In 8-1 SCOTUS Ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts Is The Only One To Side Against Christian Students

[Scott Downey]

This guy the same one who was heard screaming and yelling at other SC justices, not to take up election fraud cases. There is something else potentially going on involving some adopted family members or something with him democrats know of , like they have some dirt on him, allegations I have read unrelated to this post. But he is proving no friend of conservatives lately. I would be happy to see him go, but not replaced by a democrat POTUS.
John Roberts Is Only Dissenter Against Christian Students In 8-1 Free Speech SCOTUS Case
In 8-1 SCOTUS Ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts Is The Only One To Side Against Christian Students Whose Free Speech Was Trampled

MARCH 8, 2021 By Jordan Davidson


Chief Justice John Roberts was the only dissenter in the U.S Supreme Court’s most recent ruling favoring a couple of Christian students who challenged their university for restricting when, where, and how they could speak about their faith and disseminate materials on campus.

 

[Scott Downey]

Some ideas about why he is swinging to the LEFT, there are nastier ones. But one is hatred of Trump.
Why Did SC Justice John Roberts Swing Left? Here’s One Theory

In June, Chief Justice Roberts was the deciding vote allowing LGBT rights to be shoehorned into the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The very next day he led the liberal wing of the court in saying Barack Obama could decide children brought here by their illegal-immigrant families had a right to stay — but Trump had no legal right to undo Obama’s executive order.

The next month, Roberts once again joined his fellow travelers on the left to allow abortion clinics in Louisiana to operate without the backup of an emergency room for injured women.

“I actually think much of what is driving it is, I think, John despises Donald Trump,” Sen. Ted Cruz told CBN. “I think it’s personal.”

Gary Bauer of American Values says he hopes Sen. Cruz is wrong but says it’s as good an explanation as any other for the bizarre drift of Justice Roberts.

 

[rlvaughn]

Roberts continues to progress down the rabbit hole. All reports of "Roberts sided with the liberal wing of the court" should be removed from our vocabulary. It seems to me he is now part of the liberal wing of the court. Thanks to him, we have "Obamacare."

That case down in Georgia was pretty wild.

Uzuegbunam et al. v. Preczewski et al. first materialized after Chike Uzuegbunam, a student at Georgia Gwinnett College, was stopped by campus police for handing out religious materials on campus, a reported violation of the school’s “Freedom of Expression Policy,” which limited distributions and other expressions to free speech zones only with permission from the administration. Even after Uzuegbunam moved to the designated areas with permission, however, campus police attempted to stop him from speaking and handing out religious literature...

“Applying this principle here is straightforward. For purposes of this appeal, it is undisputed that Uzuegbunam experienced a completed violation of his constitutional rights when respondents enforced their speech policies against him.”

“Such an award instead represents a judicial determination that the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the law is correct — nothing more.”

But that ought to be worth something, shouldn't it, Chief Justice Roberts?

 

[Baptist Believer]

The headline for the article cited (and the article of this thread) is ridiculously misleading.

If one doesn't know anything about the case, it reads as if Justice Roberts ruled against Christian students on the basis of their message. However, this is simply a highly technical case regarding whether or not "nominal damages" (for instance, suing for one dollar) is enough to maintain standing before the court if all other aspects of their case has been resolved outside of court. As Roberts summarized in the introduction to his dissent:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, dissenting.
Petitioners Chike Uzuegbunam and Joseph Bradford want to challenge the constitutionality of speech restrictions at Georgia Gwinnett College. There are just a few problems: Uzuegbunam and Bradford are no longer students at the college. The challenged restrictions no longer exist. And the petitioners have not alleged actual damages.

The case is therefore moot because a federal court cannot grant Uzuegbunam and Bradford “any effectual relief whatever.” Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U. S. 165, 172 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The Court resists this conclusion, holding that the petitioners can keep pressing their claims because they have asked for “nominal damages.” In the Court’s view, nominal damages can save a case from mootness because any amount of money—no matter how trivial—“can redress a past injury.” Ante, at 1. But an award of nominal damages does not alleviate the harms suffered by a plaintiff, and is not intended to. If nominal damages can preserve a live controversy, then federal courts will be required to give advisory opinions whenever a plaintiff tacks on a request for a dollar. Because I would place a higher value on Article III, I respectfully dissent. ​

If you actually read the case (like I did), you will see that it has nothing directly to do with the students at all, nor their message, but whether or not the courts should be tied up with cases (and both parties involved in the lawsuit be eaten up with legal fees) over nominal damages. If you want to place that on the "liberal" to "conservative" spectrum, I think that would likely fall heavily on the conservative side.

But hey, that doesn't give folks who want to attack Roberts any ammunition, so forget actually dealing with reality and pretend he hates Christians because he hates Donald Trump, who is apparently better than Jesus in the minds of the GOP faithful.

 

[Baptist Believer]

But that ought to be worth something, shouldn't it, Chief Justice Roberts?

