Supreme Court Rules To Protect Religious Expression For Praying Football Coach

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Joe Kennedy, the high school football coach who was fired in 2015 for visibly praying on the field after games.

Justice Gorsuch affirmed the coach’s First Amendment rights in the majority opinion of Kennedy vs. Bremerton School District saying that, “[r]espect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse Republic.”

The decision was heralded as a “tremendous victory for Coach Kennedy and religious liberty for all Americans” by Kennedy’s legal team, First Liberty.

Many conservatives are hailing the ruling as a first step towards restoring religious liberty in America, including Ted Cruz who tweeted, “I’m thankful the Supreme Court fully enforced the First Amendment—in a major victory for religious liberty—and upheld our God-given right to practice our faith.”

The President of the Family Research Council, Tony Perkins, tweeted that, “The Court has taken a significant step in repairing America’s foundation of religious freedom, which has been under relentless assault over the last 60 yrs.”

RELATED: Reports: Clarence Thomas Interested In Revisiting Ruling To Make It Easier To Sue The Media

Kennedy Wrongly Fired

Kennedy served as an assistant coach for the Bremerton School District in Bremerton, Washington. During his tenure as coach he had a post-game tradition of kneeling for prayer at the 50-yard line. Sometimes students and other coaches voluntarily joined him in this tradition. 

Justice Gorsuch explains in the majority opinion, which was signed by Justices Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh and Barrett, and Chief Justice Roberts, that coach Kennedy was wrongly fired for his visible prayers. The controversy in this case hinged on the fact that Kennedy was serving in an official school capacity when he prayed, and the School District sought to prove that his prayers were coercing students into his religion, which could be a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Justice Gorsuch takes several pages to explain why this specific case does not violate the Establishment Clause and concludes that:

“Here, a government entity sought to punish an individual for engaging in a personal religious observance, based on a mistaken view that it has a duty to suppress religious observances even as it allows comparable secular speech. The Constitution neither mandates nor tolerates that kind of discrimination. Mr. Kennedy is entitled to summary judgment on his religious exercise and free speech claims.”

RELATED: AOC Wants ‘Consequences’ For Supreme Court Justices, Impeachment For Clarence Thomas

Left Claims “Free Speech is Dead”

Unsurprisingly, the left is outraged by the decision.

In response to the ruling Representative Illhan Omar (D-MN) tweeted that, “The Supreme Court just ruled that public school teachers can pressure students to join in prayer at public school events but can also retaliate against those that don’t join in. Religious freedom is dead in America.”

However, Kennedy’s lawyer, Kelly Shackelford, explained that, far from any coercion, two students who did not join the prayers were even promoted to team captain.

Gorsuch also explained in the opinion that, “The First Amendment’s protections extend to ‘teachers and students,’ neither of whom ‘shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.’ It is not dispositive that Coach Kennedy served as a role model and remained on duty after games. To hold otherwise is to posit an ‘excessively broad job descriptio[n]’ by treating everything teachers and coaches say in the workplace as government speech subject to government control.”

Slate news, however, went with the provocative and patently false headline, “Supreme Court Lets Public Schools Coerce Students Into Practicing Christianity.

Christianity Singled Out?

Would Slate news write headlines like this if the coach in question were Muslim or Jewish? This is exactly what an Amicus brief filed in the case by the Shaffer-Jaff law firm posited. 

“Such religious expression does not suddenly become government speech just because it occurs at a place of public employment,” the brief stated. “Because of the well-understood personal and individual nature of expressions of faith, it would be wrong as a factual matter to strip such expressions of their individual significance by attributing them to a person’s employer. No one, for example, would ever view an Abercrombie employee’s decision to wear a headscarf at work as Abercrombie’s endorsement of Islam.”

“A Jewish person who teaches public school students while wearing a yarmulke is doing nothing different in kind than a teacher or a coach privately praying in the view of his students or others.”

Justice Sotomayor refutes this idea in her dissent which was signed also by Justices Bryer and Kagan. Sotomayor sides with the school district stating that, “the District has a strong argument that Kennedy’s speech, formally integrated into the center of a District event, was speech in his official capacity as an employee that is not entitled to First Amendment protections at all.”

“His right to pray at any time and in any manner he wishes while exercising his professional duties is not absolute.”

Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

The post Supreme Court Rules To Protect Religious Expression For Praying Football Coach appeared first on The Political Insider.

Top GOP Rep Calls Out Impeachment Effort – Says It Seems Like ‘Political Vengeance’

Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY) spoke out on Friday to blast the House for impeaching President Donald Trump for a second time, this time for “incitement of insurrection” after some of his supporters stormed the Capitol building last week.

Barr Discusses Trump Impeachment 

While Barr said that he does not see Trump as “blameless” in the riot at the Capitol, he added that the impeachment looks “more like an act of political vengeance” than “trying to uphold the standards of the presidency.”

