Right to Opine

This story is not getting nearly the airplay it deserves.

In a very rare unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled—against Obama’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—that religious organizations do, in fact, have the authority to determine who they employ and are protected by the First Amendment from government interference in this vital function.

First, the background. A Lutheran church in Michigan which runs a private school employs two types of teachers: called and lay. A called teacher must be a minister of the church, completing a specific course of theological study and being designated as an official church minister. Lay teachers have no such ministerial designation, and do not even have to be members of the Lutheran Church.

A called teacher developed narcolepsy, and was unable to teach for an extended period of time. The church, in the meantime, filled her position with a lay teacher. When she was ready to return to teaching, the church notified her that the position had been filled. Contrary to church rules for Lutheran ministers, which require that a minister with a complaint take such to an internal arbitration board, she threatened to (and eventually did) file suit in court. The church, in accordance with longstanding policy, removed her calling and terminated her employment.

To complicate matters, the teacher in question was originally hired as a lay teacher. She later specifically accepted the designation as a called teacher—a minister of the church. She spent six years of study, lay work, and church examination to attain that designation. She also claimed a special ministerial tax exemption for a housing allowance.

But I digress. The teacher, with the backing and legal representation of the Obama EEOC, claimed her employ was illegally terminated in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The church contended the firing was the result of violation of church policy regarding lawsuits vs. arbitration. The lower court sided with the church, but on appeal the EEOC prevailed with the argument that the ADA trumped the church’s First Amendment protection. The Supreme Court ruled against the appeals court in favor of the church.

The full decision is here. It’s very much worth a read, as the court eviscerates the EEOC case in under 40 pages while still managing to provide important historic context, precedent, and original arguments for the decision. Any time the SC hands out a unanimous decision against the administration, you know the White House has failed to grasp the meaning of the Constitution. This, of course, comes as no surprise to most of us.

If you refuse to read the whole decision, you should at least read Justice Roberts’ majority opinion. Thomas and Alito filed concurring opinions (with Kagan joining Alito—will surprises never cease!), but Roberts writes a masterful piece. Those of you on the Left who like to bash conservatives for their ignorance, lack of education, blah blah blah, should read Roberts’ decision and note that all of the liberals on the court (save Kagan) joined him with nary a comment. His portion goes back to the Magna Carta, and gives a masterful exposition on religious freedom over the ensuing millenium.

For those of you too lazy to read the court’s full decision, let me pull out some juicy snippets. (These are, by very nature, out of context. If you have a beef, read the dang thing!)

• The First Amendment provides, in part, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Familiar with life under the established Church of England, the founding generation sought to foreclose the possibility of a national church. By forbidding the “establishment of religion” and guaranteeing the “free exercise thereof,” the Religion Clauses ensured that the new Federal Government—unlike the English Crown—would have no role in filling ecclesiastical offices.
• […] it is impermissible for the government to contradict a church’s determination of who can act as its ministers.
• Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments. According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.
• The Court cannot accept the remarkable view [of the EEOC] that the Religion Clauses have nothing to say about a religious organization’s freedom to select its own ministers.
• The present case […] concerns government interference with an internal church decision that affects the faith and mission of the church itself.

You must not miss this one:

• Any suggestion that Hosanna-Tabor’s asserted religious reason for firing Perich was pretextual misses the point of the ministerial exception. The purpose of the exception is not to safeguard a church’s decision to fire a minister only when it is made for a religious reason. The exception instead ensures that the authority to select and control who will minister to the faithful is the church’s alone.

Read that again. Its impact is vital to religious freedom in our nation!

• By forbidding the “establishment of religion” and guaranteeing the “free exercise thereof,” the Religion Clauses ensured that the new Federal Government—unlike the English Crown— would have no role in filling ecclesiastical offices. The Establishment Clause prevents the Government from appointing ministers, and the Free Exercise Clause prevents it from interfering with the freedom of religious groups to select their own.
• The “scrupulous policy of the Constitution in guarding against a political interference with religious affairs,” Madison explained, prevented the Government from rendering an opinion on the “selection of ecclesiastical individuals.”
• the First Amendment “permit[s] hierarchical religious organizations to establish their own rules and regulations for internal discipline and government, and to create tribunals for adjudicating disputes over these matters.”

