Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Supreme Court Allows Peace Cross to Stand
This is, to put it mildly, a most welcome decision with an unusual line-up of votes in that Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented, as would be expected, but the other two members of the usually-reliable Left wing of the Court, Kagan and Breyer, joined in the majority. The Fox News report includes the following:
For nearly a century, the Bladensburg Cross has expressed the community’s grief at the loss of the young men who perished, its thanks for their sacrifice, and its dedication to the ideals for which they fought,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court’s opinion. Alito noted that while this particular cross does not serve a religious purpose, removing it because it is a cross would be a religiously charged action.
It has become a prominent community landmark, and its removal or radical alteration at this date would be seen by many not as a neutral act but as the manifestation of ‘a hostility toward religion that has no place in our Establishment Clause traditions,’” he wrote, quoting Justice Breyer’s concurrence in the 2005 decision in Van Orden v. Perry.
The court’s decision reverses the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that the cross was unconstitutional.
Is it too soon to recall that old line, “The times they are a’changing?”
Published in Law
Sanity–and justice–prevails, Jim. I wrote about the cross and the controversy some time ago, and the protest against the cross was outrageous and hateful. Those families, who had relatives to whom the cross was dedicated, must be grateful.
@susanquinn, since you have some background on this suit, did it originate with protests by atheists trying to keep any religious activity out of the public square? Do you know if there are other than atheists who have joined such efforts?
I wonder if the next president will order removal of all the crosses and headstones in military cemeteries and replace them with LGBTQXYZ Pride flags.
I’m glad for the decision, but I fear it will be at best a holding action.
Priceless! I will definitely plagiarize that one; since I’m not Old Handsy Joe, I need not be concerned about having that come back to haunt me! Thanks, Jim
I share your concern; however, if the President gets one more appointment to the Supreme Court, game over for the Left–and, for a very, very long time, at that! Hope springs eternal! Jim
I haven’t found my original post, but here’s part of an article from the Federalist :
Nearly 100 years ago, the American Legion and private donors financed the memorial, which was dedicated in 1925 to honor the memories of 49 local men who lost their lives during the war. The mothers of two of the fallen took part in the ground-breaking. All of the wording on the memorial is secular. There is a quote from President Woodrow Wilson, the names of the fallen, and on each of the four faces at the base are the words: Valor, Courage, Endurance, Devotion.
Yes, the memorial is in the shape of a Latin Cross. The American Humanist Association claims the 93-year-old monument is unconstitutional because it’s a cross standing on public land. It is currently maintained in Prince George’s County by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission.
Yes, at 40 feet tall, it is also very large. No doubt its size represents the scale of the war, the sacrifice and the inconceivable suffering of it all. The location is at the crossroads of major routes that go from Washington D.C., to Baltimore and to Annapolis. So, yes, it’s visible. Memorials aren’t meant to be hidden, especially when they commemorate fresh wounds so deeply felt by the people who put them up.
If I can find my post, I’ll put up the link.
Great news. And thank you to Justices Breyer and Kagan for joining in the opinion.
From 20 months ago in one of my rare attempts at substance:
Peace Cross.
That was an excellent post and engendered a number of interesting comments, all of which I highly recommend. Going back to look at it, I was reminded that in one of them, I cited to an article from The Federalist, other than the one cited by Susan, above, which gives a very thorough treatment of this whole inane push to erase our entire history. George Orwell was much more prescient than he realized, as we now have a real “memory hole” operating right in our midst, and it seems to be swallowing up more and more of our past with every passing year, and as the howlers and the screechers find new reasons to be offended — and offensive.
Something else to keep in mind when the pundits are telling you what to think, as they probably are now. From the syllabus (summary):
As much as it would be nice to pontificate, it’s pretty clear that there’s quite a bit going on here.
More information from SCOTUS Blog. https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/06/opinion-analysis-justices-allow-peace-cross-to-stand/
Here is our SCOTUS101 Podcast: http://ricochet.com/podcast/heritage-scotus101/things-are-getting-interesting/
Here is the opinion courtesy of CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/20/politics/maryland-peace-cross-case-opinion/index.html
A good day in America. A very good day.
