What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Supreme Court to hear coach's right to pray on the 50-yard line (1 Viewer)

Should The Coach Be Allowed To Pray Like This After The Game?


  • Total voters
    46
I think Clarence Thomas is really on an Island on this one.

I agree with you.  Makes no sense to take the case.  I just cannot think that the rest on the justices would be willing to go back on this one.  
Alito said. “ … The question we face is whether our society will be inclusive enough to tolerate people with unpopular religious beliefs.”

I think Alito only falls on the "freedom of" side from this point on.   And even though I think this is a case with large amounts of popular support, I think the quote above tells us where Alito will fall assuming the is actually an exercise versus establishment decision.

 

Zow

Footballguy
Do you mean the context of Matthew 6:5-6? I don’t see anything in 5:16 that would exclude public prayer. 
 

I think praying in public can be shining your light before others if it brings hope to others. That’s what a city on a hill does. It brings hope to those living on the outside. That’s a big part of the mission of God’s people. 
 

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the question. 
I don't think it's a question per se but more so an issue Joe raised. He quoted two verses from Matthew and asserted that trying to follow both was a "challenge." To summarize the two verses (which I think we all agree are good verses to live by), they were basically saying that one should pray in private and the other saying that one should be the "city on the hill" by performing good deeds. My response to Joe (and effectively you) was that I disagreed that it's a "challenge" because I interpret the second Matthew package as referring to "good deeds" and objectively I do not see how public prayer can be a "good deed." Instead, I find those two passages as a wonderful guide to live as a religious person: pray in private and do good deeds in public as public prayer should not be considered a "good deed." 

* @Joe Bryant please clarify if I have misunderstood or misstated your assertion(s). 

 

dgreen

Footballguy
I don't think it's a question per se but more so an issue Joe raised. He quoted two verses from Matthew and asserted that trying to follow both was a "challenge." To summarize the two verses (which I think we all agree are good verses to live by), they were basically saying that one should pray in private and the other saying that one should be the "city on the hill" by performing good deeds. My response to Joe (and effectively you) was that I disagreed that it's a "challenge" because I interpret the second Matthew package as referring to "good deeds" and objectively I do not see how public prayer can be a "good deed." Instead, I find those two passages as a wonderful guide to live as a religious person: pray in private and do good deeds in public as public prayer should not be considered a "good deed." 

* @Joe Bryant please clarify if I have misunderstood or misstated your assertion(s). 
Got it. My previous post that you quoted was me saying I don’t think “pray in private” means what we think it means.

 

Joe Bryant

Guide
Staff member
I don't think it's a question per se but more so an issue Joe raised. He quoted two verses from Matthew and asserted that trying to follow both was a "challenge." To summarize the two verses (which I think we all agree are good verses to live by), they were basically saying that one should pray in private and the other saying that one should be the "city on the hill" by performing good deeds. My response to Joe (and effectively you) was that I disagreed that it's a "challenge" because I interpret the second Matthew package as referring to "good deeds" and objectively I do not see how public prayer can be a "good deed." Instead, I find those two passages as a wonderful guide to live as a religious person: pray in private and do good deeds in public as public prayer should not be considered a "good deed." 

* @Joe Bryant please clarify if I have misunderstood or misstated your assertion(s). 


I think the difference is I don't as narrowly categorize "good deeds". I think that can extend to other things bringing glory to God. If done well, they can include public displays of faith in my opinion.

It's also been my understanding of the passage that it's about intent and a heart issue. I don't think it means Christians are forbidden to pray when other people are present. Most pastors do that every Sunday. I've always understood the passage to be more about the heart and intent of the person praying.

And that's more where I think it can be a challenge to navigate. "Bringing glory to God" often involves words and actions in public. Maybe that's praying. Or Tim Tebow talking about his faith or taking a knee after a touchdown. One could also make the argument public things like that are "showing off" or being like the Pharisees Jesus spoke of who didn't have the right intent.

I of course don't know the person's heart in each instance so I'm not quick to make a judgement there. 

And I do think it's something worth wrestling with as I navigate and determine how much I talk about things. 

I'm also very much working this out as we go. I'm far from certain on these things. 

Probably a lot more than anyone wanted to know there. ;)  

 

rockaction

Footballguy
It's interesting. People keep citing 1962 as the sort of end of First Amendment jurisprudence regarding school prayer. Are these not the same people that often talk about the living Constitution, as if it were a document that inhaled and exhaled with historical knowledge? What if the 1962 decision was errant? What if it was based on activism rather than legal scholarship? What if it were perfect, but now we have more knowledge about Constitutional history and the founding? Should we refuse to amend, to overrule, or to carve out exceptions? 

It's all very interesting, this certitude that the scholarship ends sixty years ago when to my amateur eyes, the political class most in favor of this claim is also the biggest proponent of a living, breathing document and of amending the Constitution outright for a host of other reasons. 

Just odd. 

 

timschochet

Footballguy
It's interesting. People keep citing 1962 as the sort of end of First Amendment jurisprudence regarding school prayer. Are these not the same people that often talk about the living Constitution, as if it were a document that inhaled and exhaled with historical knowledge? What if the 1962 decision was errant? What if it was based on activism rather than legal scholarship? What if it were perfect, but now we have more knowledge about Constitutional history and the founding? Should we refuse to amend, to overrule, or to carve out exceptions? 

It's all very interesting, this certitude that the scholarship ends sixty years ago when to my amateur eyes, the political class most in favor of this claim is also the biggest proponent of a living, breathing document and of amending the Constitution outright for a host of other reasons. 

Just odd. 
Theoretically, you’re correct: we should always be open to changing poor decisions made in the past. 
Not in this case though- it wasn’t a poor decision. 

 

rockaction

Footballguy
Theoretically, you’re correct: we should always be open to changing poor decisions made in the past. 
Not in this case though- it wasn’t a poor decision. 
That wasn't the thrust of what I was saying, but sure, I'll certainly allow you to have an opinion about it. 

 

Amused to Death

Footballguy
It's interesting. People keep citing 1962 as the sort of end of First Amendment jurisprudence regarding school prayer. Are these not the same people that often talk about the living Constitution, as if it were a document that inhaled and exhaled with historical knowledge? What if the 1962 decision was errant? What if it was based on activism rather than legal scholarship? What if it were perfect, but now we have more knowledge about Constitutional history and the founding? Should we refuse to amend, to overrule, or to carve out exceptions? 

It's all very interesting, this certitude that the scholarship ends sixty years ago when to my amateur eyes, the political class most in favor of this claim is also the biggest proponent of a living, breathing document and of amending the Constitution outright for a host of other reasons. 

Just odd. 
Sure for things like voting rights and women's right to vote, prohibition, uh - no prohibition, voting age, and to guarantee women are treated as equals. But to include government's right to endorse religion on the taxpayers' dime I think we can leave as it is. Especially at time where religious affiliation is in sharp decline and below 50% of Americans.

 

rockaction

Footballguy
Sure for things like voting rights and women's right to vote, prohibition, uh - no prohibition, voting age, and to guarantee women are treated as equals. But to include government's right to endorse religion on the taxpayers' dime I think we can leave as it is. Especially at time where religious affiliation is in sharp decline and below 50% of Americans.
The living Constitution also deals with due process, privacy concerns, and a whole host of things like that. What might be thought of as rights made up out of whole cloth resides in our precedents because it lives so fully and with such breathable fabric. It lives, Amused! 

 

Amused to Death

Footballguy
The living Constitution also deals with due process, privacy concerns, and a whole host of things like that. What might be thought of as rights made up out of whole cloth resides in our precedents because it lives so fully and with such breathable fabric. It lives, Amused! 
Well, it is being re-visited right now correct? But as others have pointed out, we don't know how much this is going to change things.

 

rockaction

Footballguy
Well, it is being re-visited right now correct?
Things move in reactionary ways, too. 

Kind of like U2's "Mysterious Ways," only applied to politics and looking backward by embracing nineteenth century views on the First Amendment, which is likely what they're going to have to do to allow the prayer, which also means they probably won't overturn the '62 precedent and its follow-up cases. It will take an awful lot to overturn precedent, unless, of course, we get some sort of terrible de minimis exception or ad hoc carve-out decision. 

I looked up Engel v. Vitale (1962) and came across a study question. It read, "Why did challenges to religion in schools grow during the twentieth century?" 

All I could think of was the damn communists. 

 

Amused to Death

Footballguy
I looked up Engel v. Vitale (1962) and came across a study question. It read, "Why did challenges to religion in schools grow during the twentieth century?" 

All I could think of was the damn communists. 
And to that I would say "Thank you Constitution". It'll be interesting to see how this version of the SCOTUS rules. Perhaps in 20, 30 years a more liberal Court will overturn this decision.

 

parasaurolophus

Footballguy
They're a recognized church, not matter what your opinion is of them. They get the same religious protections as Christians.

So do atheists, btw.
I cant seem to find the exact list of churches recognized by the military, so for all I know the satanists are on it, but obviously if there are 4000 tax exempt and only 221 recognized by the military, there is not an across the board "same religious protections" just because you are tax exempt. 

It also isnt just free rein. An outside group of atheists cant just storm the field and take over the 50 yard line just because some christians on the team are praying there. If they were on the team or assistant coaches thats where it would be different. But also what is the atheist going to do at midfield? Just stand there and be an atheist? Sure. Get in the faces of people praying and yell there is no god? I bet they cant do that, even if on the team.

I dont know the law that well, but I am pretty sure scrutiny is allowed.

For example I imagine a teacher cant tell a student to wipe off the ash off their forehead. I bet they can tell an atheist to wipe off writing on their forehead that says "Ash wednesday is a joke." 

Maybe my assumptions are incorrect there and one of the lawyers could chime in. 

 

Amused to Death

Footballguy
I cant seem to find the exact list of churches recognized by the military, so for all I know the satanists are on it, but obviously if there are 4000 tax exempt and only 221 recognized by the military, there is not an across the board "same religious protections" just because you are tax exempt. 

It also isnt just free rein. An outside group of atheists cant just storm the field and take over the 50 yard line just because some christians on the team are praying there. If they were on the team or assistant coaches thats where it would be different. But also what is the atheist going to do at midfield? Just stand there and be an atheist? Sure. Get in the faces of people praying and yell there is no god? I bet they cant do that, even if on the team.

I dont know the law that well, but I am pretty sure scrutiny is allowed.

For example I imagine a teacher cant tell a student to wipe off the ash off their forehead. I bet they can tell an atheist to wipe off writing on their forehead that says "Ash wednesday is a joke." 

Maybe my assumptions are incorrect there and one of the lawyers could chime in. 
First, I have no idea what the military has to do with this but I never claimed "4000 tax exempt" religions. But if you google "how many religions are there" you'll find its 4k. I don't how many enjoy tax exempt status in the US, but I do know that TST is one of them.

I would certainly be against atheists, or any person or group, getting the face and yelling at anyone. But you know what the simple answer to these hypotheticals is? Just leave ALL religions out of our public schools and government. Which is exact what the school was trying to do even as they were providing this guy viable alternatives. No one denied him his rights, he was just insistent on making it a spectacle. He got what he wanted.

 

Van Dyman

Footballguy
I cant seem to find the exact list of churches recognized by the military, so for all I know the satanists are on it, but obviously if there are 4000 tax exempt and only 221 recognized by the military, there is not an across the board "same religious protections" just because you are tax exempt. 

It also isnt just free rein. An outside group of atheists cant just storm the field and take over the 50 yard line just because some christians on the team are praying there. If they were on the team or assistant coaches thats where it would be different. But also what is the atheist going to do at midfield? Just stand there and be an atheist? Sure. Get in the faces of people praying and yell there is no god? I bet they cant do that, even if on the team.

I dont know the law that well, but I am pretty sure scrutiny is allowed.

For example I imagine a teacher cant tell a student to wipe off the ash off their forehead. I bet they can tell an atheist to wipe off writing on their forehead that says "Ash wednesday is a joke." 

Maybe my assumptions are incorrect there and one of the lawyers could chime in. 
The Satanic Temple didn't "storm the field" or try to do that. They didn't even enter the stadium. They had asked, in advance, to do their invocation because multiple students & staff of the school invited them. As far as I can tell that request wasn't approved then the school put the coach on leave. The Satanic Temple folks did attend, talked to the people and reporters. 

As for what they would have done at midfield, here's what was planned:

"It'll definitely be a theatrical production -- robes, incense, we have a gong," Starr said. "There are a number of students and teachers at Bremerton High who don't feel like they're being represented on the football field."

