Revisiting the Coach Kennedy Case with Hiram Sasser

David and Sarah begin by going through SCOTUSblog’s end-of-term Stat Pack. Then Hiram Sasser, executive ...

By and

David and Sarah begin by going through SCOTUSblog’s end-of-term Stat Pack. Then Hiram Sasser, executive general counsel for First Liberty Institute, joins for a deep dive into the Kennedy v. Bremerton School District Supreme Court case. Hiram, who was co-counsel on the case, explains the story and talks about Coach Joseph Kennedy from a more personal point of view. How did the facts become so muddled throughout the process? Our hosts have a lively debate about how the case could have—or should have—been handled.

Show Notes:

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By and
Comments (169)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Adam Shields

    Follow up article about the case and the order to reinstate him as a coach.
    https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/the-story-of-the-praying-bremerton-coach-keeps-getting-more-surreal/?fbclid=IwAR0h7iXeiBH-SUm0JDJpe5YbdDyDAhKX2AUCPnuAqqN8b7GVPgluS_Ayx5U

    Collapse
  2. Sheena

    I wonder how the Supreme Court would have ruled if the coach had rolled out a rug and got in to child's pose.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Jacob

    With the Pledge of Allegiance hypo, if a community has a problem with it - they can tell the teacher to stop doing the pledge of allegiance. Community accountability is the pressure-release valve. Hiram is framing the dynamic as if the school has some sort of obligation to fire the teacher.

    With Bremerton, the Court just stripped the community of the pressure release valve.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    I went into this podcast a little more sympathetic to Sarah’s position than I came out (though I already thought David was right). I think David and Hiram by far had the better argument.

    As to the social pressure/coercion when you’re a minor and everyone else and a position of authority is doing it: much of my life, I’ve been the odd one out, often for political views. I’ve been insulted by teachers and peers. I’ve debated essentially most of the class + the teacher. Elementary school, middle school, high school, college. I’ve been insulted in religious terms/about religion and even spit on by peers in elementary school. I get that some people find peer pressure hard to fight. My response is: learn to deal with it. You’ll do better in life. I have no bitterness or anger about any of the debates or even the insults. Usually, I enjoyed them and had no hard feelings. One of the worst insults actually came from a professor I really liked! And he and I remained on good terms! We just both knew we could get into it a bit in class and get heated.

    Anyway, in a free society, we have to teach people young that feelings don’t matter and that social pressure should be ignored. If we value truth and objectivity and rationality, we can’t worry about whether anyone “feels” coerced and the sooner children learn that the better.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Shoutout to UVA law!

    Also the statistic I was waiting for, especially when Sarah said that 25% of advocates went to Harvard Law was: what percentage does Sarah Isgur know personally? My guess is: 40%. David? Maybe 3%.

    Collapse
  6. John Williston

    I'm catching up, so I'm a tad late, but I couldn't understand why neither David nor Hiram gave the obvious, easy response to Sarah's hypothetical question of when the coercion begins. It seems to me to begin when someone is actually coerced! Look up the very word: coercion is getting someone to do something they don't want to do via threats or intimidation. I'm sorry, but even a class of five year olds aren't being coerced if their adult teacher does something unless said teacher says "you have to do this under pain of threat or intimidation". Stop reifying and rendering feelings more important than reality.

    Collapse
  7. Paul and Megan Davidson

    As an educator, I found this whole discussion (and comments below) fascinating, concerning and frustrating. Coercion and influence are so subtle in school-educators have an enormous amount of influence in their classrooms, courts or labs. A couple of thoughts-I agree with those who pushed back on LBTQ+ not being religious and therefore unquestionably constitutional. I can say for those of us in education, any DEI standard of virtue feels incredibly coercive (for teachers and students) and while not religious per se has all the hallmarks of religious ideology. I have seen Pride month function exactly this way between progressive teachers and conservative students (Christian, Jewish and Muslim, by the way, as well as many Asian American students). Second, it seems to me no one here is defending the religious rights of the students who joined the coach on the field to pray. Why is it only the non-religious students whose rights are in question here? If the coach has students who connect with him and his values and can silently and non-coercively share those values, is removing that opportunity for another students feelings of coercion a removal of the religious students right to private prayer? It’s a tricky subject, but it seems to me that by escalating the issue every time someone says “I feel such and have a right to not be made to feel such” we are transforming the public square into a bland, meaningless space in a time when (young people the most!) we need meaning. Let sleeping dogs lie-until there is proof of coercion let the kids, parents and schools figure it out on their own.

    Collapse
  8. Jon Hamilton

    Just wanted to say I loved this episode. I kept going back and forth on how I felt based on the various arguments, which was great. Ultimately I’m more concerned about the kids forced to be there and then being coerced. I’m also colored by personal opinions that big prayers made for show are a vice not a virtue. But I get the religious freedom side too.

    Also I never want to get into an argument with Sarah about anything ever. 😁

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Stenny

    The whole speech regime for public employees is going to become unworkable very quickly. Successive governments elected with 51% majorities will see-saw back and forth between requiring one speech and then the opposite speech, each one implicating increasingly large swaths of employees' conscience. The current system simply can't survive the trajectory we are on.

    Collapse
  10. Rabbim

    I enjoyed this episode. Don't know where to post this but I hope in an upcoming podcast you explain the North Carolina case the justices took on for next year's docket. The treatment in the Atlantic seems a little overheated:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/07/how-supreme-court-could-upend-integrity-our-elections/670472/

    Collapse
Load More