lemon lines

The difficulty is, however, that even while acknowledging the sympathy that all must feel for people afflicted with painful, debilitating physical ailments that cannot be remedied, the court cannot take the place of Congress.

As described previously, the fact that the government chooses to address one portion of a social problem and not others, or the fact that it treats different components of the problem differently, does not establish a violation of equal protection.

This court cannot envision other sexual acts beyond those listed in Section I(24). Perhaps the Lowndes County Board of Supervisors have more gifted imaginations in these regards and can describe in greater detail other prohibited sexual activities.

Justice Scalia, though analyzing a current issue, uncharacteristically overlooked the experience of our Founding Fathers.

If believers are entitled to public financial support, so are nonbelievers. A believer and nonbeliever under the present law are treated differently because of the articles of their faith. Believers are doubtless comforted that the cause of religion is being fostered by this legislation. Yet one of the mandates of the First Amendment is to promote a viable, pluralistic society and to keep government neutral, not only between sects, but also between believers and nonbelievers. The present involvement of government in religion may seem de minimis. But it is, I fear, a long step down the Establishment path. Perhaps I have been misinformed. But as I have read the Constitution and its philosophy, I gathered that independence was the price of liberty.