Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2020/12/11/the-supreme-court-ruled-8-0-against-the-fbi-in-favor-of-religious-freedom-for-muslims.html
…
11 Likes
Wow. I did not have that on my bingo card! But good, very good! And maybe sorta hopeful that the Trump appointees will not be total marionettes?
19 Likes
It’s a pious hope, but the Supreme Court should be there to interpret the law. Cases like this are pretty clear, even to a layman. I’m glad they’ve done their job, in this instance.
6 Likes
Yeah, but only because it coincided with their goal of instituting religious primacy over all constitutional issues… :-/
6 Likes
Well, the constitution does hold religious freedom in very high regard, so it’s not a huge contortion…
3 Likes
No, not in this case, but were it not for the chance to favor religion I think new SCOTUS would have ruled against brown people vs. fed.
1 Like
No it doesn’t in this case. This was a pretty clear cut case of people being targeted BECAUSE OF their religion, and for no other reason. The first amendment protects against that.
Except it was 8-0. There is no religious primacy in this case. None.
10 Likes
The four ayatollahs just wanted revenge on the FBI for not buttery-male-ing Hunter Biden.
Also, this happened in the Obama Administration, therefore prima facie bad. And it’s not precedent for a Republican adminstration.
1 Like
So if I’m the FBI, I now just randomly put people on the no-fly list to try to force them to become informants. Some of those will be muslim. Boom! Problem solved for the feds!
2 Likes
While I was never on a no-fly list, I’m pretty sure I was on a “stop and search” list. For a 2-3 year period I would get searched every single time I flew–3-5 times per year. I’d get pulled aside, get a pat-down, my bag would get pulled apart. No explanation. I asked if I was on a list and was told they weren’t allowed to tell me. Then it stopped and hasn’t happened since. I do fly to one country that we have poor relations with, so I assumed it was that. But I could never get confirmation.
Obligatory Seinfeld:
2 Likes
…which, sadly, could be absolutely anywhere these days.
11 Likes
Not surprised at all. This is ENTIRELY consistent with the conservative Supreme Court, which upholds religious beliefs as sacrosanct and immutable rights. The problem comes when it’s a question of WHOSE religious views win an argument. That’s where the court differs and where we get into controversy. The conservatives believe a boss has the right to impose their religious beliefs on their staff, for example.
4 Likes
Ha! Very true. In the 2002-2005 period it was less-so.
2 Likes
Except they upheld the actual first amendment, which protects people from being discriminated against because of their religion. This isn’t about religious BELIEFS, it’s about protecting people from unreasonable actions by the federal government, which, YES, does include allowing people freedom of worship. It also protects those of us who are NOT religious as well.
I’m not saying they won’t make bad decisions on other issues, but I really don’t think this is a decision based on subverting secularism, but is in fact supporting secularism. The state should not be discriminating against religious people, especially religious minorities.
9 Likes
Let’s not overstate this. It was a minor procedural ruling on standing. The justices made the right decision, but they didn’t actually make any determination about whether the plaintiffs’ claims had any merit.
2 Likes
How about those who do not have religious beliefs? Whoops, that’s me on a no-fly list…
3 Likes
Um… that rather implies that everyone who does not believe in any religion doesn’t have the same rights as people who do.
That’s not what the first amendment states.
Freedom of religion means ‘no government sanctioned religion’ and also the freedom to not worship at all, if one so chooses.
3 Likes
It doesn’t seem to me that hard to show that the FBI was acting on religious prejudice. Did the FBI put anyone but Muslims on a the no-fly list when they refused to become an informant? If not, the case seems pretty clear.
There are any number of things the FBI could focus on when coercing people into becoming informants. Maybe someone is transsexual, or in an open marriage. I would far rather see the FBI’s ability to coerce innocent civilians get diminished, than merely look at this as a narrow victory for people who are Muslim.
Given their history of botching transcripts and then using the ‘error’ as leverage against informants, I don’t think this settles the matter at all.
1 Like
Keep in mind the Supreme Court didn’t see any religious prejudice in Trump’s Muslim ban. And that was before Kavanaugh and Barrett.
2 Likes
