"Bush's new Supreme Court split rulings in gay school cases"

In 2000, Alito wrote an opinion on behalf of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals striking down a gay-inclusive "anti-harassment" policy adopted by a school district in State College, Pa., home to Penn State University. The policy had been challenged by a Christian conservative who said his children were compelled by their religion to criticize homosexuality as a sin.

In 2004, Alito issued an opinion in Shore Regional High School vs. P.S., reversing a federal judge's ruling that required a student who had been severely bullied for being effeminate from attending a high school with the same students who had harassed him for years.

Both opinions were written on behalf of unanimous three-judge panels of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Philadelphia.The split between the two school rulings by Alito — one striking down a broadly worded anti-harassment policy and the other protecting a student subjected to severe anti-gay harassment — suggest that while Alito is a conservative judge, he is not afraid to use the court's power to remedy a situation he views as unjust.

ttp://www.southernvoice.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=3250

And the fun begins....God, I long for the days of Harriet Miers.

fuckim all? No special provisions for anyone? What an idiot. Goodby civil rights, so long Miranda, nice to know ya right to lawyer for everyone, and have a nice day get out your coathanger.

WOW AS IF WE NEEDED ANOTHER ONE.

If you believe homsexuality is a sin, don't engage in it. Harassment and discrimination, on the other hand, ARE crimes! You can't pass off unlawful behavior as religious doctrine--it amounts to forcing your religious views upon others. A man who said his religion allowed him to murder his wife because she left him was convicted and got the maximum sentence.

:headbang:
rocknation

based on immorality - translation meaning, talking about gay issues or reading gay books may be censored for "moral" reasons, but CHOSEN religious beliefs will be protected as perfectly moral.

"...he views as unjust."

Does that not sound like the VERY DEFINITION of "Judicial Activism"?

Oh, I can't wait to hear the spin on this nutjob.

On this, I do have a tiny bit of insight because Alito's mother was my grammar school principal. She picked on me quite a bit and tried to break me of my 'unfeminine' habits. She was very concerned with the 'normality' of my behavior.

I expect that issues concerning school children and 'protecting' school children from 'vice' will be close to his heart-- it was close to his mother's heart.

OR 12 year olds, as long as they're in the wrong place.

religious beliefs COMPEL them to condemn gay students, yet they remain silent about others.

I think this should mean that gay students can form anti-fundie clubs and claim it is their chosen religious belief to condemn superstitions in any form.

I always thought that judges were supposed to be unbiased. Isn't that the reason Delay wanted a new judge, because he thought the one he had was too "liberal".

I don't want a judge that believes in the Bible of one religion, or the cause of one political party. I want a judge that doesn't give a shit about anything except what is fair and just.

I understand what you're saying, but it's inevitable that, just like anyone else, a judge is going to be more conservative or more liberal than any single subjective viewpoint, and potentially as partisan as the next guy. The important question is, to what degree does that influence their interpretation of the law?

I don't believe in organized religion, but I can certainly see why some do and I don't condemn them for it.

A judge should be removed from his own preferances.

Just my opinion.

It's going to vary. For example, I would certainly expect a referee in any athletic competition to avoid prejudice based on any attachment to particular athletes or teams.

However, I also think such a preference is qualitatively different from the sort one gets from practising religion. It's easy enough for us unbelievers to say that religion shouldn't color legal judgement, but what we miss is that for the real fanatics, religion and consensus reality are completely intertwined and inseparable. The battles over science curricula in public schools are going to wake a lot of people up to that fact real quick.

How should a judge handle a situation where his religious beliefs make it difficult to decide fairly? Well, obviously, s/he should recuse him/herself. But first, the judge has to decide that s/he cannot offer a sufficiently impartial decision due to metaphysical entanglements. In other words, the very judge who would render the legal decisions ends up deciding whether or not s/he is fit to decide. Tricky. And there's no appealing from the SCOTUS, unfortunately.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Kick

I know a lot of my classmates believed that Jews had horns. Is it religious discrimination if we put a ban on searching other student's heads for horns?


What about Christian Identity White Supremists? Those who believe that the United States is the true Jerusalem and has been established to destroy "The Mud People." What about their religious rights to express to their fellow students that they are, indeed, 'mud people.' Ought they be allowed to scream it at the top of their lungs? What about shout loudly? Whisper it in the students ears?

What about shouting at Muslim students? Is it okay for a Christian student to yell, "YOUR GOD IS A DEMON! YOUR GOD SUCKS!" repeatedly in class? I've seen representations of Allah-as-Demon in various Pentecostal churches (just go to Hell House outside of Dallas and you'll see what I mean). Should that not be reprimanded.

So many things that religious fanatics should be permitted to harass others for. Well, I guess that's the point of being a fanatic.

Something like this: if you are sinLESS, throw the first F--ing stone.

"...said his children were compelled by their religion to criticize homosexuality as a sin."

Obviously, these folks are real comfy tellin' Jesus they score a zero on the sin scale.

Sorry, maybe I'm being dense, but this part seems so badly-worded I can't make sense out of it:

"In 2004, Alito issued an opinion in Shore Regional High School vs. P.S., reversing a federal judge's ruling that required a student who had been severely bullied for being effeminate from attending a high school with the same students who had harassed him for years."

Does this mean the court ordered him placed in a different district, and the school fought the ruling and Alito basically forced this kid back into an abusive situation?

Is that what this means?

had to go to the school and Alito over-ruled that decision. It is very poorly worded.

Alito did not vote to alleviate the burdens of a gay child. He voted to uphold the rights of a christian child to harass.

Case 1 - Christian kids have a right to harass homosexuals.

Case 2 - Effeminate boy has a right to change schools to avoid harassment.

I'm wondering if he's another Roberts (whom I also liked).