Fulton versus city of philadelphia. Ms. Windham. Mr. Chief justice and may it please theourt, the court below made a simple error. They failed to understand where emplment division versus sth controls and where it doesnt. Ith doesnt control when the government uses the system of individualized exemptions. Orem when it makes other exceptions that underminets rules or when it changes the rules to phibit a religious practice. Philadelphia made all threefe those errors here and the city still cant identify a neutral genelly applicable law even ter six attempts and in our knowledge is its decisions are subjective and individualized. The courts belowtill apply to smith and even said smith would be a dea letter if petitioners prevailed a that demonstrates the confusion and instability smith has csed. Respondents rather than defendansmith asked the court for a newly minted nstitutional standard that is even less protective of religious exercise and that approa has no basis in the text, history
Fulton versus city of philadelphia. The honorable chief justice and associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Oye, oye, oye. All persons having business honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States are admonished to get their attention for the court is now sitting. God save the United States and this honorable court. Roberts we will hear argument this morning in case number 19120 three, fulton versus city of philadelphia. Ms. Windham . Mr. Chief justice and may it please the court. The courts below made a civil error. They fail to understand where smith controls and where does not. Smith does not control where a government uses individual exemptions or makes other exceptions that undermine rules or when it changes rules to prohibit a religious practice. Philadelphia made all three errors here. The city cannot identify a neutral, generally applicable law after six attempt. Attempts. It now acknowledges its decisions are subjective and individualized. Yet the cou
Couples. The Supreme Court has until june of next year, to issue a ruling in the case. Fulton versus city of philadelphia. The honorable, chief justice and associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Oye, oye. All persons having business before the honorable, Supreme Court of the United States are admonished to get their attention for the court is now sitting. God save the United States and its honorable court. We will hear argument this morning in case number 19120 three, fulton versus city of philadelphia. Ms. Windham . Mr. Chief justice and may it please the court, the courts below made a civil error. They failed to understand where a simple error. Date fail to understand where smith controls and where does not. Aith does not control where government uses individual exemptions or makes other exceptions that undermine rules or when it changes rules to prohibit a religious practice. Philadelphia made all three errors here. The city cannot identify a neutral, generall
Morning and case number 19123, fulton v. The city of philadelphia. Ms. Windham. Mr. Chief justice, and may it please the court. The courts below made a simple error. They failed to understand where Employment Division versus smith controls and what doesnt. Smith doesnt control when the government uses a system of individualized exemptions or when it makes other exceptions that undermined its rules or when it changes the rules to prohibit a religious practice. Philadelphia made all three of those errors here. The city still cant identify a neutral, generally applicable attempts. Fter six it now acknowledges its decisions are subjective and individualized. Yet the courts below still applied smith. Even set Smith Wouldve be a dead letter if petitioners prevail. That. That demonstrates the confusion and instability smith has caused. Respondents, rather than defend smith, asked the court for new limited constitutional standard thats even less protective of religious exercise. That approach
Of hearing i appreciate the city is aggressive about fixing our sidewalks i understand that there are issues relative to cost of homeowners but i get e get disturbed when i hear the gentleman had been trying to prove repeated he accomplished the repairs relative to a sewer vent that the city had minded him to accomplish i assume that is one of the list but 200 this number coming off with with all due respect that would be great if thanks can be taken place we can separate the cheat from the charge of this is my comment. I have followup questions the concern were the individuals that said theyve come here before and talked to someone and throughout the issue was revolved can you explain what happened in those particular incidents. Unfortunately, im thinking this is one a miscommunication issue weve put in mitigation measures we have been keeping a log of communications with the constituents and with public works so im almost 100 percent sure that wont you know 99 percent sure that will