You really do a great job of defending anything that comes from this court.
I'm not sure if that's intended as a compliment, but I'll take it as a compliment in any event. Thanks.
Kennedy says there can't be limits on their prayers
Are you talking about in the portion I quoted, or something else? In the portion I quoted, Kennedy said that the government could not require that prayers meet a government-defined nonsectarian standard. He didn't say there couldn't be any limits whatsoever. Like you point out, and like I quoted, he says that there
are some limits on what may be said during legislative prayers (and
how such prayers may be said). I don't see any contradiction in Kennedy's opinion.
(never mind its not censoring to not invite certain groups if they break the rules)
If the rules relate to the content of a statement, then I think it clearly
is censorship to base invitations on adherence to those rules. The question becomes whether such censorship is appropriate.
but then goes on to claim they can and in fact are required to censor groups when they pass by a barrier Kennedy has constructed out of nowhere (the denigrating standard).
On that subject, I think it's obvious that Kennedy's "denigrating standard," as you put it, is
dictum. The Court wasn't asked to determine what sorts of prayers
would cross the Constitutional line; the Court was asked whether the practice in the Town of Greece
did cross that line, and held that it did not.
At least thomas and scalia's opinion doesn't run into this problem.
I think Thomas' opinion regarding the incorporation of the Establishment Clause through the Fourteenth Amendment is fascinating. It's something I'll probably look into more at some point.
EDIT: Oh, I nearly forgot to mention my amusement at Kennedy's trolling!
Justice Kennedy said:
Our tradition assumes that adult citizens, firm in their own beliefs, can tolerate and perhaps appreciate a ceremonial prayer delivered by a person of a different faith....
Adults often encounter speech they find disagreeable; and an Establishment Clause violation is not made out any time a person experiences a sense of affront from the expression of contrary religious views in a legislative forum, especially where, as here, any member of the public is welcome in turn to offer an invocation reflecting his or her own convictions....
Neither choice [to remain during the prayer or to leave] represents an unconstitutional imposition as to mature adults, who ‘presumably’ are ‘not readily susceptible to religious indoctrination or peer pressure.
(To be fair, he did have to distinguish this case from
a case involving children at a public middle school graduation ceremony. But I think at least some of those uses of the word "adult" were gratuitous.)
