become a present for ruling against such public prayer in the future.
Why admit the facts if that will only hurt your efforts to eventually allow openly public praying in school, especially given that there is clearly no downside to lying?
They got away with it and no one is even calling for impeachment over this deception. I don’t even see people like Law professor Laurence Tribe calling for impeachment. Just ho hum tweets reminiscing about the good old days when justices didnt use “alternate facts” (aka lies) to a achieve their ideological goals.
Now that the Supreme Majority know they can simply call public prayer private and rule in favor , they will repeat the same pattern over and over until the public stop even noticing that there is any difference.
The facts, Constitution and logic are simply irrelevant to achieving their goal.
That’s the thing. Why didn’t they rule that public prayer is ok?
They had to pretend that a coach in the middle of a football field surrounded by players from both sides, announced in the local newspaper, immediately after a game, while he was still at work, is private.
It would have been easier to say public prayer is ok. The next time this comes up, they’ll have to do the same thing again. Or maybe, they’ll say “but if you pull our your prayer rug to talk to Allah, and have it announced from a minaret, rather than in the daily newspaper, then that’s public.”
Steve A, I think you’re right, the Court is giving itself wiggle room to rule against other faiths in similar situations.
This Supreme Court has selective memory which is quite dangerous. Simply refer to the Gideon Bible case to understand that every religion in the world will be clamoring to replicate what the coach did…. and more.
With the Gideon Bible attempted give away the courts stopped due to the complaints from many other religions who wanted their bible given away, not Gideons.
Once the battle begins among religions, it will escalate to the Taliban level.
Here’s an explanation of the article I just sent you. It’s put into context as well.
>
Please relink the article. Thanks!
I keep thinking of Colin Kaeperknick, who has been unjustly punished by the NFL for taking a knee. NOT praying, but making a crucial political statement.
& yet…
The difference can be deduced from the recent media coverage about New Orleans Saint’s owner, Gayle Benson- her alleged service to the Catholic Church in its sex scandal and years prior, the lawsuit brought by a former employee against her, alleging racial discrimination.
How incredibly frightening, the Supreme Court now run by a majority willing to blatantly lie to accomplish their Christian, conservative, right wing agenda.