Philadelphia city leadership had previously changed policies forbidding foster-care referrals to faith-based worship groups. The far-left Philadelphia government officials had expressed their ‘woke’ advocacy by blocking Catholic Social Services (CSS), an organization associated with the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and foster parents from providing services due to their outlook on traditional marriage.
Two foster parents and CSS sued the city for discrimination alleging the policy violated their first amendment right to their religious belief. Two lower courts ruled against Catholic Social Services, reflecting just how politicized the local and state judiciary has become. However, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with CSS and the parents in a 9-0 ruling [full pdf here], affirming that Philadelphia was factually discriminating against the group based on their religious beliefs.
However, as noted by SCOTUS Blog – […] “the decision fell short of the broad endorsement of religious freedom that the challengers had sought. While the justices unanimously agreed with CSS and the foster parents that the city’s action was unconstitutional, a six-justice majority left intact the Supreme Court’s 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which held that government actions do not violate the Constitution’s free exercise clause as long as they are neutral and apply to everyone.”
Even 9 blind squirrels….
NOT REGARD OBAMACARE..
Should never had to go that far to the Supreme Court!
What did the Leftist and moderate leftist judges require in return for their 9-0 support for this?
This is a win, but at what cost?
Tragic, that I even have this thought. Even the Supreme Court deserves this ridicule and distrust. They earned that privilege.
So, SCOTUS throws the peasants stale loaf of bread….Wow…But, when it comes to the ‘Illegally’ forced Obamacare it’s “No Standing”…..See how that works??….SCOTUS are complete Cowards and Frauds too….
I wonder if Amy Barretts entitled racist white children are being forced to listen to critical race theory in their schools too after she allowed election fraud to create that current environment or is that reserved just for us domestic terrorist people.
Sick comment!
No it’s not … it’s the evil reality that all American children may be forced to endure because of cowards and traitors like Amy Barrett !!!
Spot on MGBSE! As someone else has said “there are only two parties now – the traitors and the Patriots.”
Excellent Post!!! She is one of the worst Traitors. ZERO compassion for that one.
She is the typical Soccer Mom Libtard lacking; Rationale, Judgment and Common sense. Smartest gal at Notre Dame and that is where it ends.
We should have known … Catholic girl from crazy insanely liberal and corrupt New Orleans … who graduated from crazy insanely liberal Notra Dame.
Where they put a tarp on a statue of Jesus, so it wouldn’t be seen in the background during an Obama speech.
Amy only missed being a fine Supreme Court Justice by a
foot mileparsec.Private school!
I’m so sick of these pathetic frauds
And traitors to our Constitution.
In this day the Supreme Court rarely gets anything right especially if it’s clearly outlined in the constitution. These judicial scholars are an embarrassment to the founding fathers intentions and like our need for term limits on Congress, the lifetime appointments for SCJ need to be limited. These are nothing but ideological appointees.
Curiouser and curiouser, the number of 9-0 rulings coming out. The court seems to be responding to the winds of change … but, which winds are they feeling? I suspect we’ll know soon enough.
They are preparing the left for Mike Lindell’s 9-0 case.
No they aren’t. They are waving an illusion of legitimacy in our faces. 9 – 0 on a couple of cases in their foil for screwing all of us.
Exactly. Cases with minimal impact nationwide so that the leftist justices appear to be fair and balanced…but when the important cases come up the so called conservatives will side with the leftists and they will feel fair and balanced…the so-called conservative justices are weak GOP appointments…no balls, no values, fearful of reprisals from the left whom they respect more than themselves.
And traitors to our Constitution.
Exactly! Throwing the Deplorables a bone to keep us happy!
This is an attack on WHITE CHRISTIANS and this should never have even gone to the SC, but our local and state courts have gone to the Communist side.
No. This was an attack by the City of Philly on foster children who need homes.
A doubleheader!
Thomas should be the CJ. He is the most honorable justice serving.