To mollify Leftist readers, from (conservative) Roberts’ opinion:

The case before us is an employment discrimination suit brought on behalf of a minister, challenging her church’s decision to fire her. Today we hold only that the ministe- rial exception bars such a suit. We express no view on whether the exception bars other types of suits, including actions by employees alleging breach of contract or tor- tious conduct by their religious employers. There will be time enough to address the applicability of the exception to other circumstances if and when they arise.

This is not carte blanche for religious organizations to discriminate against anyone for any reason at will.

Continuing:

• Religious groups are the archetype of associations formed for expressive purposes, and their fundamental rights surely include the freedom to choose who is qualified to serve as a voice for their faith.
• When it comes to the expression and inculcation of religious doctrine, there can be no doubt that the messenger matters.
• A religion cannot depend on someone to be an effective advocate for its religious vision if that person’s conduct fails to live up to the religious precepts that he or she espouses. For this reason, a religious body’s right to self-governance must include the ability to select, and to be selective about, those who will serve as the very “embodiment of its message” and “its voice to the faithful.”

Kudos to our Justices for that rare instance in which ALL agree in favor of the religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment.

This story is not getting nearly the airplay it deserves.

In a very rare unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled—against Obama’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—that religious organizations do, in fact, have the authority to determine who they employ and are protected by the First Amendment from government interference in this vital function.

First, the background. A Lutheran church in Michigan which runs a private school employs two types of teachers: called and lay. A called teacher must be a minister of the church, completing a specific course of theological study and being designated as an official church minister. Lay teachers have no such ministerial designation, and do not even have to be members of the Lutheran Church.

A called teacher developed narcolepsy, and was unable to teach for an extended period of time. The church, in the meantime, filled her position with a lay teacher. When she was ready to return to teaching, the church notified her that the position had been filled. Contrary to church rules for Lutheran ministers, which require that a minister with a complaint take such to an internal arbitration board, she threatened to (and eventually did) file suit in court. The church, in accordance with longstanding policy, removed her calling and terminated her employment.

To complicate matters, the teacher in question was originally hired as a lay teacher. She later specifically accepted the designation as a called teacher—a minister of the church. She spent six years of study, lay work, and church examination to attain that designation. She also claimed a special ministerial tax exemption for a housing allowance.

But I digress. The teacher, with the backing and legal representation of the Obama EEOC, claimed her employ was illegally terminated in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The church contended the firing was the result of violation of church policy regarding lawsuits vs. arbitration. The lower court sided with the church, but on appeal the EEOC prevailed with the argument that the ADA trumped the church’s First Amendment protection. The Supreme Court ruled against the appeals court in favor of the church.

The full decision is here. It’s very much worth a read, as the court eviscerates the EEOC case in under 40 pages while still managing to provide important historic context, precedent, and original arguments for the decision. Any time the SC hands out a unanimous decision against the administration, you know the White House has failed to grasp the meaning of the Constitution. This, of course, comes as no surprise to most of us.

If you refuse to read the whole decision, you should at least read Justice Roberts’ majority opinion. Thomas and Alito filed concurring opinions (with Kagan joining Alito—will surprises never cease!), but Roberts writes a masterful piece. Those of you on the Left who like to bash conservatives for their ignorance, lack of education, blah blah blah, should read Roberts’ decision and note that all of the liberals on the court (save Kagan) joined him with nary a comment. His portion goes back to the Magna Carta, and gives a masterful exposition on religious freedom over the ensuing millenium.

For those of you too lazy to read the court’s full decision, let me pull out some juicy snippets. (These are, by very nature, out of context. If you have a beef, read the dang thing!)

