The U.S. Supreme Court will hear Christian Legal Society v Martinez, 08-1371, on April 19, 2010. Although this case is not an election law case, it is a freedom of association case, and those cases always impact on the law relating to political parties.
Here is the 81-page brief of the Hastings Law School. It argues that it need not provide the Christian Legal Society with recognition as a student group because the Society is perfectly free to thrive as a voluntary organization without school recognition. Recognition includes some funding for the group.
Hastings won’t recognize the Christian Legal Society because the Society refuses to follow a school rule, that recognized student groups must be open to any student who wishes to become a member.
But will the USSC address the issue of whether corporate “persons” should be able to wear T-shirts with political messages to school?
Please…”dispassionate’ and “reasoned” responses only.
Any obvious church-state connection in the name of the Society ??? Duh.
Count the DEAD / tortured bodies in the last 6,000 years from church-state stuff — in more recent times — Islam v. Christians (aka Crusades), various Catholic Inquisitions (purges) in the Dark/Middle Ages, Catholics v. Protestants (think the horrific Thirty Years War in Europe in early 1600s), Islam v. Hebrews, etc.
King George III was the head of the Anglican [Protestant] church of England in 1776 = fighting the King = fighting the church of England.
Gee — Where did the religion language in the 1st Amdt come from ??? Duh.
NO govt direct/indirect support of ANY religion.
NO govt direct/indirect attack on ANY religion — at least the mental parts of it — Sorry — NO human sacrifices allowed in any physical religion activity.
Direct = Indirect — in constitutional *law*.
Way too difficult for the brain dead party hack Supremes to understand ???