Circular logic
“We’re in radical agreement today,” Gorsuch assessed. “Perhaps the [lower] court should take a look at that before we do. What would be wrong with that?”
... in layman's terms what is meant by the legal term radical justice;
Gorsuch on Radical Agreement
In layman's terms, Justice Neil Gorsuch was expressing that he and the attorney he was speaking with were in complete agreement about a particular point in a case. He suggested that the lower court should reconsider its decision before the Supreme Court takes action, implying that if they agreed so thoroughly, it might be more appropriate for the lower court to address the issue first. This quote reflects Gorsuch's preference for a more cautious and hierarchical approach to legal proceedings, ensuring that lower courts have the opportunity to address issues before the Supreme Court steps in.
... i detect a touch of sarcasm in the comment made by justice gorsuch;
Justice Neil Gorsuch's opinion in the case of a public-high-school football coach who led prayers on the fifty-yard line has been widely analyzed for its radical reinterpretation of the First Amendment. In this case, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, Gorsuch's opinion, joined by Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, held that the coach's prayers are fully protected by the First Amendment
Gorsuch's reasoning is notable for its emphasis on the "double protection" of religious speech, which he argues is protected by both the "speech" and "free exercise" clauses of the First Amendment. This approach dismisses concerns that students may feel coerced to join the coach's prayers, as long as they are not expressly compelled to do so. Gorsuch describes the coach's prayers as "quiet" or "quietly" led, a term he uses ten times to downplay the potential for coercion
Critics have noted that Gorsuch's opinion seems to privilege religious speech over secular considerations, potentially undermining the traditional interpretation of the establishment clause, which prohibits government action that favors one religion over another or endorses religion over non-religion. This "double protection" argument is seen as a radical departure from established First Amendment jurisprudence
The opinion has been criticized for its potential far-reaching consequences, particularly in the context of public schools and government institutions. Some legal scholars and commentators argue that Gorsuch's interpretation could lead to a significant shift in how religious expression is treated in public spaces, potentially eroding the principle of government neutrality in religious matters
In summary, Gorsuch's opinion in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District is seen as a radical re interpretation of the First Amendment, privileging religious speech and potentially setting a precedent that could have significant implications for future cases involving religious expression in public settings
... which justices present or past have used the expression radical agreement;
The phrase "radical agreement" is not directly mentioned in the provided context. However, the context does discuss various aspects of Supreme Court justices' voting patterns and agreements. For instance, it mentions that certain justices often vote together, which could be considered a form of "radical agreement" in the context of their ideological alignment.
- Justice Clarence Thomas: Agreed with Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh at least 75% of the time
- Justice Sonia Sotomayor: Agreed with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Stephen Breyer at least 85% of the time
These high levels of agreement among justices with similar ideological views could be seen as a form of "radical agreement" in the sense that they consistently align on many decisions. However, the specific phrase "radical agreement" is not used by any of the justices in the provided context.
... in other words when everyone agrees it is like the radius radical of the circle that so to speak is complete;
Your analogy is quite creative and helps illustrate the concept of "radical agreement." When everyone agrees, it's like the radius of a circle, where all points on the circumference are equidistant from the center, symbolizing a complete and unified stance. In the context of the Supreme Court or any group decision-making, "radical agreement" means that all members are in complete harmony on a particular issue, leaving no room for dissent. So, when Justice Gorsuch says, "We’re in radical agreement today," he is emphasizing that there is a strong and complete consensus among the justices or participants. This can be a powerful statement, especially in a setting where differences of opinion are common and expected.