Gay News— The Supreme Court has gone bananas again with Thomas leading the loony bin. The hypocritical people who sit on the highest court ruled, on Monday, that a student in Georgia could pursue a lawsuit challenging speech restrictions at his college, even though he sought only nominal damages.
During a Supreme Court seance, calling on the spirit of someone much wiser, Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg enters the court proceedings to give her opinions.
Ginsburg said, "The ruling should have stated that the constitution protects religion only within its establishment based on the first amendment's constitutional passage referring to religion."
Ginsburg continued, "If this were not the case, then religious maniacs would use freedom of religion to break into people's homes to preach to them whilst they slumbered! Religion has to obey other Constitutional passages."
"We would all live in a chaotic world, if it were up to Thomas," Ginsburg proclaimed.
Based on Gainburg's idea, the English Founding Fathers set the boundary for religion by adding the word "establishment" to prevent religion from invading other forms of the general establishment, like an educational establishment, a business establishment, a homestead establishment, and a government establishment. To comply with the Constitution, religion in an educational college can only be discussed in a classroom curriculum about religion, like History of Religion, Religion in Modern Times, Hindu Religion in Perspective, or Religion During the Renaissance.
"Religion is not protected by freedom of speech outside of its establishment, because the founding fathers separated the concept ''freedom of speech" from "establishment of religion", using the word "or" in the first amendment passage," the spirit of Ginsburg continued. "Thomas has converted himself into a religious cleric or Ayatollah, God help us all!"
Ginsburg said that, based on the constitution, religion has freedom of speech inside a church building or within a private television channel that doesn't have free public access. If not, then other religions could preach their unusual ideology in that college. Examples are Satanic religions, Muslim religions, Hindu religions, pagan religions, or strange religions with unconventional undertones, like the concept that God is a Kumari Puja, or that Greek Hellenic goddesses like Hedone, goddess of pleasure, and Aphrodite, goddess of sex and beauty require lust and sex daily, in the presence of their images, as a form of worship.
The constitution states in its own words: Amendment 1- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority in the 8-to-1 decision, said a request for even a token sum, typically a dollar, satisfied the Constitution’s requirement that federal courts decide only actual cases or controversies in cases. "Well, Thomas? Then decide already on the core of the case! You're inside a federal courthouse! The American people are tired of the legal manipulations and lies,” said Ginsburg.
The fact that the college had withdrawn the speech code challenged in the suit, he wrote, did not make the case moot. "Thomas is trying to ignore the real Constitutional issue to prevent a justifiable precedent against the church he attends. The case is not based on free speech or whether a $1.00 bill keeps a case active, but instead, it's based on the boundaries of the religious establishment," said Ginsburg.
“Despite being small,” Justice Thomas wrote, “nominal damages are certainly concrete.” "Not as concrete as your draconian ideas and your big ears! You're wasting taxpayers' money!" said Gainsburg.
In a spirited dissent, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the majority’s approach would have the effect of “turning judges into advice columnists.”
"Mr. Roberts must be clairvoyant because he knows I give horoscope advice on the Daily News," said Thomas.
The case concerned Chike Uzuegbunam, who in 2016 ran afoul of the authorities at Georgia Gwinnett College, a public institution in Lawrenceville, Ga., that sprawls over 260 acres. The college had designated two small patches of concrete as “free speech expression areas.”
Mr. Uzuegbunam, an evangelical Christian, tried to comply with the rules, reserving a spot in one of the zones to talk about his faith. But, after other students complained, a campus police officer told him that he could only distribute literature and have one-on-one conversations in a religious, privately-funded college. Public speaking in a free speech zone, the officer said, amounted to disorderly conduct, based on the constitutional law of "establishment" of a religion.
"Believe in what I say or you all will burn in hell," said Mr. Uzuegbunam.
Uzuegbunam sued, saying the college’s policies violated his First Amendment rights. The college briefly defended its policy, arguing that the discussion of his faith amounted to “fighting words” that are not protected by the Constitution.
“Plaintiff used contentious religious language that, when directed to a crowd, tends to incite hostility,” the college’s lawyers wrote.
But the college soon abandoned the defense of its speech code. Its revised policy, which allowed students to speak anywhere on campus, made the case moot, its lawyers argued in court.
A trial judge agreed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, affirmed her ruling.
The question for the justices in a broader sense was whether there was anything left to decide when the government changed a policy after being sued and the plaintiff asked for only nominal damages to acknowledge the constitutional violation.
"There is no constitutional violation! The religious speech needs to remain within its establishment, or there won't be any boundaries of respect or peaceful cohabitation," Ginsburg continued. "Give a proper judgment for God's sake! You're not the Taliban," yelled Ginsburg.