You're correct.

When "Mad Madeline O'hara" brought her case to the Supreme Court, it was irrelevant that the VAST MAJORITY of American parents OPPOSED the Court's ruling to ban school prayer.

And, having graduated Law School in the early 70's together with having taken Constitution Law from the great Supreme Court Justice, Anthony Kennedy.., I'm well-aware of the Courts reasoning.

I, like many Conservatives.., DISAGREE with that reasoning.

I'm sure you're "well aware" that the Supreme Court has historically REVERSED many long held rulings and ignored precedence.

If this wasn't true.., the "landmark" ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) which allowed restrictive Jim Crow legislation and separate public accommodations would still be the law. It took 58 years before it was REVERSED in "Brown vs. Board of Education" (1954).

Even today, Liberals themselves want Supreme Court precedent REVERSED [ie, 1. Heller v. District of Columbia which ruled Second Amendment guarantees the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms or 2. Citizens United v. Federal E******n Committee, a Supreme Court decision which President Obama publicly derided at his State of the Union Address in front of Supreme Court members.., a Decision the Liberals have fought to REVERSE to this very day.

To be consistent.., I assume you criticize both Obama for publicly deriding this Supreme Court ruling along with Liberals for their continuing attempts to reverse it.

If not.., you're advocating a wholly self-serving, hypocritical position that limits Supreme Court reversals to those which Liberals want reversed.

Finally.., I'll definitely be on the look-out for the right-wing "crazies" that you say dominate this site.

While doing so.., I'll also be on the look-out for the left-wing variety of "crazies" which, apparently, includes yourself.

As for "getting along".., unless you confuse insults with arguments [as do so many on BOTH sides of political spectrum].., I expect that we'll "get along" swimmingly.., although.., your addressing me as "cham" bodes ill for the likelihood.

ps nice elephant pic.

It's a matter of allowing parents to decide what influences their children will be exposed to in the school environment.

Liberals find school prayer harmful to children.., so it has been banned in public schools.

Conservatives find allowing bathrooms to be shared by those of opposite biological g****rs to be potentially harmful to their children.

It's a matter of common sense.

For me, a Liberal's fear regarding the harm of school prayer presents FAR, FAR less of an ACTUAL THREAT to children than does a Conservative's fear of the threat to their children posed as consequence of integrating bathrooms that their children occupy.

The "worst-case-scenario" of the threat presented by "school prayer" to one's children... PALES in comparison to the "worst-case-scenario" of the threat presented by integrating bathrooms to one's children.

Additionally.., recent attempts by Liberals to change the current 2nd Amendment INTERPRETATION in which gun possession is defined as "an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT" [rejecting the obtuse "m*****a" argument].., allows me to reasonably argue for a similar change in INTERPRETATION of the 1st Amendment regarding "School Prayer".

Liberals argue that the Constitution is a "living and breathing" document while vigorously rejecting any suggestion that the Supreme Court can reconsider past INTERPRETATIONS which they support [School Prayer, Roe, etc].

"Breathing" consists of TWO processes.., "in-breath" as well as "out-breath".

Change is a two-way street.

What has been "changed".., can be "changed back".