I don't understand why “does not” is worse than “may not.” I guess he saw that as denying they ever discriminated? Which doesn’t make sense either because it's present tense, not past. This is a gigantic mockery of justice, in any case. “Religious liberty” training from ADF is an oxymoron. Christian nationalist training would be more accurate. Just horrifying. And then the appeal goes to the 5th Circuit, which isn't any better!
It’s almost like Starr wrote this about himself: “Generative artificial intelligence] platforms in their current states are prone to hallucinations and bias. On hallucinations, they make stuff up—even quotes and citations. Another issue is reliability or bias. While attorneys swear an oath to set aside their personal prejudices, biases, and beliefs to faithfully uphold the law and represent their clients, generative artificial intelligence is the product of programming devised by humans who did not have to swear such an oath. As such, these systems hold no allegiance to any client, the rule of law, or the laws and Constitution of the United States (or, as addressed above, the truth). Unbound by any sense of duty, honor, or justice, such programs act according to computer code rather than conviction, based on programming rather than principle.”
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The text of the first amendment makes religious liberty training an indispensable necessity for any person practicing law. The judge in this case correctly points out that the response by the attorneys to his order is proof that they need religiously liberty training.
Also, labeling people or groups as "extremists" is a baseless character attack. The ACLU typically defends left leaning causes, but to label them extremists is but an attempt to discredit the professionals involved in that organization and the good work they do. Like it or not, the ADF has legal experts on staff well capable of training people on religious liberty.
An agent of the state forcing people to undergo religious indoctrination, especially by the likes of ADF, is blatantly unconstitutional.
Starr, O'Connor, Kacsmaryk...collectively the pride of Texas and the Federalist Society...oy vey!
Fantastic substack. This one motivated me to convert my subscription to Paid.
Keep up the good work, Mr. Geidner 👍❤️🙏
Thanks; count me as another motivated to upgrade to paid subscription specifically due to your coverage of this case.
It is time for some loud contempt of court and serious civil disobedience.
I don't understand why “does not” is worse than “may not.” I guess he saw that as denying they ever discriminated? Which doesn’t make sense either because it's present tense, not past. This is a gigantic mockery of justice, in any case. “Religious liberty” training from ADF is an oxymoron. Christian nationalist training would be more accurate. Just horrifying. And then the appeal goes to the 5th Circuit, which isn't any better!
Starr is a Christo fascist nut job that is only further embarrassing the judiciary
It’s almost like Starr wrote this about himself: “Generative artificial intelligence] platforms in their current states are prone to hallucinations and bias. On hallucinations, they make stuff up—even quotes and citations. Another issue is reliability or bias. While attorneys swear an oath to set aside their personal prejudices, biases, and beliefs to faithfully uphold the law and represent their clients, generative artificial intelligence is the product of programming devised by humans who did not have to swear such an oath. As such, these systems hold no allegiance to any client, the rule of law, or the laws and Constitution of the United States (or, as addressed above, the truth). Unbound by any sense of duty, honor, or justice, such programs act according to computer code rather than conviction, based on programming rather than principle.”
Another Trump judge who despises the law, and would rather enforce his ideology than actually be respected for his legal acumen.
This is astounding.
Jfc😕
Every day it seems like fascists in positions of authority, like this judge, find new ways to undermine basic principles of freedom and diversity.
It's not cool to *require* proselytization onto people. It's gross to suggest that. It's abhorrent that, that judge thinks this is appropriate.
Does that judge not know the word "theocracy"?
OK, so the judge wants everyone to accept jesus christ as their lord and savior. That seems perfectly acceptable...
... said NO ONE, EVER
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The text of the first amendment makes religious liberty training an indispensable necessity for any person practicing law. The judge in this case correctly points out that the response by the attorneys to his order is proof that they need religiously liberty training.
Also, labeling people or groups as "extremists" is a baseless character attack. The ACLU typically defends left leaning causes, but to label them extremists is but an attempt to discredit the professionals involved in that organization and the good work they do. Like it or not, the ADF has legal experts on staff well capable of training people on religious liberty.
ITMFA
Seriously, high on the next Democratic House agenda must be choosing some--a large number!--of these incompetent Trump appointees to impeach.
Oh good grief