As a justice on the Court, how would you rule given the line of establishment clause cases decided by the Court? Should the judge be allowed to continue the prayers? Why or why not? How would you deal with the issue of the Ten Commandments? Should they be taken down, or can they stay as a symbol of respect for God? Finally, should Robber be granted a new trial? Why or why not? You must cite cases from class to support your answers. There is no right answer, but all answers must be logical and supported with case law from your readings and classroom discussions.
As a justice of the court, I would have to rule in favor of Robber since the district judge “forced” religious principles onto him. Considering that the judge begins every day
…show more content…
Though prayer can seem innocent enough, Smiths’ action of praying while performing the duty of a judge violates the establishment clause; seeing how Roger Robber is being subjected to Smiths’ beliefs. As made evident in the 1992 decision in the case of Lee v. Weisman, public schools, which function under the supervision of the government, cannot perform religious invocations and benedictions during a graduation, as doing so violates the establishment clause. A public school sponsoring a prayer at a graduation is considered “excessive government entanglement” when the objective is to create a prayer that is to be used in a formal religious exercise, which students, for all practical purposes are obliged to attend, resulting in a violation of the establishment clause. Going back to Smith, his inclusion of prayers while serving the government shows that there is no separation between church and state. This is a clear violation, seeing how Robber is placed in a highly religious environment, meaning that religious beliefs are likely to take the place of the law and completely disregarding the