Lemon is dead in the sense that a lawyer would be damned foolish to take an establishment case to the Supreme Court (or any other court, for that matter) and argue it based on Lemon and Lemon alone. The truth is, as you repeatedly failed to acknowledge in your numerous posts full of legal analysis above, that Lemon is only one of several tests, any one or all of which the justices may apply in any particular case, apparently depending upon where the votes for the result lie.
No, they have not overturned Lemon, just as many of the anti-New Deal opinions have been either “distinguished” or ignored rather than overturned. But the Court is not particularly likely to use Lemon in lieu of any of several other approaches to establishment problems.
Ah. So any case that cannot entirely and on its own justify every facet of the Court’s ruling, and under every possible set of facts, is “dead.” I’d don’t think a person has to be a lawyer to see how little sense that makes. A “dead” case is one that cannot be relied upon, or one that, for whatever reason, you would not cite at all (like one that’s been overturned and discredited). If you talk about it and rely upon it, in whole or in part, then it isn’t dead. Nor mostly dead nor “darn near dead” nor any other thing approaching dead.
A. I have repeatedly acknowledged, both specifically and through argument, that the two prevailing tests are Lemon and O’Connor’s establishment test. Which, your implied assertion to the contrary, they are.
B. Since you have shown a stunning lack of legal analysis n this thread, even going so far as to criticize me for concentrating on “law” instead of “logic” – as if the two are mutually exclusive and as if constitutionality is not by definition a question of law – I take you criticism of my legal analysis for exactly what it is IMO worth.
C. Once again, to imply that the justices analyze cases and make law to achieve a desired result is nothing more than unprovable character assassination on your part – an assertion that undermines the honor of every justice and which, conveniently for you, is as difficult to disprove as it is to prove. Surely I must be in the pro-Christian conspiracy as well, right? Advocating the abrogation of constitutional rights in favor of a Pat Robertson-led theocracy. Onward Christian soldiers! It’s ridiculous, and since you cannot prove it – which you can’t – it is unworthy of you to say it.
And I assume that those justices who rule how you think they ought to do not do so to reach some given result without regard to whether that result is really constitutional. No, they use sound analysis to apply the law and reach the correct determination through judicious independent thought and brilliant reasoning. :rolleyes:
The corrollary to “I’m right and your stupid” is apparently “I’m right so if you’re not stupid, you must be intellectually dishonest.”
Nonsense. Judges, lawyers, and laypeople in the real world make value judgments every day without first resorting to legal research and analysis. That does not mean that’s all that judges do. When the law dictates a contrary result, the vast majority of judges follow their duty by applying the law rather than their personal values. But when the law permits a choice of outcomes–and at the Supreme Court, nearly every case by allows such a choice–judges have the perogative and the power to make the ruling that fits with their own values.
At the risk of indictment for character assassination, if the Gaylor panel arrived at its “reasonable observer” determination through some unimpeachable feat of legal analysis, they didn’t choose to share it in their published opinion:
Guess we’ll have to take their word for that inquiry they made.
may i suggest an alternative motto for those of us who have concerns about public religiosity: FOR COMMON GOOD.
this secular phrase provides an alternative motto of broader appeal. standing alone, it is a perfectly benign and appealing sentiment; as applied to money, it reminds us of its best use - after all, money can used to exploit and manipulate to the detriment of people.
also, it happens to contain just as many letters/spaces - which makes it fit perfectly just below the original engraving.
years ago, i ran a few dozen bills through a printer thus marking through ‘IN GOD WE TRUST’ and printing ‘FOR COMMON GOOD’ just below in the same federal typeface. note: marking US bills is legal as long as fraud is not intended.