Scalito lets WINGNUTS into public schools

[georgia10]

I'll be sifting through the cases of Lil' Sammy and posting snippets I think reveal his "judicial philosophy." Today's case is Child Evangelism Fellowship of New Jersey Inc. v. Stafford Tp. School Dist., 386 F.3d 514, decided about a year ago on October 15, 2004.

FACTS: The school district had a policy about which groups were allowed to post things in the school, send flyers home with students, etc. There were set standards, plus the superintendent had discretion to allow groups on an ad-hoc basis.

Enter the wingnuts. Child Evangelism is describe thusly:

Child Evangelism describes itself as a "Bible-centered, worldwide organization composed of born-again believers whose purpose is to evangelize boys and girls with the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and to establish (disciple) them in the Word of God and in a local church for Christian living."

Scalito ruled that the wingnut group COULD pass out flyers to young school children AND have meetings on campus. Read the analysis of the case http://g10.blogspot.com>

[Nikki Stone 1]

1. YIKES!

...

[funflower]

2. They are constitutionally permitted to use school space on an equal

footing with nonreligious groups (hence all of the churches that meet in school gyms as well as on-campus prayer meetings).

I don't understand any legal reasoning that would require a district to distribute their flyers in classrooms, if that is what you're implying.

[niyad]

4. allowing religious groups to use school facilities (as a local school

did for a newly-established parish until its building was complete) is one thing--that had nothing to do with the school (especially as the services were held on the weekends)

HOWEVER, allowing them to send flyers with the daily school papers is quite another matter--as it appears to come with the blessing and imprimatur of the school. SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE, what is so damned hard to understand?

[funflower]

6. What I'm saying is that I'm not aware of a basis in caselaw or statute

that might be the basis of Alito's opinion that schools are required to act as conduits for the flyers (if in fact that's what the opinion required).

On the other hand, I am aware of both caselaw and statute that requires schools to permit equal access to their buildings.

Judges do not write their opinions in a vacuum. Even Alito had to have some plausible legal basis for his dissent. I'm simply stating that I'm not aware of any basis in caselaw or statute for such an idea.

[shenmue]

3. What about...

"no law respecting an establishment of religion" is so hard to understand?

And the "free" in free practice refers to non-compulsory.

If this isn't taking a big eraser to the line between church and state, I don't know what is.

:grr:

:nuke:

:thumbsdown:

[MidwestTransplant]

5. Here is another to look at re schools

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x19106

[proud patriot]

7. Awful

x(