164 Bigger Than Dobbs v. Jackson?!? SCOTUS UNANIMOUS Ruling In Shurtleff Vs. City Of Boston Has Far - Reaching Effects (pjmedia.com) - N C S W I C - posted 78 days ago by PowderRoomPolitics 78 days ago by PowderRoomPolitics +164 / -0 Here's Why the Unanimous Shurtleff Decision Is Even More Important than 6-3 Dobbs The unanimous Shurtleff decision restored the right of every American to practice and express their religious beliefs, as guaranteed by the First Amendment. pjmedia.com 10 comments share 10 comments share save hide report block hide replies
Finally got it right…
Hmmmm, how did this get a 9-0 decision? Ya know, one of the lefty judges wanted to vote against it. In a rare 9-0 decision in the SCOTUS, They ruled to protect the freedom of religion. Boston city officials barred the display of a flag bearing a Christian message in a square that for decades had welcomed the flags of a broad spectrum of causes, movements, and organizations. They did so because the application submitted by the sponsoring group referred to it as a “Christian flag.”
9-0 is not rare in fact it is one of the most if not the most common voting splits in supreme court history. Its just that all the 5-4 decisions are the ones that get press.
I'm curious how satanists might use this for evil
don't get me wrong. I think it's a proper decision
That was my first thought...after school Satan clubs grooming the next generation of puppet master pawns. In law, they should be covered. What shouldn’t be covered is the indoctrination of minors to foster the commitment of violence and malevolent acts. An example of why parents active in their children’s life, and in the oversight of administration in their schools is so important.
There shouldn't be anything to 'restore'. This suggest the 'right' never existed.
eh ... re-store means to put in store anew, leading to the logical conclusion that before the re-store it must have been in store but gone out of store.
However, the suggestion that rights need restoring is not correct. Laws do not give you your rights. Your rights never can be sold, alienated.
What can happen, is that men can be programmed to think otherwise, or bow to the prevailing wind under the guise of ruthless men with an agenda of power grabs.
I see your point and stand corrected.. I should have said acknowledged the right.
or that it ceased to exist at a point in time. Rights are self-existent, they can only be denied, not eliminated.