The brief brought by the Administration argued that the religion clauses of the First Amendment don't protect the right of religious groups to select ministers.
The Justice Department also argued that employment discrimination laws trumped the First Amendment's religious freedom protections-even concerning the choice of ministers.
The school held that it was drawing on a legal doctrine known as "ministerial exception," which allows religious institution wide latitude in hiring and firing their religious leaders.
The Administration's lawyers argued that there should be no ministerial exceptions.
They essentially wanted to eliminate this exception, stating: "Government needs to have broad powers to address the problem of discrimination - in this case 'disability - as well as other injustices. Conceding too much to religious institutions limits those powers. Why should the theological doctrines of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, or of any other church, trump the legal doctrines of the United States when the important principle of non-discrimination is at stake?"
What this all means is that the Obama Administration thought the powers of the government should be far greater than the Constitution, convention and history had provided.
The case went to the Supreme Court which held, in a 9-0, ruling that the Administration was wrong.
Did you get that? The Administration wanted the power to decide matters of church polity, matters of church authority and matters of church employment rights. They also wanted to do away with a centuries old manifestation of First Amendment rights for religious organizations for "social" purposes as they saw them.
They thought they were right about their right to power.
They were wrong.
This "Constitutional scholar" [which President BO (the amateur president) is NOT], has been wrong far more than he has been right about Constitutional freedom in America.
He is not capable of understanding or of learning what America is really all about.
9 comments:
If anyone wants to take the time to read more of the brief I'd be interested.
My short perusal indicates this involves an employee at a school run by the church and concerns a possible violation of disability law.
It has nothing to do with ministers in the pulpit and Joe seems to have become hysterical again for no reason.
Ducky: Oh no!! Say it isn't so! I'm hysterical! Arrrrgh!
As the title says (which you evidently by-passed) the article has to do with Obama's concept of the appropriate breadth of government.
The post has nothing to do with the actual case (even though I DO suggest that you read up on it).
Obama thinks he should have the power to dictate the meaning of the Constitution, the power of the government and the overturn of precedence all by himself.
Let's see Joe, the administration enforces the disability law and the courts decide the enforcement was incorrect.
Now is it the function of the executive branch to enforce law?
Is it the function of the judiciary to interpret the law?
The administration dictated the meaning of the LAW, not the Constitution. This is a normal function of the executive branch.
This was not a constitutional decision and it really gets silly the way the fringe right goes into hysterics screaming Constitution, Constitution.
From the WIKI article on the case:
In 1999, Cheryl Perich started teaching at Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Redford, Michigan. While Perich led students in prayer and taught a religion class several days a week, her job primarily consisted of teaching grade school art, science, social studies and music. In 2004, Perich left on disability and was diagnosed with narcolepsy. In 2005, after being cleared by her doctors to go back to work, the school told her that they already hired someone else. Perich then threatened to file suit, so the school promptly fired her for "insubordination and disruptive behavior."
Notice that the administration did not bring the suit.
Joe, here's your chance to admit you should be more careful when you cite Family Research Council Propaganda.
Ducky: "...the administration enforces the disability law and the courts decide the enforcement was incorrect."
Are you saying that the Supreme Court was wrong? I didn't know they could be wrong. Wasn't that the theme after they decided ObamaCare penalties were a tax after all?
This is SO confusing!
The SCOTUS often decides whether a particular law is Constitutional and/or correctly applied.
In this case, they said, "No."
Besides, this article was abut the Administration's belief that it should have had the power to decide...by their own statements before SCOTUS.
Joe, I read the brief and the Roberts opinion. Your assessment of the case is so off base it's hard to know where to begin.
The school held that it was drawing on a legal doctrine known as "ministerial exception," which allows religious institution wide latitude in hiring and firing their religious leaders.
It was the school that petitioned the Supreme court after the Sixth Circuit appeals court rejected "ministerial exception" in this case. EEOC and Justice were obligated to defend the law as adjudicated by the appeals court.
The Administration's lawyers argued that there should be no ministerial exceptions.
Nonesense. Not true. A flat out lie. They argued that the exception didn't apply to this case. They argued that Perich, even though she was designated a "minister" due to her status as a "called teacher", she performed the exact same duties as a non-called, "contract" teacher. The Synod's own employee guidelines stated that they adhered to the ADA statutes. Perich followed the guidelines and was fired anyway. The school even admitted she was terminated in retaliation for her getting a lawyer. A clear violation of ADA that the Synod said she was covered under. The only thing at issue was whether or not Perich fit the exemption.
They essentially wanted to eliminate this exception, stating: "Government needs...
Nowhere in the brief or in any sataement by the administration or the lawyers did anyone say they wanted to eliminate the exemption. The quote is not from the brief or any admin. lawyer. The quote is from R. R. Reno, writing his "unbiased" summation of the case in Imprimis. Really, Joe, you can't even get the attribution of a quote right.
The case went to the Supreme Court which held, in a 9-0, ruling that the Administration was wrong.
Yup, and the Sixth Circuit. They ruled that Perich was a "minister". It was the first time SCOTUS had ruled on "ministerial exemption" and the ruling is narrowly applied to this case only.
The Court, however, does not adopt a rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister. Here, it is enough to conclude that the exception covers Perich, given all the circumstances of her employment.
Using this case to demonstrate some kind of hostility to religion on the part of the administration is ridiculous. It's a clear demonstration of how far FRC and you will go to feed your dilusional persecution fantacies.
Whatever happened to separation of church and state? And where does the Constitution say that the federal government has the power to tell private entities who to hire and fire?
If you were paying attention, LR, you would see that this is a question of employment law.
Was the church within their rights to designate the teachers as ministers and create two levels of employment.
The court decided not to interfere in this case so I don't understand Joe's concern.
In fact the Family Research Council is so far in the weeds with their reportig that Joe took it on the chin once again. We're going to start calling him "Timex".
XO, Ducky and Craig As usual, you want to make this about something that is not what it is about.
This is about government power and their contention that they get to decide such things.
The SCOTUS said, "No, you don't."
It's really that simple.
Too simple for the complex, inconsistent mind of a liberal to grasp, I'm sure. "Let's read into the post something that is not there."
Post a Comment