Thursday’s unanimous Supreme Court decision for traditional American families is bring hailed by sharp legal minds everywhere. That definitely includes George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley.
The Court does not engage in such public campaigns. It speaks through its opinions and the message could not clearer. For a hopelessly divided ideological Court, it seems to be saying a lot in one voice not just about the law but about its own institution.https://t.co/4yemAtZCtS
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 17, 2021
FNC: “Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley reacted Thursday on ‘America Reports’ to the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision that a Catholic foster agency shouldn’t be banned from participating in Philadelphia’s foster program because it excludes same-sex couples, calling it a ‘major decision for religious rights.’ ”
Turley: “This is a major decision for religious rights, and it’s also the decision that some of us thought was the most important of those pending cases we’ve been waiting for. What is surprising is it’s 9-0. There are concurrences, but the Court is speaking with one voice saying the city of Philadelphia violated the free exercise clause of the Constitution. They’re saying that you need to accommodate the religious values of these organizations, particularly when you obviously can do so. You have exceptions for other groups. It’s a very powerful statement, not just in its ruling but in its unanimity…They saw the ability of the city to make available adoption services without denying religious beliefs and values to these organizations. These Catholic charities play a very significant role in adoption and other services, but there’s a variety of these groups, so the Court is saying we have to find a way to accommodate that. The reason this is so important is that these types of conflicts between anti-discrimination laws and the religious clauses of the Constitution are becoming more common. We just had a resumption of what’s called the Masterpiece cake shop case. It went before the Supreme Court involving a baker who didn’t want to do cakes that violate his religious beliefs. Activists have been trying to create another case to challenge him and they’ve done so, but they may regret that, because he could end up expanding what was a narrow ruling in his favor into something much broader after this decision.”
He also recently discussed the question of the high court’s ideological composition. “As I recently discussed in an op-ed for Fox News Opinion regarding the release of a series of unanimous decisions, the Court could be speaking as an institution to remind the public that they are not nearly as partisan as their critics…The lineup must have been another disappointment for Democratic members and advocates who are demanding raw court packing…That (unanimous decisions) is not supposed to be the way the Court operates, according to Democratic members and advocates. It is supposed to be hopelessly and blindly divided along ideological lines. President Joe Biden called the Court ‘out of whack’ due to its conservative majority…Justices are meant to speak through their opinions and this decision speaks profoundly and clearly…It again seems to speak, by accident or by design, that the Court remains unpacked and unbowed in carrying out its constitutional duties.”