• The First Amendment provides, in part, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Familiar with life under the established Church of England, the founding generation sought to foreclose the possibility of a national church. By forbidding the “establishment of religion” and guaranteeing the “free exercise thereof,” the Religion Clauses ensured that the new Federal Government—unlike the English Crown—would have no role in filling ecclesiastical offices.
• […] it is impermissible for the government to contradict a church’s determination of who can act as its ministers.
• Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments. According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.
• The Court cannot accept the remarkable view [of the EEOC] that the Religion Clauses have nothing to say about a religious organization’s freedom to select its own ministers.
• The present case […] concerns government interference with an internal church decision that affects the faith and mission of the church itself.

You must not miss this one:

• Any suggestion that Hosanna-Tabor’s asserted religious reason for firing Perich was pretextual misses the point of the ministerial exception. The purpose of the exception is not to safeguard a church’s decision to fire a minister only when it is made for a religious reason. The exception instead ensures that the authority to select and control who will minister to the faithful is the church’s alone.

Read that again. Its impact is vital to religious freedom in our nation!

• By forbidding the “establishment of religion” and guaranteeing the “free exercise thereof,” the Religion Clauses ensured that the new Federal Government—unlike the English Crown— would have no role in filling ecclesiastical offices. The Establishment Clause prevents the Government from appointing ministers, and the Free Exercise Clause prevents it from interfering with the freedom of religious groups to select their own.
• The “scrupulous policy of the Constitution in guarding against a political interference with religious affairs,” Madison explained, prevented the Government from rendering an opinion on the “selection of ecclesiastical individuals.”
• the First Amendment “permit[s] hierarchical religious organizations to establish their own rules and regulations for internal discipline and government, and to create tribunals for adjudicating disputes over these matters.”

To mollify Leftist readers, from (conservative) Roberts’ opinion:

The case before us is an employment discrimination suit brought on behalf of a minister, challenging her church’s decision to fire her. Today we hold only that the ministe- rial exception bars such a suit. We express no view on whether the exception bars other types of suits, including actions by employees alleging breach of contract or tor- tious conduct by their religious employers. There will be time enough to address the applicability of the exception to other circumstances if and when they arise.

This is not carte blanche for religious organizations to discriminate against anyone for any reason at will.

Continuing:

• Religious groups are the archetype of associations formed for expressive purposes, and their fundamental rights surely include the freedom to choose who is qualified to serve as a voice for their faith.
• When it comes to the expression and inculcation of religious doctrine, there can be no doubt that the messenger matters.
• A religion cannot depend on someone to be an effective advocate for its religious vision if that person’s conduct fails to live up to the religious precepts that he or she espouses. For this reason, a religious body’s right to self-governance must include the ability to select, and to be selective about, those who will serve as the very “embodiment of its message” and “its voice to the faithful.”

Kudos to our Justices for that rare instance in which ALL agree in favor of the religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment.

WSJ — Contempt for Congress: Obama makes recess appointments when there’s no recess

Cato — Playing Politics with the Constitution and the Law

Does anyone even remember how the Left yelled and screamed at every opportunity about how Bush was a dictator, Nazi, Bushitler, etc.? Never did he blatantly ignore the Constitution in the manner Obama is doing almost daily now. The Left is getting what they wanted—rule by fiat rather than a constitutional republic.

Townhall — Why OWS Hates Married, Filing Jointly

A young mom—cornered in her home by two armed intruders—shot and killed one, sending the other fleeing for his life.

This is exactly why every law-abiding American citizen—particularly the most vulnerable—should have a gun and know how to use it. The Left—spearheaded by George Soros, the Brady Campaign, and their ilk—would prefer to have left this young woman and her infant child defenseless.

Doug Giles, Townhall — The Santa Killer Was a Religion of Peacer

Andy Kessler, WSJ — The Rise of Consumption Equality

AP — Mount Rainier remains closed after ranger shooting

Of course the liberal knee-jerk reaction is to blame the NRA, et al, for lax gun laws. But murdering a park ranger is already illegal. Do you really think the perp would have obeyed a law banning the weapon when he clearly disregarded the more serious one re its use?

