On the other hand, today they ruled, 7-2, to strike down the murder conviction of Curtis Flowers because the jury selection was tainted by racial discrimination. Kavanaugh wrote the opinion. Thomas and Gorsuch dissented.
Yeah, but the other one is religious. So I’d be worried about the religious conservative stuff. Particularly a certain case that will come down in the future.
Thomas has held that attitude towards stare decisis for decades. It’s not about any particular case, but it means a great deal about how he’ll vote on a whole bunch of them.
Indeed. You beat me to it.
Anyway, the signal I was getting at was as in signaling an attempt to appear nonpartisan. All to get ready for the truly critical cases that lie ahead.
Your use of the word “establishment” is not one used by any dictionary or history. Having the Church of Maryland and taking your tax dollars to fund it would be an establishment of religion. Having the head of the Church of Maryland also being the Governor of Maryland would be an establishment of religion.
Erecting a cross to commemorate war dead is so minor and so trivial as to not even belong in the same sentence as “establishment” of religion. Your life is the same whether that cross is there or is torn down. Note that Breyer and Kagan agreed as well.
I’m with Gorsuch on this. The injury is so trivial and likely manufactured that these “offended plaintiffs” should not even have standing to sue on these grounds.
What struck me about the case is something that I have not seen mentioned. Flowers has been in jail for the last 23 years and the state has tried him six times, two hung juries and now four reversals.
If the state cannot successfully convict you in 23 years, it is time for your case to be dismissed.
I find it interesting that when a religious symbol is threatened, the proponents find it “trivial.” If it is so trivial, why not placate opponents by removing it? Wouldn’t that be equally trivial?
I subscribe to a Google search that notifies me of any Internet posting of “in god we trust,” or similar constructs. I am struck by a common theme: mentioning “God” is so trivial that Christians don’t see why it should invoke emotions from atheists, Hindus or Muslims. Conversely, it is so non-trivial that Christians insist that “in God we trust” appear prominently on money, city halls and cop cars; in municipal buildings, meetings and public schools.
So which is it? Trivial or not?
The Supreme Court just confirmed it. Apparently, you can have it both ways.
Thank you for your opinion. I hereby give you formal notice that it has been considered and tossed.
Or, at least, you should be allowed bail at fairly nominal amounts.
The funny thing about this is that the court’s decision was 7-2. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the “liberal” position that the Establishment Clause would preclude such a cross.
Note that the decision on the case may well have been dependent upon the simple factor that the cross was erected before the cemetery was owned by the “state”. So the real question is: must the state tear down a cross in this situation? Contrast the question: can a state erect a cross on such a piece of state-owned land.
The possible biggest decision of the year is also coming up soon; the Census citizenship case. Originally looked set to be a 5-4 win for the Trump side, but now there is additional evidence coming out that may sway it over to the liberal side.
I’m not sure why it would make a difference if the state purchased a piece of land with a cross already on it versus buying an empty parcel of land and building a cross. The end result is the same and it would seem overly formalistic to reach different results in each case.
Oh yes–the famous “living Constitution.”
The example that UltraVires gave is exactly what “establishment of religion” meant when the Constitution was adopted. But you liberals find that meaning to be inconvenient, so you casually throw away important history like so much garbage.
The injury is trivial. The right and freedom of people to exercise their religion is not.
If the people in a community through their elected representatives want to express a religious message in a non-intrusive way, people who do not subscribe to that religious belief have not suffered a tangible and concrete injury.
If you are an atheist, live in Bladensburg, and drive by this cross on your way to work every day, what injury have you suffered? You are free to remain an atheist; nobody is forcing you to tithe or go to church this Sunday. Nobody is saying that you must visit this monument. Nobody is punishing you if you say to anyone who will listen that you do not believe in God.
The injury alleged is some amorphous you feel bad or marginalized because you don’t share the same religious beliefs as the majority of the community. This feeling is not protected by the First Amendment, nor is it rational or can be redressed by the courts.
When you drive by 15 churches and no centers for atheism, don’t you already feel like you are in the minority? That Christianity is the majority belief in the community is not unknown and so long as there is no coercive element to get you to join up, you have suffered no harm other than what is implicit in being different from the rest of the gang. And it at least some things in our life, we are all different from the rest of the gang.
This effort to eradicate religion from the public sphere is as good or bad of a philosophy as any, but certainly not mandated by the Constitution.
Not only is this being tossed, but I am holding my nose while I toss it.
Seriously, how do originalists explain tossing away 230 years of history that has evolved the Constitution in several zillion ways while making a claim that their mind-reading of the founders is the only true history? The Walking Dead Constitution wouldn’t even make a good tv show. As current reality it’s risible.
As I understand it, they didn’t purchase it, it was deeded to them.
Correct. There is no injury. Freedom of religion is a right. There is no right to not have hurt feelings.
No snark, but is freedom from religion a right? Should it be?
Bit of a hackneyed question, but I’ll still ask - if someone else’s religious beliefs limits my freedoms - prevents me from exercising my choices and my beliefs about my body - is that more than hurt feelings?
Religious beliefs themselves cannot limit your freedoms.
This seems a strange thing to say. If the government beliefs are at odds with yours, and they know it, you think they will still treat you fairly?