![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/09\/mikey-weinstein-300x233.gif\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The city of Ocala, FL has been at the center of a lawsuit in which an atheist claimed she suffered “damages” due to a prayer vigil held to support victims of a shooting. One can probably assume the prayer vigil was not conducted by gun-controllers, it ain’t their style to support victims – just dance in their blood to try and bring in guns bans. Anyway, she suffered “damage”.\u00a0 She sez.<\/p>\n
The Court declined to hear the case, saying it should be handled at a lower level.\u00a0 While that in itself\u00a0 is fairly inocuous, some of the statements made by justices are interesting:<\/p>\n
The city asked the Supreme Court to determine if the atheists were actually harmed by the prayer vigil to have their lawsuit move forward, and to rule on whether “psychic or emotional offense allegedly caused by observation of religious messages an injury sufficient to confer standing.” But the Supreme Court refused to intervene on Monday.<\/p>\n
(Justice Neil) Gorsuch, in his statement, said the district court should reconsider whether the atheists had standing, noting that the Supreme Court “has never endorsed the notion that an ‘offended observer’ may bring an Establishment Clause claim.”<\/p>\n
“It didn’t matter that the plaintiff went to the vigil knowing that she would be offended,” Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, wrote of the lower court’s decision. “What mattered was that prayers reached her ears.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
So the fact that she COULD be offended and went anyway does not necessarily affect her standing to file an “Establishment Clause” suit. A lower court ruled that she had standing and could file, but that was appealed. Gorsuch is saying “not necessarily so” and that this should be relooked. Clarence Thomas also weighed in:<\/p>\n
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented<\/a> from the Supreme Court’s decision, saying the justices should have reviewed the case to settle the so-called offended observer theory.<\/p>\n
“I have serious doubts about the legitimacy of the ‘offended observer’ theory of standing applied below,” Thomas, widely considered the most conservative justice, said.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Kinda makes you hope that Mikey Weinstein’s multiple “I was so offended by a Chritian display”\u00a0 cases should be reviewed (doesn’t that asshole ever complain about anyone else?) – and hope he would get a chilly reception.<\/p>\n
“Really, most every governmental action probably offends somebody,” Gorsuch, who agreed with the court’s decision not to intervene in the case….<\/p><\/blockquote>\n