Here is a background and analysis post about AMERICAN LEGION ET AL. v. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSN. ET AL. originally published at Howe on the Court. It is worth noting that President Trump’s nominees were the strongest, along with Justice Thomas. Kavenaugh:
He also came out for federalism, and pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court is not the sole guardian of rights:
Gorsuch was even stronger:
Here is the slip opinion on the Supreme Court’s website [PDF].
Arizona’s motto (“Ditat Deus”) makes a cameo appearance in Alito’s decision, as does Bethlehem, Pennsylvania; Las Cruces, New Mexico; Providence, Rhode Island; Corpus Christi, Texas; and Nephi, Utah.
As best I can recall, the cross was originally built on private property but one of the road widenings put it in the right of way, making it public property.
Alito:
Not necessarily so:
“Left wing:” [Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer]
Kennedy Swing Seat: [Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.]
“Right wing:” [Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh]
Alito and Thomas are 69 and 70 years old now. Having made it past 65, Justice Thomas now has a life expectancy of another 10 years, and Justice Alito’s life expectancy is another 12 years. CJ Roberts is not to be trusted, so the “one appointment” would have to be in replacement of Ginsburg or Breyer, with Thomas and Alito both resolving to leave the bench feet first.
Further, the “one appointment” would have to be made of the same stuff as Justice Thomas, and there will be an enormous moment of clarity if it is RBG who is being replaced. There are Senate Republicans who are happy to play “constitutional” so long as their precious secular supremacist cultural cram down agenda is not seriously threatened.
We have an enormously important defining decision pending publication any day now, dealing with the imposition of sexual orientation and gender identity as a federally protected category, actually intended to attack pesky religious beliefs under the fraudulent guise of judicious “balancing” of “competing rights.” We will see if the Trump nominations hold true and we will see of Bush43’s goes full Kennedy.
I was interested in the dissenting opinion by Ginsburg and Sotomayor.
Ginsburg starts right off the bat by invoking the 1947 case Everson vs. Bord of Education of Ewing, in which the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was “reinterpreted” by the Supreme Court to mean that neither the Federal Government nor the States could have anything to do with religion. This is of course not what the Establishment Clause says, but is an expansion of its original intent.
She then brings up the tired old “Danbury letter” by Thomas Jefferson coining the term “wall of separation.” As all Ricochetti know, this is not a point of law, but a “coined phrase” by one of our founding fathers, written to one specific church in Connecticut.
She then only partially quotes the Establishment Clause, and out of context, by saying the Government “shall make no law” either “respecting an establishment of religion” or “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Of course the Constitution says exactly “Congress” shall make no law…..
She then gives her own interpretation of the Establishment Clause which of course is another expansion on its original meaning and intent.
She throws in a feigned sympathy for all the people who will be offended because Christianity is not their religion of choice. Of course, the only ones ever offended by these religious symbols are the tiny group of militant atheists who go out looking for stuff for which to be offended. The dissent goes on far too long for my taste – 18 pages, with irrelevant stuff like the proper markers to put at soldiers graves, but that is what lawyers do.
So there you have it, my “professional” legal report, saving you the trouble of reading it.
and ISIS.
I don’t think they’re really offended. I think they are just nuts.
If that doesn’t work, there is always the taliban
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYPjOeJyNDI
Gorsuch said being offended does not give one legal standing.
As usual, Gorsuch/Thomas on standing is a good read.
And furthermore, this is exactly the kind of legal thought we need in order to remove some of the frivolity that has consumed legal practice with respect to various social and religious issues.
Bingo. And I wonder if Gorsuch sees that as an area in which to make his mark. If there’s a degree of sanity on standing, it somewhat minimizes attempts to expand the Constitution.
Drove by the Peace Cross ever day on my commute to high school. Glad to see it stand.
Can any legal scholars comment on the RBG dissent? Was it in her typical style or different, more akin to a clerk writing it up and her signing off on it? You would think after beating three cancers Sotomayor would offer to help take some workload off by writing the dissent…
I’m pleased with the outcome, but the decision and concurrences are a dreadful mess. I cannot derive any majority rule beyond a “case-by-case” analysis taking account of history, tradition, and context, plus a “strong presumption of constitutionality” from the passage of time (without specifying how much time is sufficient).
Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh were prepared to overrule the Lemon test. Roberts and Alito were not, evidently, so we are left with another indecisive mess.
Personally, I am quite offended by the argument that the Cross is not a Christian symbol. Offense aside, this argument also strikes me as fundamentally dishonest.