Off Topic · OT - Roe V Wade overturned (page 9)

CashMoney wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

CashMoney wrote:
That's exactly my point. IMO regardless of when the abortion takes place, the end result is the killing of human life.

No, just because there is no objective measurable definition of when human life begins, it does not mean that terminating the reproductive process at any given point is tantamount to a killing of human life.

Life begins at the fertilization of an embryo. It's not an opinion it's scientific fact. It's a reproductive process as you wrote. Depending on the source pregnancies whether intended or not are successful between 85 to 90% of the time.

How is purposely interfering in the process not tantamount to killing life when a life is being killed?

That narrow interpretation leads to a more dangerous line of thinking. If life begins when an egg is fertilized, then aren't I committing murder I when knowingly prevent fertilization by wearing a condom? Is my attempt at stopping life akin to me knowingly preventing someone from breathing? Is procreation only for the purpose of breeding? We should make laws that state that only married couple can procreate. Are fertilized eggs covered by Good Samaritan laws?

Taking preventative measures to ensure pregnancy doesn't occur isn't murder bro.

It could be viewed that way if every time a male ejaculated into a female the event resulted in a pregnancy 100% of the time and we both know that isn't the case. Of course, this is from a legal perspective and based on reality.

Your questions are separate and apart topics but I'll admit I find your questions amusing especially "Is procreation only for the purpose of breeding?"

Religion aside, men and women have reproductive organs for a reason and I can never know for sure but with logical reasoning, I believe it's for the purpose of procreation.

You're a funny dude.

We've been able to determine that animals suchs as dolphins and primates do not engage in sexual activity purely for procreation. You open a door, it's hard to crack it or close after you've let a couple undesirable individuals rushed. You gave you're reasoning and you should be prepared for the philosophical and ethical questions that follow. If you can't, maybe you should admit that you're stance might be flawed? Did you know, pre Roe v Wade, there was a time not so long ago when women, married or not, didn't have the right to obtain birth control. Heck, it's going to becomes reality in some states today. There are people out there who do think contraception is akin to murder.

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

CashMoney wrote:
That's exactly my point. IMO regardless of when the abortion takes place, the end result is the killing of human life.

No, just because there is no objective measurable definition of when human life begins, it does not mean that terminating the reproductive process at any given point is tantamount to a killing of human life.

Life begins at the fertilization of an embryo. It's not an opinion it's scientific fact. It's a reproductive process as you wrote. Depending on the source pregnancies whether intended or not are successful between 85 to 90% of the time.

How is purposely interfering in the process not tantamount to killing life when a life is being killed?

This is what burns me up, when people conflate two different items to sell their agenda. Nobody argues when life begins. Everything begins somewhere. The issue is when does a collection of cells develop to the point of it being a human being? Terminating the development of a fertilized egg to prevent it from becoming a human is NOT the same as killing a human.

Attaching the first bolt in an assembly line and then throwing the part away doesn't mean I destroyed a car.

If nobody argued about when life begins I could have saved myself a lot of time by not discussing the subject.

Bro, please take a step back, and before responding to my post think about how you will reply before replying.

The collection of cells is the beginning of life. The collection of cells is what allows organic matter to develop into a human being. Is a life that is months old in the womb compared to a life that is 90+ years make or the other less human? What is your definition of human?

This topic could easily be done and over with with a few pictures but I won't go there since I came back here for a reason and don't want to get banned. Anyone who could see those pictures and still hold onto their stance would make me lose faith in humanity.

Peace, love, and go Knicks!!!

djsunyc wrote:

Philc1 wrote:This is officially govt by religion. Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers were specifically against that

i think the most important thing the gop did was weaponizing jesus christ.

Yep when you push back they get their holy war.

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

CashMoney wrote:
That's exactly my point. IMO regardless of when the abortion takes place, the end result is the killing of human life.

No, just because there is no objective measurable definition of when human life begins, it does not mean that terminating the reproductive process at any given point is tantamount to a killing of human life.

Life begins at the fertilization of an embryo. It's not an opinion it's scientific fact. It's a reproductive process as you wrote. Depending on the source pregnancies whether intended or not are successful between 85 to 90% of the time.

How is purposely interfering in the process not tantamount to killing life when a life is being killed?

