"What could be worse than not buying bagels for the Jewish prayer breakfast?"
It's in here. Page 54.
The full story is here.
And the short answer is: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
Don't believe me?
Here's the transcript:-
JUSTICE SCALIA: So there's no standing to challenge a presidential directive which says we are going to buy bagels for all evangelistic Christian breakfasts. (Laughter.)
JUSTICE SCALIA: Okay? But not for any --
MR. PINCUS: No, I think there would be standing.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Why would there be standing?
MR. PINCUS: Because there the challenge is to the discriminatory purchase. It's not about the prayer breakfast, it's about the idea that the Government is purchasing bagels in a religiously discriminatory way.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Of course. But the point is that makes --
MR. PINCUS: So there absolutely would be standing.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But that shows how totally manipulable your incidental test is. You just have to phrase your claim so that it covers 53 Alderson Reporting Company whatever expenditure --
MR. PINCUS: But, Your Honor --
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: -- is offending you. It's not -- incidental doesn't protect you from frivolous or insignificant claims in any way.
MR. PINCUS: Your Honor, I think it does, because there would have to be an allegation in that situation that bagels were being purchased on a religious basis, and that's going to be awfully hard for a lawyer to sign in good faith. I think the problem, if I may --
JUSTICE SCALIA: How does that confer standing? How does that confer standing?
MR. PINCUS: The purchase -- the idea that bagels are being purchased only for evangelicals and not for Jewish breakfasts?
JUSTICE SCALIA: Right. Right.
MR. PINCUS: Because the Government --
JUSTICE SCALIA: Standing by Joe Doaks, not from somebody who's starting a Jewish prayer breakfast and says, you know, what could be worse than not buying bagels for a Jewish prayer breakfast. (Laughter.) With him I could understand, he has standing...
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment