Is the threat/win of stacking the supreme court overblown?

[Chew Toy McCoy]

I think the belief from both sides is that if the supreme court is stacked towards the right then by next month we’ll be living in a Christian theocracy where people face a firing squad for thinking about having an abortion and everybody will be issued guns and bullets for Jesus. Obviously too soon to tell, but it doesn’t seem to be heading in that direction. I don’t know what the score is with voting so far, but I keep seeing “Supreme Court Surprisingly Doesn’t Vote Us Into a Religious Dystopia” type articles. Even just the mention of the supreme court scheduled to hear a case is reported as "The left is soooo fucked!" and then it doesn't happen. It's as if they didn’t enter the supreme court with an extreme agenda….imagine that.

 

[SuperMatt]

I think the belief from both sides is that if the supreme court is stacked towards the right then by next month we’ll be living in a Christian theocracy where people face a firing squad for thinking about having an abortion and everybody will be issued guns and bullets for Jesus. Obviously too soon to tell, but it doesn’t seem to be heading in that direction. I don’t know what the score is with voting so far, but I keep seeing “Supreme Court Surprisingly Doesn’t Vote Us Into a Religious Dystopia” type articles. Even just the mention of the supreme court scheduled to hear a case is reported as "The left is soooo fucked!" and then it doesn't happen. It's as if they didn’t enter the supreme court with an extreme agenda….imagine that.

They are going to rule this term on a pretty extreme abortion bill. Making abortion a crime at 15 weeks would be a massive societal upheaval in America. I don’t think any SCOTUS would even have taken the case in the past 20 years - they would have just backed up the lower courts in cancelling the law. We know for a fact that some Justices said (up until their Senate hearings) that they would overturn Roe v Wade. It is worrisome.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

So I should probably throw this in here.

Supreme Court rules foster agencies can reject same-sex couples

The decision was unanimous.

www.axios.com

Kind of a trigger separation of church and state issue I guess and in that framework I can’t be too upset about it. Nobody is forced to be Catholic and they don’t have a monopoly on quality adoptable children.

 

[SuperMatt]

So I should probably throw this in here.

Supreme Court rules foster agencies can reject same-sex couples

The decision was unanimous.

www.axios.com

Kind of a trigger separation of church and state issue I guess and in that framework I can’t be too upset about it. Nobody is forced to be Catholic and they don’t have a monopoly on quality adoptable children.

I think the bigoted foster agencies should be shunned by all. I don’t like that they are in some ways affiliated with the state.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

I think the bigoted foster agencies should be shunned by all. I don’t like that they are in some ways affiliated with the state.

I understand that but that's not a legal stance. I don't see how a more liberal supreme court could rule differently. At the base level it would be the government discriminating against a religious organization because of that religion's beliefs. A clear no no.

 

[SuperMatt]

I understand that but that's not a legal stance. I don't see how a more liberal supreme court could rule differently. At the base level it would be the government discriminating against a religious organization because of that religion's beliefs. A clear no no.

People can simply stop using the religious foster agencies? I question the official endorsement of such agencies by the government, if they do so. I’m not knowledgeable enough to know if they do endorse these religious agencies, or give them money, or not. I don’t like government money given to religious schools either... but the “separation of church and state” seems to be ignored when it’s convenient it seems.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

They are going to rule this term on a pretty extreme abortion bill. Making abortion a crime at 15 weeks would be a massive societal upheaval in America. I don’t think any SCOTUS would even have taken the case in the past 20 years - they would have just backed up the lower courts in cancelling the law. We know for a fact that some Justices said (up until their Senate hearings) that they would overturn Roe v Wade. It is worrisome.

I understand the passions on both sides, but I wonder how many people this actually affects. Both sides paint it like there's long queues outside abortion clinics 24/7. Not saying both or either side should just let it go, but I'm just wondering if the perception is way disproportionate to the reality and it's definitely a top-tier slippery slope argument magnet.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

People can simply stop using the religious foster agencies? I question the official endorsement of such agencies by the government, if they do so. I’m not knowledgeable enough to know if they do endorse these religious agencies, or give them money, or not. I don’t like government money given to religious schools either... but the “separation of church and state” seems to be ignored when it’s convenient it seems.

This is kind of a unique one because I don’t really see this as a government endorsement of a religious organization as much as just one source of many to pull resources from. Also I don’t really know how adoption works or how many possible different avenues. Also this case happened in Philidelphia. How common is it elsewhere?

 

[SuperMatt]

This is kind of a unique one because I don’t really see this as a government endorsement of a religious organization as much as just one source of many to pull resources from. Also I don’t really know how adoption works or how many possible different avenues. Also this case happened in Philidelphia. How common is it elsewhere?

