SCOTUS Rules Peace Cross May Remain On Public Land

[Kathianne]

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politic...nd-in-maryland

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court says a World War I memorial in the shape of a 40-foot-tall cross can continue to stand on public land in Maryland.

The court has rejected a challenge to the nearly 100-year-old memorial. The justices have ruled that its presence on public land doesn't violate the First Amendment's establishment clause. That clause prohibits the government from favoring one religion over others.

The cross' challengers included the District of Columbia-based American Humanist Association, a group that includes atheists and agnostics. They argued that the cross should be moved to private property or modified into a nonreligious monument such as a slab or obelisk.

Maryland officials who took over maintenance of the cross decades ago said the cross has a secular purpose and meaning.

[Kathianne]

Wasn't even close: 7:2.

[CSM]

finally....

Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion...

[Noir]

Will be interesting to read the report, i imagine it’s been left to stand more because it’s been there so long than anything else, if this has been built 5 years ago I think it would of had a different fate.

The argument that this clearly Christian cross is secular is hilarious

[Kathianne]

Will be interesting to read the report, i imagine it’s been left to stand more because it’s been there so long than anything else, if this has been built 5 years ago I think it would of had a different fate.

The argument that this clearly Christian cross is secular is hilarious

Actually, not so hilarious. Santa is seen as secular, though named after a saint.

Because you asked so nicely, here's the opinions of the court:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1717_4f14.pdf

[Kathianne]

finally....

Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion...

It's all about 'establishment' and below Noir's point was a factor in the decision, the 100 years of existence. Basically they ruled that it's a tradition of remembrance and not an attempt to establish a favoritism towards Christianity.

From what I'm reading, the court, mind you, 7-2 also gave some warning that they don't want a bunch more of these cases brought by anti-religion groups, it has clogged the system. OTOH, they also didn't define how long a memorial can be 'there' from the past, but sounded pretty certain to go against anything like erected in the present.

[STTAB]

It's all about 'establishment' and below Noir's point was a factor in the decision, the 100 years of existence. Basically they ruled that it's a tradition of remembrance and not an attempt to establish a favoritism towards Christianity.

From what I'm reading, the court, mind you, 7-2 also gave some warning that they don't want a bunch more of these cases brought by anti-religion groups, it has clogged the system. OTOH, they also didn't define how long a memorial can be 'there' from the past, but sounded pretty certain to go against anything like erected in the present.

I wish the court would do more to mitigate future cases that closely resemble existing precedent

[Kathianne]

I wish the court would do more to mitigate future cases that closely resemble existing precedent

They basically threw out the 'Lemon test.' (If you took AP history or government or Pol. Sci 101, you probably remember the term). https://lawshelf.com/courseware/entr...ishment-clause

They made it clear they don't want any more similar cases, it's 'settled,' BUT they didn't give a time line, other than a clear warning that new items would NOT be the same. Thus, there will be more cases to get some sort of answer: If something was completed last month, is it 'grandfathered' in?

[STTAB]

They basically threw out the 'Lemon test.' (If you took AP history or government or Pol. Sci 101, you probably remember the term). https://lawshelf.com/courseware/entr...ishment-clause

They made it clear they don't want any more similar cases, it's 'settled,' BUT they didn't give a time line, other than a clear warning that new items would NOT be the same. Thus, there will be more cases to get some sort of answer: If something was completed last month, is it 'grandfathered' in?

Id like to see them go further tho. For example,, how many times must the SCOTUS rule that YES Obama is eligible to run for President? Or that no Colorado cant compel a Christian to cater a gay wedding?

[Kathianne]

Id like to see them go further tho. For example,, how many times must the SCOTUS rule that YES Obama is eligible to run for President? Or that no Colorado cant compel a Christian to cater a gay wedding?

There's a system, wishing it was faster isn't going to do anything. SCOTUS doesn't grant cert until they think the case is ripe and meets other considerations. Here's a good piece on how the court tries to manage their docket. I like this quote:

https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/perspe...ts-shrinking-d

It is never a mistake to deny a certworthy petition. It is only a mistake to grant a noncertworthy one.

[STTAB]

There's a system, wishing it was faster isn't going to do anything. SCOTUS doesn't grant cert until they think the case is ripe and meets other considerations. Here's a good piece on how the court tries to manage their docket. I like this quote:

https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/perspe...ts-shrinking-d

I'd still like them to go further. The lower courts are all under their jurisdiction and SCOTUS could tell them "Toss all these cases theyve we've already ruled on the basic merits of the case" and I would especially like to see them limit the ability of lower courts to place national stays on the federal government given that so many lower court judges are obviously ruling based on feelings rather than what is legal and what is not.

[Kathianne]

I'd still like them to go further. The lower courts are all under their jurisdiction and SCOTUS could tell them "Toss all these cases theyve we've already ruled on the basic merits of the case" and I would especially like to see them limit the ability of lower courts to place national stays on the federal government given that so many lower court judges are obviously ruling based on feelings rather than what is legal and what is not.

I disagree. There has to be a final reckoning. I think it's wrong how much power the Legislative branch has given to Executive and how executive has usurped many powers without question. The court system as far as which hears what and when? Keep it as is. Make new courts as needed, but don't change the structure.

[STTAB]

I disagree. There has to be a final reckoning. I think it's wrong how much power the Legislative branch has given to Executive and how executive has usurped many powers without question. The court system as far as which hears what and when? Keep it as is. Make new courts as needed, but don't change the structure.

That's not what I'm saying at all. There is a final reckoning, the SCOTUS , I believe they should be the ONLY court with the power to issue a stay on the federal government.

Some rinky dink judge in the 5th circuit should not have that authority.

[Kathianne]

That's not what I'm saying at all. There is a final reckoning, the SCOTUS , I believe they should be the ONLY court with the power to issue a stay on the federal government.

Some rinky dink judge in the 5th circuit should not have that authority.

SCOTUS has a killer schedule already. The Federal Cts. have the authority to do their job. Constitution left court creation up to Congress. It makes sense that the federal courts can exercise those powers.

[STTAB]

SCOTUS has a killer schedule already. The Federal Cts. have the authority to do their job. Constitution left court creation up to Congress. It makes sense that the federal courts can exercise those powers.

I'm not sure what SCOTUS schedule has to do with it, since any time some dumb shit judge issues an injunction it's appealed and eventually goes to SCOTUS anyway. See I'm not saying don't let lower courts make a ruling before things are just handed up to SCOTUS, I'm saying that once adjudicated lower courts should have no power to issue a stay pending an appeal. None other than Clarence Thoma seems to agree based on comments he's made recently.