Amy Coney Barrett sizes up 30-year-old precedent balancing religious freedom with rule of law
“[Scalia] held that the Constitution does not allow religious adherents to violate a ‘neutral law of general applicability,’ by which he meant a law that applies to everyone and does not favor or disfavor people based on their religion or lack thereof.” - The Conversation
- 1 view
An interesting analysis. Some more…
The Smith ruling has always been controversial, and many conservatives have long wanted the decision overturned.
But the Smith ruling has never been simply a left-versus-right issue. After all, its author was conservative stalwart Scalia, whom Barrett worked for as a law clerk. And even before her appointment, the Supreme Court’s conservative wing had the numbers to overturn Smith – if they so chose.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion