... too much in favor of Freedom of Expression for those with religious convictions ... or so a NYT piece entitled "Alito Often Ruled for Religious Expression" subtly implies.
The writers seem to presuppose the existence of a "the separation of church and state" clause in the Constitution (it doesn't exist); they then go on to hint that Alito's support of religious expression is somehow not consistent with real constitutional law.
On the whole I must admit the NYT piece was fairly balanced and not overly hostile to Alito's record which reveals a good grasp of the "free exercise clause" as it relates to people of faith.
During his 15 years sitting in Newark as a member of a federal appeals court, Judge Alito has sided almost uniformly with those who have complained vigorously in recent years that zealousness in enforcing the Constitution's separation of church and state has unfairly inhibited religious practices.
The writers seem to presuppose the existence of a "the separation of church and state" clause in the Constitution (it doesn't exist); they then go on to hint that Alito's support of religious expression is somehow not consistent with real constitutional law.
On the whole I must admit the NYT piece was fairly balanced and not overly hostile to Alito's record which reveals a good grasp of the "free exercise clause" as it relates to people of faith.
Church state; Courts; Establishment clause; First amendment; Freedom of Expression; Religion; SCOTUS
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment