Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I predict it's an avalanche of bullshit.

You're off for the summer... Want to read it and report back? The majority opinion is only ~32 pages...

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep366/usrep366420/usrep366420.pdf

BTW I did see this at the very end of the majority opinion (as I was looking for the end of it):

Finally, we should make clear that this case deals only with the constitutionality of § 521 of the Maryland statute before us. We do not hold that Sunday legislation may not be a violation of the "Establishment" Clause if it can be demonstrated that its purpose-evidenced either on the face of the legislation, in conjunction with its legislative history, or in its operative effect-is to use the State's coercive power to aid religion.

You're off for the summer... Want to read it and report back? The majority opinion is only ~32 pages...

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep366/usrep366420/usrep366420.pdf

BTW I did see this at the very end of the majority opinion (as I was looking for the end of it):

Fuck, I hate legalese.  
There's a much-clearer way to say that.
And they do little tricks like the end there - "aid religion".....it's not about AIDING it.  
Ugh.

I do tend to recall something about rendering unto Caesar those things which are Caesar's, i.e. that Christians shouldn't disobey the authorities that levy and collect taxes.

I think that most Christians view this as not just dealing with taxation but with the concept of secular government in general.  This is one of those areas where OAM's "all religions are exactly the same" oversimplification misses the mark.  There really isn't much room in Islam for secular government and it is questionable in other religions due to their historic leaders being BOTH religious and State leaders.  Christianity makes a plain distinction.  This can be both a good and a bad thing.  

I think that most Christians view this as not just dealing with taxation but with the concept of secular government in general.  This is one of those areas where OAM's "all religions are exactly the same" oversimplification misses the mark.  There really isn't much room in Islam for secular government and it is questionable in other religions due to their historic leaders being BOTH religious and State leaders.  Christianity makes a plain distinction.  This can be both a good and a bad thing. 

Maybe that's true in scripture, but I'd argue that it hasn't been true historically. The Catholic (and CoE) churches were inexorably intertwined with European governments for centuries. Even going down to the "Divine Right of Kings"; the King was countenanced by the Church to give legitimacy. Most nations had state religions. Many nations still today even have blasphemy laws on the books. The United States was an outlier when we were founded as an expressly secular government which does NOT establish a state religion. 

Apparently OAM doesn't understand that but what you explained here is EXACTLY what a Justice would likely ask. 

In the present example of laws prohibiting Sunday Sales.  If I were a Justice in favor of finding that such laws were an impermissible infringement on the Establishment Clause I would ask the attorney challenging the law how we could do that without creating a precedent that also made 2am laws unconstitutional.  Ie, I'd ask "what about 2am laws" which is why I asked you exactly that. 

I think you'll agree that interpretation is tricky here.  If SCOTUS simply said that Sunday laws were unconstitutional because there was some religious justification then that would create a precedent that would make laws against Murder unconstitutional because there is also "some religious justification" behind those. 

Now OAM may think that I'm being intentionally silly with the semantics but I'm not.  SCOTUS does this all the time.  They have to think through the implications.  Ruling that Sunday laws are unconstitutional because there is "some religious justification" would literally make nearly all laws unconstitutional because there is "some religious justification" for nearly all laws. 

In order to invalidate Sunday Laws without also invalidating 2am laws and laws against Murder you need to articulate a rationale that puts Sunday Laws on the impermissible side and leaves 2am laws and laws against Murder on the permissible side.  This is the tricky part. 

Agreed. As it relates to alcohol, I think it's quite easy to delineate a 2 am law from a Sunday sales law. First, it is almost trivially easy to describe it as a public safety law. Whereas Sunday from a legal sense is no different than the other 6 days a week from a public safety perspective, so singling out Sunday has no rational basis other than as a religious day, or in a more general sense as a "day of rest". But since we have eliminated so many other blue laws and Sunday alcohol sales are now a very lone outlier (and only in certain places), it would be hard to justify that it's totally fine for someone to work at Target selling household products on Sunday but someone can't work at a liquor store selling alcohol on Sunday. There seems to be no secular basis.

Contrast that with dry towns/counties. While it's obvious those are ALSO religiously based, one can claim a public safety aspect there. Alcohol of course being an intoxicating drug, prone to abuse, and leading to impaired driving, you can easily say that banning alcohol entirely has a public safety angle (even if it's the religious advocating for it). But banning alcohol sales ONLY on Sundays isn't remotely the same.

IMHO you can draw an even more clear line... Banning alcohol sales ONLY on Sundays is to remove a competitor to worship services. Here on the West Coast, NFL games start at 10AM. Banning Sunday sales would mean that I can't go to the bar with my buddies to catch the early kickoffs. So we might just go to church instead, right? (Okay, maybe not  )

Agreed. As it relates to alcohol, I think it's quite easy to delineate a 2 am law from a Sunday sales law. First, it is almost trivially easy to describe it as a public safety law. Whereas Sunday from a legal sense is no different than the other 6 days a week from a public safety perspective, so singling out Sunday has no rational basis other than as a religious day, or in a more general sense as a "day of rest". But since we have eliminated so many other blue laws and Sunday alcohol sales are now a very lone outlier (and only in certain places), it would be hard to justify that it's totally fine for someone to work at Target selling household products on Sunday but someone can't work at a liquor store selling alcohol on Sunday. There seems to be no secular basis.

Contrast that with dry towns/counties. While it's obvious those are ALSO religiously based, one can claim a public safety aspect there. Alcohol of course being an intoxicating drug, prone to abuse, and leading to impaired driving, you can easily say that banning alcohol entirely has a public safety angle (even if it's the religious advocating for it). But banning alcohol sales ONLY on Sundays isn't remotely the same.

IMHO you can draw an even more clear line... Banning alcohol sales ONLY on Sundays is to remove a competitor to worship services. Here on the West Coast, NFL games start at 10AM. Banning Sunday sales would mean that I can't go to the bar with my buddies to catch the early kickoffs. So we might just go to church instead, right? (Okay, maybe not )

Suppose you are a Justice.

Suppose I am the attorney representing a jurisdiction that bans Sunday sales.

Suppose I asserted that banning sales one day a week serves the secular societal purpose of causing the drunks who are unable to plan ahead and buy in advance on Saturday (ie, the worst ones) to dry out and either see the error of their ways or to seek the help that they clearly need due to symptoms withdrawal.

To simplify things, I'll concede that the secular societal purpose outlined above is more-or-less a ruse to justify the law if you'll concede that it IS at least a potential rational purpose for the law.

How would you, Justice @betarhoalphadelta distinguish between a rational purpose being used as a ruse and a rational purpose that is ACTUALLY the reason for the law?

A "literalist" might argue that since Congress is not making any law, the whole thing is fine.  Of course, "originalists" have broadly interpreted such matters as being more general.

I'd note crimes like murder are widely illegal even in countries with no Christian tradition.  "Blue laws" I'm guessing are unique to the US.  You might defend a low closing bars on Sunday evening as not being religiously based, as it would tend to perhaps enable drinkers to get to work the next day.

The core truth is that SCOTUS Justices do indeed ask "What about ..." for a bunch of very solid reasons.  One could claim it's BS, but that sounds to me more like "I'm too lazy to consider the point."  I could post some weird stuff about say quantum mechanics and folks might also say "BS", because it does sound like BS.