Yeshiva University filed an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court Monday, asking the court to grant a stay on an earlier court’s decision that ordered YU to immediately recognize the Pride Alliance as an officially sanctioned club until its appeal to the New York State Appellate Division is decided.
Coming a week after the lower court rejected YU’s appeal for a stay, YU is presenting its argument to the Supreme Court on grounds of its First Amendment rights to religious freedom.
Hah! The First Amendment won't protect anyone from a dedicated Woke fanatic.
ReplyDeleteYU should cut their losses (aren't they going bankrupt? How can they afford the lawyers?) and announce they'll accept the club as long as they open every meeting with a public recitation of the relevant verses in Vayiqra banning certain sexual activities and immoral behaviours.
Yeshiva University SCOTUS Brief
ReplyDeletehttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22268866-yeshiva-university-scotus-brief
“Yeshiva University Requests Stay” I looked this up. My theory. Supreme Court, New York County, entered on or about June 24, 2022 forcing YU to recognize YU Pride. Wow, horrified, YU turned, to no avail, to Appellate Division First Dept and lost (2022-02726): An appeal having been taken to this Court from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on or about June 24, 2022, and the appeal having been perfected, It is ordered that the motion is denied. ENTERED: August 23, 2022. Onto SCOTUS 22A184 for a stay, submitted to Justice Sotomayor due 5 p.m. (EDT), September 2, 2022.
ReplyDeleteWow sounds like me in April 1996. The Appellate Division 2nd Dept ruled against me April 1996: “In July 1991, the wife commenced this separation action after the husband had left the United States to settle permanently in the State of Israel. In the separation action, the wife seeks, inter alia, support for the minor children. During the pendency of the separation action in New York, on February 17, 1993, a Rabbinical Court in the State of Israel issued a divorce decree. The husband contends that the Supreme Court erred...”
YU now contends that the Appellate Division First Dept erred in denying YU’s motion for a stay of the Supreme Court NYC order for YU to recognize Pride. Good luck with all the woke and progressive left in the media and judicial system in USA. What does our Torah say?
May I talk about judge (זקן ממרה)? “11According to the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do; thou shalt not turn aside from the sentence which they shall declare unto thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. 12And the man that doeth presumptuously, in not hearkening unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die; and thou shalt exterminate the evil from Israel. 13And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.” (Deuteronomy 17:11-13).
I like the word presumptuously
דברים פרשת שופטים פרק יז פסוק יב - יג
(יב) וְהָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה בְזָדוֹן לְבִלְתִּי שְׁמֹעַ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן הָעֹמֵד לְשָׁרֶת שָׁם אֶת יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקֶיךָ אוֹ אֶל הַשֹּׁפֵט וּמֵת הָאִישׁ הַהוּא וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל:
(יג) וְכָל הָעָם יִשְׁמְעוּ וְיִרָאוּ וְלֹא יְזִידוּן עוֹד:
Sanhedrin 86b
“If he returned to his town and taught again as heretofore, he is not liable. but if he gave a practical decision, he is guilty, for it is written, and the man that will do presumptuously, [shewing] that he is liable only for a practical ruling.”
See on SCOTUS 22A184 Aug 30 2022 Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae in Support of Applicants of Professor Douglas Laycock submitted. Main Document Other Proof of Service
ReplyDeleteClick on Other, most excellent:
Argument ....................................................................................................................... 4
I. The trial court erroneously disregarded Yeshiva’s religious autonomy. ............ 4
II. Courts must give appropriate deference to a religious institution’s views
about its own internal decisions. ........................................................................ 10
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 13
We on Daas Torah blog must connect to this week’s parsha שפטים: (Deuteronomy 17) “18Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, tribe by tribe; and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. 19Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons; neither shalt thou take a gift; for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous. 20Justice, justice shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.”
Bravo YU legal papers on SCOTUS 22A184. Allow me this week’s parsha שפטים about judge (זקן ממרה). “11According to the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do; thou shalt not turn aside from the sentence which they shall declare unto thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. 12And the man that doeth presumptuously, in not hearkening unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die; and thou shalt exterminate the evil from Israel. 13And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.” (Deuteronomy 17:11-13).
ReplyDeleteHertz Chumash p. 823: "12And the man that doeth presumptuously, The decisions of this Court must be strictly obeyed. Refusal to do so would, in a theocracy, be tantamount to revolt against the Constitution, and involve capital punishment for the offender. Tradition explains this v. to refer to a judge (זקן ממרה) who defies the ruling of the Supreme Court. the priest , The ecclesiastical president of the tribunal."
I like the word presumptuously
דברים פרשת שופטים פרק יז פסוק יב - יג
(יב) וְהָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה בְזָדוֹן לְבִלְתִּי שְׁמֹעַ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן הָעֹמֵד לְשָׁרֶת שָׁם אֶת יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקֶיךָ אוֹ אֶל הַשֹּׁפֵט וּמֵת הָאִישׁ הַהוּא וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל:
(יג) וְכָל הָעָם יִשְׁמְעוּ וְיִרָאוּ וְלֹא יְזִידוּן עוֹד:
Sanhedrin 86b
“If he returned to his town and taught again as heretofore, he is not liable. but if he gave a practical decision, he is guilty, for it is written, and the man that will do presumptuously, [shewing] that he is liable only for a practical ruling.”
Professor Douglas Laycock arguments and references are overwhelmingly clear and convincing on the true meaning of the US Constitution. Bravo Professor Douglas Laycock.
“Yeshiva University Requests Stay” Just now: Sep 02 2022 Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae of Agudath Israel of America submitted Main Document
ReplyDelete“Applicant Yeshiva University is commonly known as the flagship institution of Modern Orthodox Judaism. The definition of “Modern Orthodoxy” is elusive and widely debated. Indeed, for its own part and that of its constituents, Agudath Israel does not identify as part of that movement. However, that in no
way detracts from the fact that Agudath Israel’s mission to service the full range of Orthodox Jewish schools includes those affiliated with the Modern
Orthodox community, all of which share a basic commitment to the eternity and inviolability of the Torah and feature rigorous programs of Torah study.
A result that would compel Yeshiva University to operate in a manner that contravenes its core religious convictions would deliver a body blow not only to Yeshiva University—unacceptable in its own right—but also to the religious liberties of many others.”
Beautiful
Wow SCOTUS seems to take the Pride side against Yeshiva University doing inaction on September 2, 2022. Yeshiva University put in a reply:
ReplyDelete“In the face of this extraordinary situation, Plaintiffs urge this Court to sit on its
hands. Plaintiffs concede that Yeshiva made a religious decision in onsultation with its rabbis. App.107 ¶ 101; Application 13. And Plaintiffs concede Yeshiva’s religious character, “primarily in its undergraduate colleges” which are at issue in this case. Opp.3. Plaintiffs admit that the First Amendment issues at stake are “weighty,” Opp.1, 36, and “important issues of public concern,” Opp.38. Yet Plaintiffs urge this Court’s inaction because the state courts may, eventually, reverse themselves on the state law questions, Opp.14, and because Yeshiva “remain[s] free to express [its] religious views”—so long as the courts can control Yeshiva’s behavior in the interim.Opp.21, 27.
Pride won 22A184.round 1 Pride is the plaintiff and urged “Plaintiffs urge this Court to sit on its
ReplyDeleteHands.” Round 2 will SCOTUS grant “REPLY IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR STAY PENDING APPELLATE REVIEW OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
AND STAY PENDING RESOLUTION IMMEDIATE RELIEF REQUESTED”? Stay tuned. Allow me Torah thought this week’s parsha כי תצא
(Deuteronomy 22) “5A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto the LORD thy God.”
דברים פרשת כי תצא פרק כב פסוק ה
לֹא יִהְיֶה כְלִי גֶבֶר עַל אִשָּׁה וְלֹא יִלְבַּשׁ גֶּבֶר שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה כִּי תוֹעֲבַת יְקֹוָק אֱלֹהֶיךָ כָּל עֹשֵׂה אֵלֶּה:
רש"י דברים פרשת כי תצא פרק כב פסוק ה
לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה - שתהא דומה לאיש כדי שתלך בין האנשים, שאין זו אלא לשם ניאוף:
ולא ילבש גבר שמלת אשה - לילך ולישב בין הנשים.
Sapirstein Chumash: “The question of whether it is forbidden to wear garments of the opposite sex without intent to commit immoral behavior is a matter of dispute. Rashi is of the opinion that it is permitted...”
The Pride side in Yeshiva U v Pride and in Israel too wants men to dress and look like sexy ladies in violation of Deuteronomy 22:5. Allow me to quote from the anti-Torah on Pride documents on SCOTUS 22A184:
“...climate disrupts queer and trans students' social networks and jeopardizes their satisfaction with their college experience (Garvey & Rankin, 2018; Beemyn & Rankin, 2011). In addition, a hostile climate impacts students' retention, choice of major, and classroom engagement (Garvey, Squire, et al., 2018). Woodford and Kulick (2015) confirmed these findings, noting that
discrimination on campus is associated with decreased academic and social integration among climate disrupts queer and trans students' social networks and jeopardizes their satisfaction with their college experience (Garvey & Rankin, 2018; Beemyn & Rankin, 2011). In addition, a hostile climate impacts students' retention, choice of major, and classroom engagement (Garvey,
Squire, et al., 2018). Woodford and Kulick (2015) confirmed these findings, noting that ...”