Thank a Bush again for that one.
Alito is a fairly consistent conservative, too. Some of his opinions are as sharp and snarky as Scalia’s were. And remember Alito was the one who mouthed “not true” at Obama during the SOTU when Obama made a false claim about Citizens United.
Alito was a Bush43 appointee, but then so was Roberts…
And don’t forget…his first choice to replace O’Connor
was not Alito, but Harriet Miers!
So…if left unchallenged, W would have been 0 for 2 in my book. 🙁
43 is a total zero in my book.
voted for 41 twice, 43 twice and would have voted Jeb if he had been the nominee … now we know the entire bush family has betrayed WeThePeople and America for 40+ years !!!
People seem to forget that George W Bush never wanted Samuel Alito at all.
He was forced to settle for Samuel Alito after his dream nomination, Harriet Miers, was dead in the Senate!
George W Bush wanted his White House Counsel, Harriet Miers, to be the next Supreme Court Justice and not Samuel Alito.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers
Good reminder. Harriet Miers was probably the most pathetic SC nomination ever. George W was in the middle of his Iraq fiasco and he thought he could take some heat off with a woman nominee.
He and Alito have been stalwart.
They will be the two exceptions when the mass electoral fraud, (that they didnt want to hear because fraud renders the injured without standing according to 7 of these geniuses) is established with no doubt.
Yeah, there obviously was no injury to 100 million voters.
Standing is Constitutional obfuscation for, “we are pusilanimous and corrupt, but have a nebulous word for hiding our naked psuedo intellectualism.”
Just another corrupt branch of the Federal Gubmint.
Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court rejected the concept of taxpayer standing.The case was consolidated with Frothingham v. Mellon. The plaintiffs in the cases, Frothingham and Massachusetts, sought to prevent certain federal government expenditures which they considered to violate the Tenth Amendment. The court rejected the suits on the basis that neither plaintiff suffered particularized harm, writing:
We have no power per se to review and annul acts of Congress on the ground that they are unconstitutional. The question may be considered only when the justification for some direct injury suffered or threatened, presenting a justiciable issue, is made to rest upon such an act. … The party who invokes the power must be able to show not only that the statute is invalid but that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally.
This case is considered the beginning of the doctrine of standing. Prior to it the doctrine was that all persons had a right to pursue a private prosecution of a public right.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._Mellon
The concept of judicial standing was invented by the Supreme Court in 1923 under Chief Justice William H. Taft and not by the Founding Fathers.
Like always, the Supreme Court continues to issue rulings that give themselves, more and more new powers, that arguably violate the constitutional separation of powers and make judges look more and more like tyrants.
Why 9-0 and why support faith based adoption only, some are asking.
The answer is quite simple and worth allot of FEDERAL and CHURCH Based Dollars.
The vast majority of the 1,000’s of kids being trafficked across the border, at this time, into the US ARE CATHOLIC or a closely associated Christian Faith. In fact this sets the precedent for ALL “RELIGIONS” handling foster care of illegals and legal immigrants, i.e. Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Animists, etc.
Then there are the elite leftist virtue signalers who adopt kids overseas instead of helping poor kids here in the states, who use the “services” of some church to execute the adoption.
That is allot of money folks, as in the $Billions denomination.
Well Maybe it also has to do with how “Woke” ALL the Christian
businesseschurches have become. The lefties now view churches as Sympatico.The simpatico part somewhat goes with the ruling for adoption purposes although it is not even close to being motive enough as there is NO money or political advantage in such a ruling. Christian Churches have become rather factitious these day and are no longer major homogeneous power blocks they once were.
Correct … most main church “charities” are receiving BILLION$$$ of our tax dollars … to hold the illegal children in their HUGE facilities in Houston and Southern California.
It is a vile, evil racket paying a lot of money in kickbacks to the church “handlers”.
It was a disappointment that the Court did not directly address Smith, but a win is a win, and it is likely that this was written as a narrow opinion to get the lefty votes. Unanimous, even with a bunch of concurrences and concurrences in part, is still better than a split opinion.