NY Times — Overtures to Egypt’s Islamists Reverse Longtime U.S. Policy

The reversal also reflects the administration’s growing acceptance of the Brotherhood’s repeated assurances that its lawmakers want to build a modern democracy that will respect individual freedoms, free markets and international commitments, including Egypt’s treaty with Israel.

The blind naivete of this administration is simply astounding and will have devastating consequences for decades to come.

Fox News — School Defends “Occupy” Song For 8-year-olds

Um, yeah, right. A bunch of third-graders wrote those lyrics. Sorry, but have you actually read anything written by a third-grade kid?

Dave Berry, Miami Herald — Dave Barry’s 2011 Year in Review

PJ Media — Ten 2011 Examples of Major Media Malfeasance

Yid With Lid — Alan Colmes is a Despicable Low Life Scumbag!

There was a time when I thought Colmes was a thoughtful—if always wrong—voice on the Left. No longer. This isn’t just a “mistake” but a revealing insight into a hate-filled heart and mind.

Thomas Sowell, Townhall — Republican Voters’ Choices

Forbes — Even the Warmists Don’t Believe In Global Warming

Investor’s Business Daily — Defend Mideast Oil, But Refuse To Build Keystone?

Would we rather get our oil from Canada and North Dakota or from the Middle East through the Strait of Hormuz?

Indeed.

NY Times — Bishops Say Rules on Gay Parents Limit Freedom of Religion

I haven’t read the law, but from news analysis I’ve seen, it doesn’t appear the bishops have a real First Amendment case here. The law does not prevent the church from denying adoptions to gay couples—it denies them state funding if they choose to do so. But in my opinion, the church should not—on principle alone—have taken government funding for its adoption program to begin with. What goes unmentioned is that the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services instituted this policy knowing a priori that it would bring about the closure of the Catholic adoption agencies—and putting the desires of gay adults over the needs of the children the agencies served.

Walter E. Williams, Townhall — Gullible Americans

Fox News — Obesity Linked to Older Adults’ Risk of Falls

“People who are obese may have a harder time with balance,” said Himes, of Syracuse University in New York.

And when they lose their footing, she told Reuters Health, obese older adults may be less able to react quickly and stop a fall.

Really? We needed a study to tell us this?

AP — Preventive care: It’s free, except when it’s not

What? You mean Obamacare wasn’t really thought out very well before it was passed? Who’da thunk it?

BBC — Walmart Moms: America’s next big voting bloc

Michelle Malkin — The Year in Obama Scandals — and Scandal Deniers

Thomas Sowell snippets

Nothing illustrates the superficiality of our times better than the enthusiasm for electric cars, because they are supposed to greatly reduce air pollution. But the electricity that ultimately powers these cars has to be generated somewhere — and nearly half the electricity generated in this country is generated by burning coal.

What do you call it when someone steals someone else’s money secretly? Theft. What do you call it when someone takes someone else’s money openly by force? Robbery. What do you call it when a politician takes someone else’s money in taxes and gives it to someone who is more likely to vote for him? Social Justice.

Of all the arguments for giving amnesty to illegal immigrants, the most foolish is the argument that we can’t find and expel all of them. There is not a law on the books that someone has not violated, including laws against murder, and we certainly have not found and prosecuted all the violators — whether murderers or traffic law violators. But do we then legalize all the illegalities we haven’t been able to detect and prosecute?

Those wacky Canadians. Apparently drinking alcohol increases the likelihood of “unsafe” sex. Who knew?

Andrew Puzder, CEO, CKE Restaurants (Carl’s Jr/Hardee’s) — Job Creation Is Price for New U.S. Health Law

LA Times — A vast child obesity gap between affluent city, lower-income one

“We are trying policy-wise to make changes, but we can’t dictate what parents do in their homes,” said city recreation director Pam Wasserman. For parents on tight budgets, she said, healthful food isn’t always the least expensive option. “It is hard for us to compete with 10 tacos for $10.”

Wrong. I can very easily put together a very large, healthy salad that will feed a growing family for less than $10—and it doesn’t take significantly more time than running out for “fast food.” The obesity problem isn’t caused by poverty, but by choices. Cut the cable TV and the trips to McDonald’s and Taco Bell and buy healthy food.