 

Amused to Death

Footballguy
The Satanic Temple didn't "storm the field" or try to do that. They didn't even enter the stadium. They had asked, in advance, to do their invocation because multiple students & staff of the school invited them. As far as I can tell that request wasn't approved then the school put the coach on leave. The Satanic Temple folks did attend, talked to the people and reporters. 

As for what they would have done at midfield, here's what was planned:
Thank you, I hadn't seen that article. It should be easy enough to agree, include all or include none. No favoritism regardless if you agree with a religion or not.

 

Van Dyman

Footballguy
I am not sure if it is material or not, but by his own admission, this coach led prayers in the locker room too.
Oof. Not good, possibly immaterial. The school apparently gave him a 4-page letter specifying his infractions and why they were putting him on leave. If the locker room stuff was relevant to him being put on leave, then it would seem relevant to this case.

 

Amused to Death

Footballguy
I am not sure if it is material or not, but by his own admission, this coach led prayers in the locker room too.
Looks like he did stop the locker room prayers. Here's more that's being reported from the SCOTUS hearing:

High School in Bremerton, Washington. Kennedy started coaching at the school in 2008 and initially prayed alone on the 50-yard line at the end of games. But students started joining him, and over time he began to deliver a short, inspirational talk with religious references. Kennedy did that for years and also led students in locker room prayers. The school district learned what he was doing in 2015 and asked him to stop.

Kennedy stopped leading students in prayer in the locker room and on the field but wanted to continue praying on the field himself, with students free to join if they wished. Concerned about being sued for violating students’ religious freedom rights, the school asked him to stop his practice of kneeling and praying while still “on duty” as a coach after the game. The school tried to work out a solution so Kennedy could pray privately before or after the game. When he continued to kneel and pray on the field, the school put him on paid leave.

Kennedy’s lawyer, Paul Clement, told the justices that the Constitution’s freedom of speech and freedom of religion guarantees protect his “private religious expression.”

Richard Katskee, a lawyer for the school district, said public school employees can have quiet prayers by themselves at work even if students can see. But, he said, Kennedy’s actions pressured students to pray and also caused a safety issue.

After Kennedy publicized his dispute with the school district in the media, spectators stormed the field to pray with him, knocking down students in the process. He noted that coaches have a power that is “awesome.” “The coach determines who makes varsity, who gets playing time” and who gets recommended for college scholarships, he said. “The students know you have to stay in the good graces of the coach if ... you have those aspirations.”

 

CletiusMaximus

Footballguy
It's interesting. People keep citing 1962 as the sort of end of First Amendment jurisprudence regarding school prayer. Are these not the same people that often talk about the living Constitution, as if it were a document that inhaled and exhaled with historical knowledge? What if the 1962 decision was errant? What if it was based on activism rather than legal scholarship? What if it were perfect, but now we have more knowledge about Constitutional history and the founding? Should we refuse to amend, to overrule, or to carve out exceptions? 

It's all very interesting, this certitude that the scholarship ends sixty years ago when to my amateur eyes, the political class most in favor of this claim is also the biggest proponent of a living, breathing document and of amending the Constitution outright for a host of other reasons. 

Just odd. 


The 1962 case - Engel v Vitale - is really an establishment clause case, not a first amendment case.  Both are at issue in this case, and I get why some are discussing Engel it in this context because its where the Court established that a school can't force or sanction a religion through mandatory school prayer, but no one is asking the Court to overrule or even apply Engel in this case.  No one is saying a public school should be allowed to sanction formal school prayer or establish a religion. I just did a quick search and was surprised to see neither party even cited Engel in their brief.

 

rockaction

Footballguy
The 1962 case - Engel v Vitale - is really an establishment clause case, not a first amendment case.  Both are at issue in this case, and I get why some are discussing Engel it in this context because its where the Court established that a school can't force or sanction a religion through mandatory school prayer, but no one is asking the Court to overrule or even apply Engel in this case.  No one is saying a public school should be allowed to sanction formal school prayer or establish a religion. I just did a quick search and was surprised to see neither party even cited Engel in their brief.
Would it be more like Lee v. Weisman then? Or Santa Fe from 2000? 

Curious what they think is precedent here...

 

rockaction

Footballguy
Okay, there are reasons I'm a little attuned to this right now, but NPR, my ####### God. 

"...asserts Paul Peterson, a parent who's [sic] son played for Coach Kennedy on the junior varsity team in 2010."

That #### is basic. Basic basic basic basic. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

CletiusMaximus

Footballguy
Would it be more like Lee v. Weisman then? Or Santa Fe from 2000? 

Curious what they think is precedent here...


The Santa Fe case is definitely relevant. I would answer more completely but honestly can't under the circumstances -- but the briefs and some good summary articles are all here for those interested in the more strictly legal aspects of the case.  I also posted a link to the oral argument back on page 2.

 

Amused to Death

Footballguy
I eagerly await The Satanic Temple's lawsuit violating their right to pray on the same field.

Supreme Court backs a high school coach's right to pray on the 50-yard line

The decision was based largely on the lower courts' finding that that the school told the coach to stop his midfield praying because it would be perceived as a school endorsement of religion.

Writing for the court majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said that the school relied exclusively and improperly on concerns that the prayers would be viewed as a religious endorsement by the school. Without evidence that students had been coerced, the majority said, barring coach Joseph Kennedy from praying on the 50-yard line at the end of each game was a form of hostility to religion, in violation of the Constitution.

 

JIslander

Footballguy
I eagerly await The Satanic Temple's lawsuit violating their right to pray on the same field.

Supreme Court backs a high school coach's right to pray on the 50-yard line

The decision was based largely on the lower courts' finding that that the school told the coach to stop his midfield praying because it would be perceived as a school endorsement of religion.

Writing for the court majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said that the school relied exclusively and improperly on concerns that the prayers would be viewed as a religious endorsement by the school. Without evidence that students had been coerced, the majority said, barring coach Joseph Kennedy from praying on the 50-yard line at the end of each game was a form of hostility to religion, in violation of the Constitution.
Go Team Theocracy!

 

Ilov80s

Footballguy
Does anyone know the wide range impacts of this? As a teacher just curious. Could a teacher pray to God/Allah during class periods in front of kids?  Does this extend to anything beyond just religious beliefs? 

 

IvanKaramazov

Footballguy
Does anyone know the wide range impacts of this? As a teacher just curious. Could a teacher pray to God/Allah during class periods in front of kids?  Does this extend to anything beyond just religious beliefs? 
The majority's opinion characterizes the coach as speaking in his capacity as a private citizen, not as a state actor speaking in his role as a school employee.  So this ruling probably does not allow a teacher to pray during class in front of kids.  

I don't think I agree with the ruling because I see the coach as a state actor in this situation, but there's no such scope for disagreement in your hypo -- everybody would agree in that case that a teacher leading prayer in a classroom would be speaking for the state and not protected by the free expression clause.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ilov80s

Footballguy
The majority's opinion characterizes the coach as speaking in his capacity as a private citizen, not as a state actor speaking in his role as a school employee.  So this ruling probably does not allow a teacher to pray during class in front of kids.  

I don't think I agree with the ruling because I see the coach as a state actor in this situation, but there's no such scope for disagreement in your hypo -- everybody would agree in that case that a teacher leading prayer in a classroom would be speaking for the state and not protected by the free expression clause.
So the teacher could pray in the building after class? Instead of praying in their office or an empty classroom, they could do after class is over in the hallway? I guess I’m trying to see the difference between right after the game and say during the game or practice.

 

IvanKaramazov

Footballguy
So the teacher could pray in the building after class? Instead of praying in their office or an empty classroom, they could do after class is over in the hallway? I guess I’m trying to see the difference between right after the game and say during the game or practice.
I don't know.  

It seems to me that if you're a football coach, anything you do on your field immediately after a game while players and fans are still milling around would be viewed by a reasonable third party as being done in your role of "football coach" not "private citizen," so I think I would have ruled for the district here.

Teachers are already allowed to pray insides school buildings as long as they do so alone.  Nobody's stopping you from saying a quick prayer before you eat your lunch in the faculty lounge, after all.  

Not sure how this would relate to a teacher who wanted to pray in a classroom with students around after work hours.

 

Ilov80s

Footballguy
I don't know.  

It seems to me that if you're a football coach, anything you do on your field immediately after a game while players and fans are still milling around would be viewed by a reasonable third party as being done in your role of "football coach" not "private citizen," so I think I would have ruled for the district here.