This is what burns me up, when people conflate two different items to sell their agenda. Nobody argues when life begins. Everything begins somewhere. The issue is when does a collection of cells develop to the point of it being a human being? Terminating the development of a fertilized egg to prevent it from becoming a human is NOT the same as killing a human.

Attaching the first bolt in an assembly line and then throwing the part away doesn't mean I destroyed a car.

If nobody argued about when life begins I could have saved myself a lot of time by not discussing the subject.

Bro, please take a step back, and before responding to my post think about how you will reply before replying.

The collection of cells is the beginning of life. The collection of cells is what allows organic matter to develop into a human being. Is a life that is months old in the womb compared to a life that is 90+ years make or the other less human? What is your definition of human?

This topic could easily be done and over with with a few pictures but I won't go there since I came back here for a reason and don't want to get banned. Anyone who could see those pictures and still hold onto their stance would make me lose faith in humanity.

Peace, love, and go Knicks!!!

Those pictures are not even from abortions from the United States. They are paid for by documenting abortions in other countries to be used as propaganda here. Those types of abortions only take place in the United States due to unfortunately significant child deformities or risk to the mothers life.

Why do abortion campaigns not centralize the image of the fetus at eight weeks of gestation, when two thirds of abortions in the United States take place? The answer is at that stage of development, the fetus – bean-like, measuring under an inch and weighing less than an ounce.

CashMoney wrote:The collection of cells is the beginning of life. The collection of cells is what allows organic matter to develop into a human being. Is a life that is months old in the womb compared to a life that is 90+ years make or the other less human? What is your definition of human?

So yes, the length of time the cells have developed does matter in my opinion.

CashMoney wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

CashMoney wrote:
That's exactly my point. IMO regardless of when the abortion takes place, the end result is the killing of human life.

No, just because there is no objective measurable definition of when human life begins, it does not mean that terminating the reproductive process at any given point is tantamount to a killing of human life.

Life begins at the fertilization of an embryo. It's not an opinion it's scientific fact. It's a reproductive process as you wrote. Depending on the source pregnancies whether intended or not are successful between 85 to 90% of the time.

How is purposely interfering in the process not tantamount to killing life when a life is being killed?

Could you then give me the scientific definition of life? And cite the source of such definition, please?

And if you believe in this, then in my "fire at a maternity clinic" example you would be equally likely to run to save newborns, toddlers and fertilized eggs in test tubes? In other words, you will have no qualms about running to a lab to save test tubes, instead of the ward with actual babies, because you believe a fetus in a test tube is equally worth saving?

Interfering in a process towards human life, and killing a human when it has already formed are different things. When a referee makes a bad call in the last seconds of a close Finals Game 7, we say "he robbed us of a championship". When a referee blows a similar call in an early season game, or even in a first-round playoff game, we do not say that.

Welpee wrote:Yeah, the points you raised I struggle with too. However, I have to admit that I don't see the wisdom regarding exceptions. If somehow it's determined that we consider a fertilized egg to be a human upon conception, how do you justify abortion based on how it was conceived? This is a very complicated issue.

Because no woman should be obligated to carry a child she does not want to carry. It is her body after all. And it is one thing if she gets knocked up while being irresponsible, and quite another if a fetus is forced on her against her will, which, sadly, makes it a parasite in a woman's body.
I mean, in our society, we do not force someone to give up a kidney if someone else is in a dire need of a transplant and would die if he does not get one in time. At least, we are not there yet.

ESOMKnicks wrote:

Welpee wrote:Yeah, the points you raised I struggle with too. However, I have to admit that I don't see the wisdom regarding exceptions. If somehow it's determined that we consider a fertilized egg to be a human upon conception, how do you justify abortion based on how it was conceived? This is a very complicated issue.

Because no woman should be obligated to carry a child she does not want to carry. It is her body after all. And it is one thing if she gets knocked up while being irresponsible, and quite another if a fetus is forced on her against her will, which, sadly, makes it a parasite in a woman's body.
I mean, in our society, we do not force someone to give up a kidney if someone else is in a dire need of a transplant and would die if he does not get one in time. At least, we are not there yet.

Thats proabbly the 2030 agenda. Thats after they kill medicare and Social Security. You better fucking believe they will kill the filibuster and ban abortion throughout the country the first chance they get. Gas is 1.50 more a gallon so its worth it to have Republicans have control over womans bodies.

Jmpasq wrote:I had a republican voting woman once tell me that Men should be in charge of all finances in the home because Eve was created from Adams rib. She was our accountant.

Also, women are duplicitous by nature because of Eve's deception and we should all be wary of talking snakes, especially the ones who are fixated on apples. And sandworms... We should all avoid giant sandworms and avoid the temptation of the dark side of the force.

ESOMKnicks wrote:

Welpee wrote:Yeah, the points you raised I struggle with too. However, I have to admit that I don't see the wisdom regarding exceptions. If somehow it's determined that we consider a fertilized egg to be a human upon conception, how do you justify abortion based on how it was conceived? This is a very complicated issue.

Because no woman should be obligated to carry a child she does not want to carry. It is her body after all. And it is one thing if she gets knocked up while being irresponsible, and quite another if a fetus is forced on her against her will, which, sadly, makes it a parasite in a woman's body.
I mean, in our society, we do not force someone to give up a kidney if someone else is in a dire need of a transplant and would die if he does not get one in time. At least, we are not there yet.

What I am asking is when law makers say they want to outlaw abortion because they believe a fertilized egg should be considered a human from day one, I don't understand how you then say but we'll allow exceptions based on how it was conceived. Based on their thought process (not mine, their thought process) essentially they're saying "we won't allow you to kill a child at any point of the pregnancy, but we'll let you to kill the child based on the circumstance the child was conceived?" That doesn't make sense to me.

A baby in the womb isn't a baby until... it can think that killing itself out of convenience and not being a tax burden on society is the only morally right thing to do.
And that jerking off is the same as fucking. And that actually having children is a boon to stupid old white men who want all the jobs and all the money. Because that's what old white men do. Hey, none of this sounds slightly racist, or sexist, does it? No, of course not. Racism and sexism are only for white men, silly rabbit!

Republicans are all theocratic azzholes who base their morals on millenial-old books and old parchment documents written centuries ago by white men.

Democrats are all forward thinking progressives who base their morals on... our fabulously brilliant current society! And recent polls! And Slant! And the Huffington Post!

Oh look, a woman's right to kill her baby via dilation and evacuation is right there in the privacy clause in that stupid old parchment document that nobody should pay attention to anymore. Not that dissecting a bean with eyes should bother anyone who's sufficiently intelligent enough to decide who should live and who should die. Based on... something. Yeah, I think it's Aristotle. Oh wait, he was an old white man, wasn't he?

jrodmc wrote:It's all okay, I just saw a sign that says "Abortion is Healthcare!" Hopefully the stupid rightwing shitwits on the SC will create some rights (oh wait, are they supposed to create rights?) that will make the states provide tax money to cover all the abortions they deem legal.

A baby in the womb isn't a baby until... it can think that killing itself out of convenience and not being a tax burden on society is the only morally right thing to do.
And that jerking off is the same as fucking. And that actually having children is a boon to stupid old white men who want all the jobs and all the money. Because that's what old white men do. Hey, none of this sounds slightly racist, or sexist, does it? No, of course not. Racism and sexism are only for white men, silly rabbit!

Republicans are all theocratic azzholes who base their morals on millenial-old books and old parchment documents written centuries ago by white men.

Democrats are all forward thinking progressives who base their morals on... our fabulously brilliant current society! And recent polls! And Slant! And the Huffington Post!

Oh look, a woman's right to kill her baby via dilation and evacuation is right there in the privacy clause in that stupid old parchment document that nobody should pay attention to anymore. Not that dissecting a bean with eyes should bother anyone who's sufficiently intelligent enough to decide who should live and who should die. Based on... something. Yeah, I think it's Aristotle. Oh wait, he was an old white man, wasn't he?

BigDaddyG wrote:

jrodmc wrote:It's all okay, I just saw a sign that says "Abortion is Healthcare!" Hopefully the stupid rightwing shitwits on the SC will create some rights (oh wait, are they supposed to create rights?) that will make the states provide tax money to cover all the abortions they deem legal.