BBC — Third arrest made after Anuj Bidve shot dead in Salford

But don’t they know guns are illegal in the U.K.? In that peaceful land they’re supposed to use knives. (Of course that begs the question of what she was supposed to use for self-defense.)

Michael Graetz, Wired — Energy Politics Is Lose-Lose

A thoughtful article, though I disagree with (among other things) his conclusions.

Although our government has enacted thousands of pages of energy legislation since the 1970s, it has never demanded that Americans pay a price that reflects the full costs of the energy they consume.

The problem is that it’s very difficult to convince Americans that we should pay more for energy when we know we have vast reserves of cheap coal, natural gas, and oil. Graetz wants us to pay for the cost of “green” energy, which is currently only marginally viable even with huge subsidies—which he correctly opposes. The American public isn’t convinced of the “global existential threat” posed by climate change, and we’re even less convinced we should pay through the nose for it.

The NY Times has yet another hit piece on gun owners. It quite naturally begins with an unarguably illegal use of a handgun by a CCW holder. It also contains many of the hallmarks of the typical anti-gun screed, including this gem:

Gun advocates are quick to cite anecdotes of permit holders who stopped crimes with their guns. It is virtually impossible, however, to track these episodes in a systematic way.

This is, of course, followed by the citation of a few specific incidents in which CCW holders committed murder or manslaughter. (Including at least one in which the CCW had no relevance—a husband killed a man he caught with his wife. Hello? What does his CCW have to do with that?) So it isn’t permissible to cite known instances where a CCW holder successfully and legally used his weapon, but you can trot out the stories that support your side?

To further support its slant, the Times pats itself on the back for having “examined the permit program in North Carolina.” Their study uncovered 8 convictions for murder or manslaughter with a handgun by concealed carry permit holders in North Carolina over a five year period (2006-2010). Since 1995 there have been 228,072 CCW permits granted by NC (almost 60K in 2007 alone). The NC permit is good for five years, so not all of those are current, but permits have reportedly been increasing. Suppose there are only 150,000 CCW holders in NC (I’d bet that’s low, but it skews the numbers against me). That works out to 0.005% of CCW holders being convicted for some form of gun-related wrongful death. Now, in 2005-2009 there were 7,515 vehicular fatalities in NC. Now North Carolina has 6,536,601 licensed drivers. So deaths caused by vehicular accidents occur at a rate of 0.115% per licensed driver—twenty-three times the rate of gun-related deaths caused by CCW holders. North Carolina’s entire population is 9.5 million and if every one of its citizens were a driver, the rate of vehicle deaths per driver would still be 0.079%—almost 16 times the “kill rate” of CCW holders.

So using real-world numbers—even when skewed against the “gun lobby”—which is a bigger threat to public safety, CCW holders or drivers? Only when you have a clear anti-gun agenda can you answer the former, but I have yet to see a Times piece clamoring for more stringent vehicle licensing. Now that’s good journalism.

Thomas Sowell, IBD — Will Gridlock Save Obama White House From Itself?

WSJ — The Church of Kathleen Sebelius  

Mike Adams, Townhall — African American Listed

NY Times — Canada Announces Exit From Kyoto Climate Treaty

CNN — In U.S., right to vote still threatened

Yes, according to the Left, it is entirely unreasonable to require voters to demonstrate that they are actually eligible to vote. Liberals have such a low opinion of minority, young, and elderly Americans that they believe they aren’t competent to obtain or provide an ID.

LA Times — U.S. asks Iran to return spy drone

U.S. officials say they don’t expect Iran will comply.

Duh. Maybe if President Hopey-Changey just said, “Pretty please.”

Fox News — Issa: $400G in Stimulus Funds Stomped On at Occupy D.C. Park

Can you imagine the liberal and media outcry if the Tea Party had done this? But what I really want to know is why we wasted $400G on landscaping as part of “stimulus” in the first place. Other than a temporary boost to one contractor’s books, how did that stimulate the economy?

Washington Times — Obama’s Keystone cop-out