Many conservatives are elated
over the 9-0
decision of the federal Supreme Court that overturned a Wisconsin Supreme
Court ruling. The State Court had denied
an exemption to the Catholic Charities Bureau from a tax to support the
unemployment compensation system, reasoning that the latter was not a religious
organization.
Justice Thomas thoroughly
demolished the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s argument, showing that the Catholic
Charities Bureau is in truth a religious organization, and, therefore, is
likely eligible for the exemption (though Justice Jackson’s concurrence muddies
the water on that somewhat). But having
made that determination, we must ask an essential question, ‘Do the federal
courts have jurisdiction in this matter?’
The answer is a resounding
No.
The federal justices base
their ruling on the First Amendment of the United States constitution, that the
Wisconsin Supreme Court violated its Establishment clause. However, as we have pointed out before, the
First Amendment’s religion clauses are directed at Congress: ‘Congress shall make no law . . . .’ The States are free to make religious
arrangements per their own laws, traditions, constitutions, etc. It is striking that Wisconsin’s own constitutional
provisions regulating the relationship between Church and government
(Article I, Section 18) are not mentioned at all in the federal Supreme Court’s
ruling. And the erroneous incorporation
doctrine related to the US constitution’s problematic
14th Amendment doesn’t help the federal justices’ case one
bit. So don’t bring that stinking fish
carcass up in here; throw it back into the pond of unconstitutional theories
out of which you dredged it.
This case should have ended
with Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, with that Court’s decision being grounded in
Wisconsin’s own constitutional text. If
the decision was found to be unjust, the voters of Wisconsin could have
remedied that by replacing the justices who were in the wrong via elections.
What we have gotten instead
is far worse than a controversy that would have affected only one religious
organization in a single State: We now
have another federal Supreme Court precedent that could invalidate all State
efforts to reinvigorate Christianity in public life. Here are the key paragraphs from the
unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Sotomayor:
‘“The clearest command of the
Establishment Clause” is that the government may not “officially prefe[r]” one
religious denomination over another. Larson v. Valente, 456 U. S. 228, 244
(1982). This principle of denominational neutrality bars States from passing
laws that “‘aid or oppose’” particular religions, Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.
S. 97, 106 (1968), or interfere in the “competition between sects,” Zorach v.
Clauson, 343 U. S. 306, 314 (1952). The Establishment Clause’s “prohibition of
denominational preferences is inextricably connected with the continuing
vitality of the Free Exercise Clause,” too. Larson, 456 U. S., at 245. That is
because the “‘fullest realization of true religious liberty requires that
government’” refrain from “‘favoritism among sects.’” Id., at 246 (quoting
School Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203, 305 (1963)
(Goldberg, J., concurring)). Government actions that favor certain religions,
the Court has warned, convey to members of other faiths that “‘they are outsiders,
not full members of the political community.’” Santa Fe Independent School
Dist. v. Doe, 530 U. S. 290, 309 (2000).
‘To guard against that
serious harm, this Court in Larson v. Valente, 456 U. S. 228, set a demanding
standard for the government to justify differential treatment across religions
on denominational lines. See id., at 244–246. When a state law establishes a
denominational preference, courts must “treat the law as suspect” and apply
“strict scrutiny in adjudging its constitutionality.” Id., at 246. The
government bears the burden to show that the relevant law, or application
thereof, is “closely fitted to further a compelling governmental interest.”
Id., at 251 (internal quotation marks omitted).
‘A law that differentiates
between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational
discrimination. Take, for instance, a law that treats “a religious service of
Jehovah’s Witnesses . . . differently than a religious service of other sects”
because the former is “less ritualistic, more unorthodox, [and] less formal.”
Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U. S. 67, 69 (1953). Or consider an exemption that
applies only to religious organizations that perform baptisms, engage in
monotheistic worship, or hold services on Sunday. Such laws establish a
preference for certain religions based on the content of their religious
doctrine, namely, how they worship, hold services, or initiate members and
whether they engage in those practices at all. Such official differentiation on
theological lines is fundamentally foreign to our constitutional order, for
“[t]he law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma.”
Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 728 (1872).’
Whether ‘a state law
establishes a denominational preference’ is frankly none of the federal
judiciary’s business. This is a task
they have unlawfully appropriated for themselves, and it once again brings to
mind the many warnings of Anti-Federalists and of old republicans of the
Virginia/Jeffersonian kind about the tendency of the US constitution’s judicial
branch to silently arrogate more and more power unto itself until it becomes an
all-powerful body. From Thomas Jefferson
himself:
‘The Judiciary of the US. is
the subtle corps of sappers & miners constantly working under ground to
undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. . . .
There is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our
government by the noiseless, and therefore unalarming instrumentality of the
Supreme court’ (Michael Boldin, ‘Thomas Jefferson’s Greatest Fear: The
Federal Judiciary and the Death of Liberty,’ tenthamendmentcenter.com).
But even more concerning than
this is what those paragraphs from the Catholic Charities ruling mean
for State efforts to uphold and strengthen their various Christian cultures. . . .
The rest is at https://thehayride.com/2025/06/garlington-catholic-charities-v-wisconsin-creates-a-dangerous-precedent/.
--
Holy
Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!
Anathema
to the Union!
