Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
Mon Nov 20, 2023, 05:21 AM Nov 20
Pattern of Speaker Mike Johnson's legal writings: "the First Amendment for me but not for thee."https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/11/19/mike-johnson-legal-filings-00127832
Opinion | I Read Mike Johnsons Legal Filings. They Reveal a Distinctive Pattern.
The new speakers view is the First Amendment for me but not for thee.
The newly elected speaker of the House of Representatives, J. Michael Johnson (R-La.), spent years as a practicing lawyer before his election to Congress in 2016, focusing in particular on free speech and free exercise of religion cases under the First Amendment.
Less understood is Johnsons litigation history, and what it suggests regarding his beliefs on the nature of individual rights under the U.S. Constitution and the role of religion in government. So I read about a dozen of the First Amendment cases he was involved in before he went into politics.
His legal track record is revealing, showing that Johnson can take different positions on constitutional issues depending on who the parties are. For instance, Johnson has been a fervent advocate of First Amendment protections for Christians. When nonreligious secularists brought a religion-based challenge, he took the other side, defending the government. (Johnson has called secularists atheists who pressure government officials to censure God-based viewpoints.)
So while Johnsons legal career reflects decades of arguing for free speech and free expression of religion, it has consistently been for the same religion and not evidently in furtherance of an even-handed legal principle that would protect all religions equally (in addition to the right to reject religion altogether). Johnsons theory, summed up, appears to be what might be dubbed, the First Amendment for me but not for thee. As he has described it in his own words, the founders wanted to protect the church from the encroaching state, not the other way around.
But only when that church is Christian.
InfoView thread info, including edit history TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My Stuff » Trash Can) BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My Stuff » Bookmarks) 9 replies, 1438 views
9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Pattern of Speaker Mike Johnson's legal writings: "the First Amendment for me but not for thee." (Original Post) Demovictory9 Nov 20 OP
Must read malaise Nov 20 #1
For me and not thee: Literally the hallmark of MAGA chia Nov 20 #2
Always with these malaise Nov 20 #3
How does Mike Johnson feel about trump's "Golden Shower" comments? Paladin Nov 20 #4
FOR ME BUT NOT FOR THEE Skittles Nov 20 #5
Yep, "I've got mine" when it comes to wealth AND privilege (nt) William Seger Nov 20 #7
Well speaker Johnson might actually be broke. His fixation is marriage Demovictory9 Nov 20 #9
In. The. Name. Of. Jesus. Though. czarjak Nov 20 #6
Typical of all Old Crank Nov 20 #8
4. How does Mike Johnson feel about trump's "Golden Shower" comments?
Mon Nov 20, 2023, 06:44 AM
I'd like a full, detailed response from Johnson on that. Just as soon as possible.
9. Well speaker Johnson might actually be broke. His fixation is marriage
Reply to William Seger (Reply #7)
Mon Nov 20, 2023, 05:06 PM
Only approves of his type of marriage/ relationship