A baby in the womb isn't a baby until... it can think that killing itself out of convenience and not being a tax burden on society is the only morally right thing to do.
And that jerking off is the same as fucking. And that actually having children is a boon to stupid old white men who want all the jobs and all the money. Because that's what old white men do. Hey, none of this sounds slightly racist, or sexist, does it? No, of course not. Racism and sexism are only for white men, silly rabbit!

Republicans are all theocratic azzholes who base their morals on millenial-old books and old parchment documents written centuries ago by white men.

Democrats are all forward thinking progressives who base their morals on... our fabulously brilliant current society! And recent polls! And Slant! And the Huffington Post!

Oh look, a woman's right to kill her baby via dilation and evacuation is right there in the privacy clause in that stupid old parchment document that nobody should pay attention to anymore. Not that dissecting a bean with eyes should bother anyone who's sufficiently intelligent enough to decide who should live and who should die. Based on... something. Yeah, I think it's Aristotle. Oh wait, he was an old white man, wasn't he?

People still read HuffPo?

I think he was trying to make a parody but he came off as deranged and angry, but I prefer that. Keep it 100% and admit that your feelings is the only justification for your stance, not science, not law, and not some interpretation of the constitution. That way we can forego trying to debate you on this and see you as part of the radical conservative problem.

For example the same radical conservative court made some more radical conservative decision along the same radical conservative lines.

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1514973864085839875?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1514973864085839875%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=

Click here to view the Tweet

Keep in mind I played football for a Catholic Highschool and we didn’t do shit like this.

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1541422119963267072?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1541422119963267072%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=

Click here to view the Tweet

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1541421786759413760?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1541421786759413760%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=

Click here to view the Tweet

But aren’t they suppose to uphold the separation of church and state in the constitution?!?! Isn’t that literally one of the basis of our democracy?!?!

No it’s the radical conservative court doing radical conservative shit because they are running unchecked and these things make them feel good instead of all the laws and liberties that make them feel bad.

wargames wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

jrodmc wrote:It's all okay, I just saw a sign that says "Abortion is Healthcare!" Hopefully the stupid rightwing shitwits on the SC will create some rights (oh wait, are they supposed to create rights?) that will make the states provide tax money to cover all the abortions they deem legal.

A baby in the womb isn't a baby until... it can think that killing itself out of convenience and not being a tax burden on society is the only morally right thing to do.
And that jerking off is the same as fucking. And that actually having children is a boon to stupid old white men who want all the jobs and all the money. Because that's what old white men do. Hey, none of this sounds slightly racist, or sexist, does it? No, of course not. Racism and sexism are only for white men, silly rabbit!

Republicans are all theocratic azzholes who base their morals on millenial-old books and old parchment documents written centuries ago by white men.

Democrats are all forward thinking progressives who base their morals on... our fabulously brilliant current society! And recent polls! And Slant! And the Huffington Post!

Oh look, a woman's right to kill her baby via dilation and evacuation is right there in the privacy clause in that stupid old parchment document that nobody should pay attention to anymore. Not that dissecting a bean with eyes should bother anyone who's sufficiently intelligent enough to decide who should live and who should die. Based on... something. Yeah, I think it's Aristotle. Oh wait, he was an old white man, wasn't he?

People still read HuffPo?

I think he was trying to make a parody but he came off as deranged and angry, but I prefer that. Keep it 100% and admit that your feelings is the only justification for your stance, not science, not law, and not some interpretation of the constitution. That way we can forego trying to debate you on this and see you as part of the radical conservative problem.

For example the same radical conservative court made some more radical conservative decision along the same radical conservative lines.

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1514973864085839875?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1514973864085839875%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=

Click here to view the Tweet

Keep in mind I played football for a Catholic Highschool and we didn’t do shit like this.

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1541422119963267072?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1541422119963267072%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=

Click here to view the Tweet

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1541421786759413760?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1541421786759413760%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=

Click here to view the Tweet

But aren’t they suppose to uphold the separation of church and state in the constitution?!?! Isn’t that literally one of the basis of our democracy?!?!

No it’s the radical conservative court doing radical conservative shit because they are running unchecked and these things make them feel good instead of all the laws and liberties that make them feel bad.

Yeah, praying before football games, that's some seriously dangerous shit. Maybe SC should pass some sort of laws or liberties that would get all these bible thumpers moved to camps or something, huh? Can't have junior praying to Jesus before he starts playing football. That could lead to some serious shit.