But that wasn't the issue anymore. Justice Thomas, writing the opinion of the court, noted that "For purposes of this appeal, it is undisputed that Uzuegbunam experienced a completed violation of his constitutional rights when respondents enforced their speech policies against him."

No one disputes that, not even the Dread Chief Justice Roberts. That simply was not what this decision was about.

There are plenty of precedents in state courts and the US Supreme Court regarding the right of free speech, including religious speech, on public grounds -- including college campuses.

 

[rlvaughn]

Because “every violation [of a right] imports damage,” Webb, 29 F. Cas., at 509, nominal damages can redress Uzuegbunam’s injury even if he cannot or chooses not to quantify that harm in economic terms.

I agree with the Court that, as a matter of history and precedent, a plaintiff’s request for nominal damages can satisfy the redressability requirement for Article III standing and can keep an otherwise moot case alive. I write separately simply to note that I agree with THE CHIEF JUSTICE and the Solicitor General that a defendant should be able to accept the entry of a judgment for nominal damages against it and thereby end the litigation without a resolution of the merits.

 

[Scott Downey]

The headline for the article cited (and the article of this thread) is ridiculously misleading.

If one doesn't know anything about the case, it reads as if Justice Roberts ruled against Christian students on the basis of their message. However, this is simply a highly technical case regarding whether or not "nominal damages" (for instance, suing for one dollar) is enough to maintain standing before the court if all other aspects of their case has been resolved outside of court. As Roberts summarized in the introduction to his dissent:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, dissenting.
Petitioners Chike Uzuegbunam and Joseph Bradford want to challenge the constitutionality of speech restrictions at Georgia Gwinnett College. There are just a few problems: Uzuegbunam and Bradford are no longer students at the college. The challenged restrictions no longer exist. And the petitioners have not alleged actual damages.

The case is therefore moot because a federal court cannot grant Uzuegbunam and Bradford “any effectual relief whatever.” Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U. S. 165, 172 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The Court resists this conclusion, holding that the petitioners can keep pressing their claims because they have asked for “nominal damages.” In the Court’s view, nominal damages can save a case from mootness because any amount of money—no matter how trivial—“can redress a past injury.” Ante, at 1. But an award of nominal damages does not alleviate the harms suffered by a plaintiff, and is not intended to. If nominal damages can preserve a live controversy, then federal courts will be required to give advisory opinions whenever a plaintiff tacks on a request for a dollar. Because I would place a higher value on Article III, I respectfully dissent. ​

If you actually read the case (like I did), you will see that it has nothing directly to do with the students at all, nor their message, but whether or not the courts should be tied up with cases (and both parties involved in the lawsuit be eaten up with legal fees) over nominal damages. If you want to place that on the "liberal" to "conservative" spectrum, I think that would likely fall heavily on the conservative side.

But hey, that doesn't give folks who want to attack Roberts any ammunition, so forget actually dealing with reality and pretend he hates Christians because he hates Donald Trump, who is apparently better than Jesus in the minds of the GOP faithful.

So you disagree with the the other 8 justices then, interesting.
And agree with Roberts.
I am surprised the other 8 justices agreed on this case. But not surprised about Roberts. Something fishy going on with his decisions, as in stinky.

SC decisions set precedents for future situations, which is why the 8 justices went the other way. Which I think is the message the other 8 justices want sent out for the future.

 

[Baptist Believer]

So you disagree with the the other 8 justices then, interesting.
And agree with Roberts.

Where in the world did you get that idea? I said nothing of the sort.

Those who are concerned about what is true will speak what they understand to be true, without regard for what "team" it supports. Disciples of Jesus love what is true. If He is Lord and we are engaged with the Kingdom of God, we don't worry about defending the earthly powers at the expense of what is true.

I am surprised the other 8 justices agreed on this case. But not surprised about Roberts. Something fishy going on with his decisions, as in stinky.

On what basis? On the basis of what is true or whether or not he aligns with Trump?

SC decisions set precedents for future situations, which is why the 8 justices went the other way. Which I think is the message the other 8 justices want sent out for the future.

There are already a number of Supreme Court cases establishing freedom of religious expression for K-12 students (a more "vulnerable" group):

• Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens (1990) - Equal access and freedom of religious speech outside of prescribed class time.
• Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001) - Freedom to use school facilities after hours for a religious club.

Religious liberty for prisoners:

• Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005) - Freedom for prisoners to exercise religious belief.

And freedom for religious groups to receive the same recognition, funding and obligations as other non-religious groups on a higher education campus:

• Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010) - Required public institutions of higher education to "register" religious groups so that they could obtain the same benefits as other groups on campus, without compromising religious speech.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has long affirmed that public college students retain their First Amendment rights on a college campus:

• Healy v. James (1972) - Affirmed public college students’ First Amendment rights of free speech and association, determining that those constitutional protections apply with the same force on a state university campus as in the larger community.

All that being said, I think there is ample protection in law and legal precedent for college students (which was demonstrated by the rapid reversal of Georgia Gwinnett College's policy when it was legally challenged), but I certainly wouldn't mind if it was pursued farther.