The Court treated this more as a contract action rather than a First Amendment case. The contract with CSS included a provision that the Commissioner of Human Services could waive the no-discrimination clause if he chose to, but he refused to give one to CSS because of its centuries-old doctrine.
This limited win is good, but limited, and the ever-sharp Alito spotted the problem lurking for believers in the opinion. If Philadelphia removed the Commissioner’s authority to grant exemptions, then the contract would be a general, take-it-or-leave it proposition. And that would lead to a Smith analysis.
(Smith involved the use of peyote by Native Americans who said it was part of their religious practice, but since the law banning the use of peyote applied to all persons regardless of beliefs, the Native Americans were not being singled out because of their religion.)
Whether Smith should apply in cases in which religious liberty conflicts with LGBTQ anti-discrimination laws is the ultimate issue. In this, the Court might be hesitant to say religious liberty gives way, because they are probably concerned with the application of other such laws to other religious groups if secular law prevails over religious exercise. One of the amici in support of the Catholics this case was the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty
Small victory. Sad it wasn’t the same for obamacare. Which govt entities are not compromised? Sadly I think none.
Interestingly, the ruling in the Obamacare case has its roots in prolonging a US Government Policy worth Billions to the Puppet Masters controlling the US Government. In this case leaves in place potential to control Health Care.
In the case of adoption, this ruling aligns with the open borders policy and trafficking of humans via the Churches started under Bush II.
Look at lines of control over a major US Policy as well as how it impacts financially and politically the demo-commies or their masters.
I lived in the Philadelphia area for over 40 years, and the city has always been in desperate need of foster parents. There are so many kids needing foster care and not enough parents. Every few years a child would be killed by a mother’s latest boyfriend, irresponsible babysitter or a crackhead mother herself.
CSS and Lutheran Social Services have, indeed, made millions off refugee resettlement and other social services, but the need for foster parents pre-dates the open borders policies of the last few decades.
What was particularly repulsive about the city’s not caring about kids was that allegedly Catholic mayor Jim Kenney was in favor of denying safe, clean, supportive homes for at-risk children because he wanted to protect his PC street cred.
Yes, the adoption issue predates the border issues as well as current human trafficking on the border.
Yet, just like Obamacare ruling, the adoption case ruling was delayed long enough to align with a need by the State and Financial Masters directing the State. That is why I have deep suspicions and skepticism over these rulings. The courts could have acted allot faster but did not..why?? The reasons oddly smell like the all the Republicans suddenly becoming MAGA happy opponents of the demo-commies when no harm can come of their opposition and President Trump is not there to call them to put action behind their support (as he did his first 100 days in office and the Republicans failed him miserably).
I agree…
This ruling was about temporary foster care, not adoption. Some children are reunited with parents if the parents deal with whatever issues led to the children being removed. Some children can’t be reunited, and parental rights may be severed so the child is available for adoption.
If you want to read about the length between oral argument and decision, Amy Howe at Scotusblog (not associated with SCOTUS), has written on it. On Fridays the Court has a conference and votes on the cases it heard that week. The majority opinion is assigned by the senior justice in the majority (or the CJ, who is automatically senior). Each justice is usually assigned an opinion from each month’s oral arguments. Some opinions this term have been quickly issued because they were unanimous. Others have had dissents or concurrences.
Draft majority and dissent opinions are circulated, and other justices make comments or suggest revisions. Sometimes the revisions may be enough to get an opposing judge on board. Opinions are not publicized until all the justices have agreed to the majority or dissent or have finished their separate concurrence or separate dissent. That’s why the more complicated cases come late in the term.
Another item to add to the inevitable constitutional convention when things crash and we have to re-instantiate a republic that will be harder to corrupt in the next great American experiment?
…..
Lower court judges who are constantly overruled, especially by this large of a margin, should be removed from the bench.