No sense debating you on anything, sunshine. Not when there's such clear cut radical conservative shit to deal with.

The Establishment Clause, in case you or your hyper-psychotic tweeter Stern want to go actually read it, specifically says that all our federal republic (we don't live in a pure literal democracy btw) does in the case of religion is ensure that the Congress shall pass no law regarding religion. It doesn't say the SC is supposed to uphold the separation of church and state, which is in Jefferson's Notes on Virginia, not the US Constitution. The basis of our "democracy" was actually founded on the Declaration of Independence, which reads like a pretty damned (ha ha ha) religious document to me. People had bled and died for the "basis of our democracy" before the Constitituion even existed.

The 10th Amendment reserves to the States, anything NOT explicitly granted to the Federal government. Which was supposed to protect our "democracy" from an overreaching federal government. Like legislating from the bench on when and where to kill babies or when and where to pray.

jrodmc wrote:Yeah, praying before football games, that's some seriously dangerous shit. Maybe SC should pass some sort of laws or liberties that would get all these bible thumpers moved to camps or something, huh? Can't have junior praying to Jesus before he starts playing football. That could lead to some serious shit.

You have not described the essence of case correctly: The coach in this case was clearly making the prayer session mandatory; it was not opt out and he would just lead whomever wanted to join to join. To me, that is serious shit at a micro level.

At a macro level, this IS some serious shit too cause of the fall out: Lemon v. Kurtzman decision had previously governed cases involving the Constitution's language prohibiting "an establishment of religion," which has obvious implications for future lawsuits: Lower court judges will no longer apply Lemon’s framework to establishment clause cases.

martin wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Yeah, praying before football games, that's some seriously dangerous shit. Maybe SC should pass some sort of laws or liberties that would get all these bible thumpers moved to camps or something, huh? Can't have junior praying to Jesus before he starts playing football. That could lead to some serious shit.

You have not described the essence of case correctly: The coach in this case was clearly making the prayer session mandatory; it was not opt out and he would just lead whomever wanted to join to join. To me, that is serious shit at a micro level.

At a macro level, this IS some serious shit too cause of the fall out: Lemon v. Kurtzman decision had previously governed cases involving the Constitution's language prohibiting "an establishment of religion," which has obvious implications for future lawsuits: Lower court judges will no longer apply Lemon’s framework to establishment clause cases.

The school also gave the coach the freedom to hold prayer meetings in private. I agree with the school districts point in that allowing the coach to show preference to one religion over the other. What if a Jewish or Muslim player also wanted to pray on the field. Will coach allow that? You've created an environment where a public institution is, in essence, showing favor to one religion over the other. Given this country's origins, I'm pretty sure that is not what the founding fathers intended.

Welpee wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

Welpee wrote:Yeah, the points you raised I struggle with too. However, I have to admit that I don't see the wisdom regarding exceptions. If somehow it's determined that we consider a fertilized egg to be a human upon conception, how do you justify abortion based on how it was conceived? This is a very complicated issue.

Because no woman should be obligated to carry a child she does not want to carry. It is her body after all. And it is one thing if she gets knocked up while being irresponsible, and quite another if a fetus is forced on her against her will, which, sadly, makes it a parasite in a woman's body.
I mean, in our society, we do not force someone to give up a kidney if someone else is in a dire need of a transplant and would die if he does not get one in time. At least, we are not there yet.

I don't think you're understanding what I asked. I agree with you, my biggest issue has always been the cut off point. I assume you would agree that a woman shouldn't be allowed to make that decision in the 5th month of pregnancy, correct?

What I am asking is when law makers say they want to outlaw abortion because they believe a fertilized egg should be considered a human from day one, I don't understand how you then say but we'll allow exceptions based on how it was conceived. Based on their thought process (not mine, their thought process) essentially they're saying "we won't allow you to kill a child at any point of the pregnancy, but we'll let you to kill the child based on the circumstance the child was conceived?" That doesn't make sense to me.

No, I got your question the first time. My answer is: the child dies because the mother should not be obligated to carry it to term and give it birth if it happens as a result of rape.