“The president here is not blameless, but ultimately, I voted against impeachment because, as a legal matter, the Supreme Court has set the standard for what constitutes criminal incitement in a way that doesn’t violate the First Amendment,” Barr said.

“And here, based on the facts, the president’s conduct, while unfortunate, did not rise to the level of the legal definition of incitement,” he continued. 

“But beyond the legal analysis, I think the real point here is that with only seven days left in this president’s term, what does impeachment actually accomplish?” Barr questioned.

“It looked to me, and every member, Republican and Democrat, had to make their own judgment, but it looked to me more like an act of political vengeance as opposed to actually trying to uphold the standards of the presidency,” he said. “And again, what I would say is let’s follow the advice of the president-elect, and let’s try to do what we can to bring the country together to turn the page, heal and unite the country.”

Related: Gingrich: Pelosi Impeachment Push Is Because She’s Scared Trump Might Run Again – And Win

Barr Voted Against Impeachment

Barr was one of the lawmakers who voted against impeaching Trump, arguing that the country needs to look forward rather than backward.

“We know that there are people in this country in both the right and the left who feel disenfranchised, they’re angry, they feel left behind,” Barr said.

“They feel disrespected,” he concluded. “And I think we need to do a lot of soul-searching, Republicans and Democrats and look at ways in which we can’t reach out to these people who feel so alienated from the institutions of our country and rebuild trust.”

Read Next: Rose McGowan Blasts Trump Impeachment As ‘Cult Propaganda…Mass Distraction’ – Elites Ignoring ‘Country’s Starving, Sick, And Poor’

This piece was written by James Samson on January 16, 2021. It originally appeared in LifeZette and is used by permission.

Read more at LifeZette:
Kristi Noem Defiantly Doubles Down On Lockdown Stance – ‘South Dakota Is Open’
Dem Rep. Swalwell Compares President Trump To Osama bin Laden
Masters of Projection and Deception. Democrats Don’t Want to Govern Us; They Want to Crush Us and Then Rule Us.

The post Top GOP Rep Calls Out Impeachment Effort – Says It Seems Like ‘Political Vengeance’ appeared first on The Political Insider.

John Bolton Speaks Out, Blasts Democrats’ Impeachment Of Trump As ‘Grossly Partisan’

Former National Security Adviser John Bolton finally spoke out this week, slamming Democrats for their “grossly partisan” impeachment effort against President Donald Trump.

During a public appearance alongside Susan Rice, who had his same role in Barack Obama’s White House, Bolton said that his own testimony would not have changed the entire outcome of the Senate impeachment trial, according to the Associated Press. Despite what Democrats who wanted him to testify said, Bolton does not believe his testimony would have made a difference in the final impeachment vote.

“People can argue about what I should have said and what I should have done,” Bolton said. “I would bet you a dollar right here and now, my testimony would have made no difference to the ultimate outcome.”

He also said that the way Democrats handled the impeachment trial “drove Republicans who might have voted for impeachment away because it was so partisan.”

MORE NEWS: Disturbing new report reveals FBI had multiple informants in Trump’s presidential campaign

Rice disagreed with him, saying that nothing could have led her “to refuse to share information with Congress or the public that I thought was of national import.

“I can’t imagine withholding my testimony, with or without a subpoena,” she said. “I also can’t imagine, frankly, in the absence of being able to provide that information directly to Congress, not having exercised my First Amendment right to speak publicly at a time when my testimony or my experience would be relevant.”

Bolton, however, stood his ground, saying that the reason he didn’t “spill his guts” about Trump’s business dealings with Ukraine was that doing so would have led to him being prosecuted criminally. When asked if he would have complied with a subpoena from the White House, Bolton brought up the White House review process that is determining whether the contents of his upcoming book about working in the Trump administration can be disclosed.

MORE NEWS: The five best presidents in American history

“I’m not here to speculate on that with the pre-publication review process under way,” Bolton said as the audience laughed. “Laugh all you want. This is the judgment of my counsel, somebody I worked with 35 years ago, 30 years ago at the Department of Justice.”

Bolton is correct that his testimony would not have changed anything because it was clear from the get-go that the Senate would be voting along party lines. The only senator to break from his party was Mitt Romney (R-UT) who had his own personal vendetta against Trump. No other senators were swayed by the Democrats’ nonsense, as they saw right through their partisan effort. Nothing Bolton could say or not say would have had any impact on this.

This piece originally appeared in LifeZette and is used by permission.

Read more at LifeZette:
Trump and Barr pull a classic con on Democrats
Cher comes unglued—claims Trump is going to shoot someone in New York City
Meghan McCain confronts AOC on ‘The View’ about Socialism and behavior of ‘Bernie Bros’

The post John Bolton Speaks Out, Blasts Democrats’ Impeachment Of Trump As ‘Grossly Partisan’ appeared first on The Political Insider.