After Kagan went there, Sotomayor — critical of the church's argument — immediately raised a question about whether there's still adversity.
-
-
Replying to @chrisgeidner
Then, shortly thereafter, with arguments almost done, Gorsuch weighed in for the first time, asking a follow-up Q on Kagan's line of Qs.
1 reply 2 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
After Sotomayor raised the adversity question, the Chief quickly followed up by asking whether voluntary cessation doctrine applied here.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
Earlier, Ginsburg questioned mootness but suggested a DIG possibility by saying state policy change might've changed cert grant decision.
1 reply 2 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
Breyer was focused on line-drawing at the extreme end of the state's argument, whether fire/police protection to churches could be limited.
1 reply 3 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
Kennedy was not too talkative, but he asked the church about whether, absent Estab Clause issue, states can draw no relig distinctions.
1 reply 2 retweets 4 likes -
-
Replying to @chrisgeidner
Later, to the state, Kennedy picked up on that, calling this distinction in Missouri "status-based," thus distinct from Locke.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
Alito, giving specific examples of fed/state safety/security enhancement programs, asked whether MO would allow church participation.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
State lawyer said that the answer, traditionally, would be no.
3 replies 1 retweet 2 likes
My report from #SCOTUS —> Justices Appear Ready To Side With Church In High-Profile Religion Casehttps://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/justices-appear-ready-to-side-with-church-in-high-profile?utm_term=.vtdp3BgQo9 …
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.