Having said that, a decision to abort a child conceived as a result of rape does not need many months to reach. So, reconciling term limits on abortion and exceptions may also be possible.

I do not have a firm view on where the cut off point should be. It is a complicated and subjective issue.

martin wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Yeah, praying before football games, that's some seriously dangerous shit. Maybe SC should pass some sort of laws or liberties that would get all these bible thumpers moved to camps or something, huh? Can't have junior praying to Jesus before he starts playing football. That could lead to some serious shit.

You have not described the essence of case correctly: The coach in this case was clearly making the prayer session mandatory; it was not opt out and he would just lead whomever wanted to join to join. To me, that is serious shit at a micro level.

At a macro level, this IS some serious shit too cause of the fall out: Lemon v. Kurtzman decision had previously governed cases involving the Constitution's language prohibiting "an establishment of religion," which has obvious implications for future lawsuits: Lower court judges will no longer apply Lemon’s framework to establishment clause cases.

Again, you don't seem to get the essence of the establishment clause. The SC is supposed to step in and make SURE THE US CONGRESS DOES NOT ESTABLISH ANY LAW RELATED TO RELIGION. The aptly named Lemon test has been deemed bad law by most justices and a misadventure at best by liberal justices. Where the hell is the US Congress on a high school football field passing laws about religion? The coach lost his job. No player got cut. No one lost their lives. No one was told to sit in some atheists-only section of the field. If the state government wants to allow this coach to give communion and last rites to every player on his team, WGAF? Why do you GAF? Afraid somehow your precious billions of dollars of tax money might somehow get siphoned away from Planned Parenthood and end up being spent on bibles in high school? Afraid that everyone of this coach's players were going to become seminary students? Or maybe they might not do it on the regular anymore with their girlfriends after the games if they read about the Amorites slitting baby's throats and plastering them into the walls of their homes?

I love you martin as the proprietor of an incredibly great Knicks website, but your reasoning, both at the micro and the macro level here, is patent hypersensitive liberal bullshit.

jrodmc wrote:

martin wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Yeah, praying before football games, that's some seriously dangerous shit. Maybe SC should pass some sort of laws or liberties that would get all these bible thumpers moved to camps or something, huh? Can't have junior praying to Jesus before he starts playing football. That could lead to some serious shit.

You have not described the essence of case correctly: The coach in this case was clearly making the prayer session mandatory; it was not opt out and he would just lead whomever wanted to join to join. To me, that is serious shit at a micro level.

At a macro level, this IS some serious shit too cause of the fall out: Lemon v. Kurtzman decision had previously governed cases involving the Constitution's language prohibiting "an establishment of religion," which has obvious implications for future lawsuits: Lower court judges will no longer apply Lemon’s framework to establishment clause cases.

Again, you don't seem to get the essence of the establishment clause. The SC is supposed to step in and make SURE THE US CONGRESS DOES NOT ESTABLISH ANY LAW RELATED TO RELIGION. The aptly named Lemon test has been deemed bad law by most justices and a misadventure at best by liberal justices. Where the hell is the US Congress on a high school football field passing laws about religion? The coach lost his job. No player got cut. No one lost their lives. No one was told to sit in some atheists-only section of the field. If the state government wants to allow this coach to give communion and last rites to every player on his team, WGAF? Why do you GAF? Afraid somehow your precious billions of dollars of tax money might somehow get siphoned away from Planned Parenthood and end up being spent on bibles in high school? Afraid that everyone of this coach's players were going to become seminary students? Or maybe they might not do it on the regular anymore with their girlfriends after the games if they read about the Amorites slitting baby's throats and plastering them into the walls of their homes?

I love you martin as the proprietor of an incredibly great Knicks website, but your reasoning, both at the micro and the macro level here, is patent hypersensitive liberal bullshit.

No one gives phuck, or at least should, give a phuck who you pray to. The only concern is that this public institution provides the same avenues for every other religion. If one group can do it, everyone else should be able to do it. And individuals should be able to sit out without fear of retribution if they don't want to do it. Where you this worked up when NFL players were getting mocked for wanting to kneel during the anthem? You'd think that no one would give a phuck, but that certainly wasn't the case.
Bottom line is that it's not appropriate for this coach to be coercing students into participating in group prayer sessions on a football field.