I read a bit more about this. It sounds like that agency is one of many the city can pick from. The city said “if you want to be one of the agencies, you have to allow gay couples” and the Catholics said no. So, when gay couples want to foster a child, they can go to any other non-Catholic agency that is recognized by the city. Question becomes: what if all the agencies decided not to allow gay couples? Now you’ve got no way for gay couples to foster children. To me, part of “freedom of religion” is freedom FROM religion. England had/has an official state church. We wanted to be free of that.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

I read a bit more about this. It sounds like that agency is one of many the city can pick from. The city said “if you want to be one of the agencies, you have to allow gay couples” and the Catholics said no. So, when gay couples want to foster a child, they can go to any other non-Catholic agency that is recognized by the city. Question becomes: what if all the agencies decided not to allow gay couples? Now you’ve got no way for gay couples to foster children. To me, part of “freedom of religion” is freedom FROM religion. England had/has an official state church. We wanted to be free of that.

It’s probably one of those situations where an amendment needs to be retooled. We’ll respect your beliefs up to a point but will remove your tax exempt status if you want to break secular law following your beliefs. Admittedly that’s more playing hardball than having the punishment fit the crime, but nothing talks louder than money.

From what I know the current pope is comparatively pro gay rights and this is just another example of buffet Catholicism. The pope is infallible…except when I disagree with him. BTW, my parents are practicing gay Catholics. They see the church’s view as more being out of touch than something to rage against, sort of their way of not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[User.45]

People can simply stop using the religious foster agencies? I question the official endorsement of such agencies by the government, if they do so. I’m not knowledgeable enough to know if they do endorse these religious agencies, or give them money, or not. I don’t like government money given to religious schools either... but the “separation of church and state” seems to be ignored when it’s convenient it seems.

It's also a question of consent/assent from the children. Can the kids opt out of their pool of potential foster parent pool being reduced?

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

It's also a question of consent/assent from the children. Can the kids opt out of their pool of potential foster parent pool being reduced?

I really don't want to break this down to a breeder vs children mill type situation, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are some elite adoption services where not every child is available. Do they get a say on that? Should we be mad at parents who will only adopt a child of a certain race or from a specific country or continent?

 

[Thomas Veil]

Coincidentally I was just reading about this subject on FiveThirtyEight.

In A Unanimous Decision, The Supreme Court Delivered Another Victory For The Religious Right

UPDATE (June 17, 2021, 10:59 a.m.): On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision that Philadelphia’s requirement that Catholic Social Services a…

fivethirtyeight.com

In covering the adoption agency decision, they note that the religious right has been scoring quite a few victories lately.

The religious right has already won a number of other cases in the past few years:

• In 2014, the court ruled 5-4 that the town of Greece, New York, could open its town hall meetings with sectarian prayers, as long as no one was coerced to participate and the practice was open to all religions.
• In 2017, the court ruled 7-2 that a Lutheran church in Missouri could receive government funds for its preschool playground despite the First Amendment’s guarantee of the separation of church and state.
• In 2020, a banner year for religious exemptions, the court ruled that religious schools are not held to antidiscrimination hiring laws, that their students are eligible for state-funded scholarships and thatreligious entities cannot be compelled to offer their employees contraceptive health care.
• And in February, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the court sided with houses of worship seeking exemptions to a ban on holding indoor services. The court found that, though public health and safety were important, they did not outweigh the right to free exercise of religion. The court underscored that ruling again in April, when in another 5-4 ruling it concluded that religious gatherings in private homes were not subject to government-imposed COVID-19 restrictions.

Reading it this way you could be forgiven for thinking that America is slowly, quietly leaning towards, if not a theocracy, at least a democracy in which religion trumps civil rights and/or common sense. As the article mentions, you can take this to extremes when saying you don't have to obey laws because they're against your religious beliefs.

...if Smith is overturned, she continued, that would mean only certain laws would apply to religious entities like CSS. A pastor late for church, she said, could zip right past a stop sign.

“That pastor has an argument he never had before if Smith is no longer the law,” Hamilton said. “The real danger, and in my view, the evil that resides in this concept of religious liberty without regard to consideration of the common good is that we end up permitting religious actors to question laws that are necessary for all of us.

What was angry-making to read was that there are organized instigators behind the scenes, pushing for the adoption of state laws with the intention of having them validated by a right wing Supreme Court. If this tactic reminds you of ALEC, you're not alone.

Another development in this shift toward favoring exemptions for religious liberty is “Project Blitz” — a strategy of the religious right to flood state legislatures with controversial religious liberty laws intended to challenge the status quo by reaching the Supreme Court. Supported by a coalition of conservative Christian organizations, Project Blitz targets LGBTQ rights, women’s reproductive rights and more.

So, it's not quite The Handmaid's Tale yet...but that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of people out there pushing in that direction. What they think of as an ideal America is scary.