Teachers are already allowed to pray insides school buildings as long as they do so alone.  Nobody's stopping you from saying a quick prayer before you eat your lunch in the faculty lounge, after all.  

Not sure how this would relate to a teacher who wanted to pray in a classroom with students around after work hours.
Ok so it’s just me who funds this ruling confusing 

 

-fish-

Footballguy
I eagerly await The Satanic Temple's lawsuit violating their right to pray on the same field.

Supreme Court backs a high school coach's right to pray on the 50-yard line

The decision was based largely on the lower courts' finding that that the school told the coach to stop his midfield praying because it would be perceived as a school endorsement of religion.

Writing for the court majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said that the school relied exclusively and improperly on concerns that the prayers would be viewed as a religious endorsement by the school. Without evidence that students had been coerced, the majority said, barring coach Joseph Kennedy from praying on the 50-yard line at the end of each game was a form of hostility to religion, in violation of the Constitution.
One of the students testified that he felt coerced.   Guess we don't care about things like facts when it comes to furthering this court's religious agenda.

 

-fish-

Footballguy
Writing for the court majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said that the school relied exclusively and improperly on concerns that the prayers would be viewed as a religious endorsement by the school. Without evidence that students had been coerced, the majority said, barring coach Joseph Kennedy from praying on the 50-yard line at the end of each game was a form of hostility to religion, in violation of the Constitution.
So the school can't prevent their employee from endorsing a specific religion until after students prove that they were coerced by that employee's actions.   

Gotcha.   

 

-fish-

Footballguy
I could certainly see a situation where a kid is put in a situation where he goes along with the prayer because he doesn't want to offend or piss off the coach.
He testified that he only participated in the prayers because he was afraid of losing playing time.

I guess the distinction is that he didn't say that until after this matter had been sent to court, so the district didn't have proof of coercion before they banned the prayer.    That doesn't seem like legitimate analysis.

 
One of the students testified that he felt coerced.   Guess we don't care about things like facts when it comes to furthering this court's religious agenda.
80% of the votes in this poll say it should absolutely not be allowed or probably not be allowed, with 52% saying absolutely not.

Yeah, this is fine. 

 
I don't know.  

It seems to me that if you're a football coach, anything you do on your field immediately after a game while players and fans are still milling around would be viewed by a reasonable third party as being done in your role of "football coach" not "private citizen," so I think I would have ruled for the district here.

Teachers are already allowed to pray insides school buildings as long as they do so alone.  Nobody's stopping you from saying a quick prayer before you eat your lunch in the faculty lounge, after all.  

Not sure how this would relate to a teacher who wanted to pray in a classroom with students around after work hours.
They knew this. They didn't care.

 

Amused to Death

Footballguy
It seems to me that if you're a football coach, anything you do on your field immediately after a game while players and fans are still milling around would be viewed by a reasonable third party as being done in your role of "football coach" not "private citizen," so I think I would have ruled for the district here.
The school district did everything they could to accommodate the coach, but he insisted he must pray in the middle of the field. I would be more sympathetic to the coach if the school hadn't offered other arraignments. 

Also, other religious groups were prevented from praying on the field. Only the Christian coach was permitted.

 

BladeRunner

Footballguy
One of the students testified that he felt coerced.   Guess we don't care about things like facts when it comes to furthering this court's religious agenda.


You do realize that "feelings' aren't "facts", right?  They are literally most of the times the exact opposite of each other.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Snotbubbles

Footballguy
Just started reading the opinion.  When we discussed it in the SCOTUS thread, I questioned what constitutes state action.  If the coach prays on his own during school hours is it a state action.  If he prays outside school hours but on school grounds is it a state action.  If he prays outside of school hours, off school ground but doing a school function is that state action.  

The first paragraph of the opinion says this:

Mr. Kennedy prayed during a period when school employees were free to speak with a friend, call for a reservation at a restaurant, check email, or attend to other personal matters. He offered his prayers quietly while his students were otherwise occupied.


I guess where and when the acts happen make a difference.  At least this isn't the 213 pages Dobbs was.

 

whoknew

Footballguy
You do realize that "feelings' aren't "facts", right?  They are literally most of the times the exact opposite of each other.


I'm confused by this post. It seems like whether a kid felt coerced is exactly the type of evidence a court would want to know.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top