Sunday, March 19, 2017

What action has the Trunpster taken that violates estaglishment clause?

How do courts determine whether a governmental action (like Travel Ban 2.0) is animated by religious animus? The court looked at the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in McCreary County v. ACLU of KY: "In determining purpose, a court acts as an 'objective observer' who considers 'the traditional external signs that show up in the text, legislative history, and implementation of the statute, or comparable official act.'" In other words, the mere identification (or claim) of a valid secular purpose does not satisfy the test. Courts will look at objective signs. It's something that courts do "all the time."...
In this case, he ACLU sued because requires them to view religious symbols in taxpayer institutions., I presume.

Who has sued Trump, based upon some implied restriction on religion.  There is no action taken by the federal government that restricts practice of religion in Hawaii. Here is the claim:
Hawaii's lawsuit says the order will harm Hawaii's Muslim population, tourism and foreign students.
If Muslims from these countries are harmed, it is not because they are Muslim, it is because they come from these countries.

The Hawaii AG needs to explain to us what a religiously neutral travel ban on these countries looks like.  The claim, and the claim of the ignorant judge in the case is simple, they have assumed the right to decide federal law, as they see fit.

OK, I present you with a hypothetical. The Fed refuses to swap currency with the vatican bank because the vatican engages in embezzlement. California sues,can't do that, it would embarrass the Catholics in California.

No comments: