- Stifling the Great Conversation
- Threatening a “Right to Exist”?
- Quarreling querulously
- Bad Religion
- Net neutrality
- Does anyone have what it takes?
It took barely any time at all for thoughtful reactions to hit the net about SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch.
Applicable law regarding sincerely held religious belief protects considerably more than the right to hold religious belief in private. Rather, the law protects religious exercise. Even if others of the same faith may consider the exercise at issue unnecessary or less valuable than the claimant, even if some may find it illogical, that doesn’t take it outside the law’s protection. Instead, RLUIPA protects any exercise of a sincerely held religious belief. When a sincere religious claimant draws a line ruling in or out a particular religious exercise, it is not for us to say that the line he drew was an unreasonable one.
(Andrew Walker who was paraphrasing SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch; I modified Walker to bury the lede.)
Also supportive of Gorsuch, and in many cases shocked that Trump nominated anyone that good, are Sasha Volokh (Neil Gorsuch, Fortunately), Eugene Volokh (Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch on religious freedom), and Jonathan Adler (A supreme nomination to the Supreme Court).
It remains pathetic that we vote an idiot into the putatively highest office in the land because he might do a better job than his opponent in nominating our real rulers. But: Oops, there goes another rubber tree plant.
* * * * *
“The truth is that the thing most present to the mind of man is not the economic machinery necessary to his existence; but rather that existence itself; the world which he sees when he wakes every morning and the nature of his general position in it. There is something that is nearer to him than livelihood, and that is life.” (G.K. Chesterton)