It seems that on occasion, not often, they get something right.
KYW News:
“Deputy Mayor Cynthia Figueroa called it a setback for the city’s effort to guarantee non-discrimination ‘in clearly stating that in this particular instance, Catholic Social Services needs to be allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples based on their religious freedom.’
She said the city is still studying the opinion to decide next steps, but she wanted to reassure the LGBTQ community.
‘This doesn’t dissuade us from wanting and embracing and supporting and valuing the LGBTQ foster parents in our network, as well as those who would be interested in becoming foster parents.’
Figueroa said there are a disproportionately high number of LGBTQ youth in foster care, and she thinks the ruling sends them a confusing message.”
NOTE: If a gay person or couple applied to CSS to be foster parents, CSS would not accept them, but would refer the people to other contracted agencies that did accept gays as foster parents.
Figueroa also didn’t seem to care about the straight children (who probably outnumber the gays), who were sent the message “You can’t have a safe home because we don’t have enough foster parents, and likely won’t until CSS accepts gays. “
Let me guess which six?
It was none other than, Stacey Abrams, the epitome of righteousness and honesty, who said, there was no voter fraud, take that to the bank.
I wonder if the organization and I foster parents were “evangelicals” would all the justices have given a similar 9-0 ruling?
At the end of the day the local residents who know an organization and those serving it in their community should serve as the watchdog and not give this power to government officials – no matter at what level. They should also demand of their churches that they be faithful to the teachings of Jesus Christ.
I am not a Catholic but was happy to go with a group of Catholic lay people from door to door to speak to locals about the need to protect the life of the helpless unborn infants in the womb – at a time when surprisingly few Catholic clergy were willing to stick out their necks. Perhaps citizens should praise the Supreme Court for a just decision but reprimand and shame them when they allow politics to intrude into justice.
Subsidiarity – a core concept in true Catholic social teaching, not the commie version of Catholic social teaching
SCOTUS is 100% COMPROMISED!!!
Yet they’ll let the Democrats close the churches.
Would the “broad endorsement of religious freedom that the challengers had sought” have opened the door for fringe-y churches to allow things that generally aren’t too legal?
Things like ‘sacramental’ drug use, arranged marriages involving 13 year old kids, or activities with dangerous reptiles?
It probably makes sense to decide these cases on a case-by-case basis.
If it’s a law of general, nation wide application, and with no apparent motive to single out a religious practice, then the law may stand because it applies to everyone, religious believer or not. However, this was part of the rationale in Smith – no one could smoke peyote, including atheist hippies.
In the case of Hialeah v. Church of Lukumi, the city banned killing animals for religious purposes because the city council thought Santaria’s sacrifice of chickens in its services was disgusting. However, killing chickens just to eat, even at a kosher butcher, was not illegal. The Court ruled 9-0 that the law was discriminatory.
SCOTUS is playing politics…
Looking for a vacation condo? Wanting somewhere to get away from it all? Maybe a place to move to and raise your kids the right way? If so, then do we have the place for you; with locations in 5 states to choose from. The TRUMP RIO GRANDE is a 2,000 mile wide hotel-condominium-shopping complex to be built along the southern US border.
(Photo courtesy of The Babylon Bee)
Will there be any religious freedom in the US Military ever again? Or will the Church of CRT and Holy Moly Wokeism be the only religions allowed?
Sundance’s “Ballot Problems in Georgia” article and this article about the Supreme Court’s decision reminded me of Mark Steyn’s forceful comments on both subjects today. Mark like many of us are infuriated at what is happening and in this audio clip he unloads his anger about the Stolen election.
The facts support his reasons for believing that the election was definitely stolen but his forecast about how the courts will address the evidence of election fraud in the future has not yet been proven. But I suspect he will be proven right about the Supreme Court although I wish he was wrong.
Cursor to 55:45
I guarantee it is worth listening to if you like Mark’s commentaries
https://www.steynonline.com/11384/samoa-the-same-old-same-old
I love Mark Steyn. I wish he would have taken over the Rush program. Only thing I disagreed with him on in this clip is that Trump won by a slight majority. I don’t think so…it was a landslide.
I agree. It probably would have been a big win according to the Electoral College but perhaps not by the overall vote given the large majority in Dem cities etc.
3 appx. radio stations complained to Rush’s successors about something Mark said about gays on one of his last substitute host invites during Rush’s final days so Mark hasn’t been called back since. But he might be later.
A mere morsel….served cold….while sanctifying the radical’s healthcare edict due to the current and oft used excuse; “NO STANDING”.
Ah yes….the ol’ “you (name of any state) don’t get a say in our federal decries”. What BS.
And the cowardly stand ins nominated by President Trump enjoin the righteous cabal along with the traitor Roberts.
Disgusts me that the City of Philly would deny a foster child a home/family to live with >>>> just so they can Virtue Signal about how great they are on the rights of a bunch of *adults*.
Tells you all you need to know about “Virtue” Signalling.
The kids need homes. THAT is priority # one.- and, in fact, the ONLY thing that should enter the equation.
I am not comfortable with this decision at all, and I do not think that it is about “religious freedom”.
This is about a government function that the government officials have chosen to contract out to private agencies. Why is the government contracting these functions out in the first place.
Catholic Social Services also has a division for “refugee resettlement” — like a number of NGOs who are making money off of the abomination going on at out border (as well as in other countries.)
What is really behind this?
Since when can the government contract out a function it wants to carry out and then discriminate (rightly or wrongly whatever your view) contrary to the law.
Why is this even necessary, desirable or proper?
What else can the government just contract out to private agencies who wish to deliberately discriminate? Religious freedom is one part of the First Amendment; what about an organization’s political beliefs? Or, e.g. a foundational purpose such as, say, promoting LGBTQetc. rights, or critical race theory and reparations?
Would it also be “religious freedom” if the private religious agency refused to certify people of a different religion, or no religion? Or if the private religious agency refused to certify mixed race couples (if that were its religious belief?)
I am very, very uncomfortable with this decision and concerned that there is some other unstated something going on.
Governments now contract out social services because it’s cheaper, for one reason. The contractor pays the Social Security, unemployment, etc. for its employees. Governments also do not have the personnel to take on the social services that they provide.
As far as the contractor’s beliefs, there appears to be nothing in CSS requirements as to the foster parents’ religious beliefs, although there probably are considerations of the child’s beliefs and traditions in placing the child, and rules on not trying to convert the child.
As far as other possible requirements, if the agency refused to certify foster parents because of an “only our religious believers allowed” or “no interracial couples,” it is likely that Philly would not contract to them in the first place.
I think one issue not discussed here was that CSS had been contracting with Philly for years, and done a satisfactory job. Then when Philly passed a human rights act, the City, or at least the recent mayors, changed its mind and decided CSS was no longer good enough. It wasn’t a new group initially offering to be a foster referral agency, but with the odd beliefs that you enumerate.
.
Regarding your last point, being the church’s long-standing “mission” also mentioned in the decision, it is not the government’s (the people’s) obligation to continue to facilitate the private organization’s mission, no matter how long it has been going on.
I happen to personally share opinion with the plaintiff church as to appropriate family placement. But given the craziness going on in this country right now (including, inter alia, the targeting of the boogeyman of “white extremism” and the identity politics), the decision makes me nervous. A bone thrown? A squirrel? And/or precedent to justify other kinds of indirect discrimination? The libs were on board, and the opinion disclaimed that it was furthering religious freedom in connection with mentioning Employment Division v. Smith.
SCOTUS is compromised.
Just like SSCI
And FBi
And DOJ
Let’s stop being pissed about it, and start doing something about it.
Fed controlled!!!
This vote aside . . . The United States Supreme Court is a Supreme JOKE!!!!