Holding: The Bladensburg Cross does not violate the Establishment Clause.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 20, 2019. Justice Alito announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–B, II–C, III, and IV, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Kavanaugh joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts II–A and II–D, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer and Kavanaugh joined. Justice Breyer filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Kagan joined. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion. Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in part. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...pdf/17-1717_4f14.pdf

It's a memorial. It is/was not sanctioned, nor commissioned, nor ordered by any federal or state government. A stretch wider than East is from West to even try and touch the Establishment Clause.

And what a waste of the SCOTUS time and recourses.

Says this American, who also happens to be, a Jew.

agreed, but its the right rule and settles it

and I'm an atheist

quote:

Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined.

Shocker.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
It's a memorial. It is/was not sanctioned, nor commissioned, nor ordered by any federal or state government. A stretch wider than East is from West to even try and touch the Establishment Clause.

And what a waste of the SCOTUS time and recourses.

Says this American, who also happens to be, a Jew.

No, it isn't a waste, because now others will know the law and be more likely stop bothering other local governments over such nonsense.

Kagan and Breyer are a very pleasant surprise. That's made my day, honestly.

Looks like a lowercase "t" to me.

However, where the portion of the dissenting opinion notes the location of the cross is within a very busy part of the roadway, I toss the yellow BS flag. In the day the cross was first raised, was the traffic heavier or lighter? Did the people who raised the cross use a crystal ball or call upon a Wican to cast a spell to see how heavy traffic would be today?

I believe the 1A sets forth where the goobermint shall NOT [edited to include "not"] establish a bias on anyone who is of a particular religion (i believe, and may be wrong, when the 1A was written there were three or four types of religion considered: Catholic, Baptist, Episcopalian, atheist, and the Salem witches). So with that, as long as the goobermint does not establish a religion nor hold a bias towards anyone's personal religion (or lack thereof), a cross at a memorial for those who have sacrificed their lives for our freedom should be allowed to stand and be erected.

I take personal offense to RBG's dissent in so far as she contends that a Star of David would be inappropriate to memorialize a Christian decedent.

I wonder if she understands much about Christianity at all.

As a proud WASP and Zionist, I would be honored if my Jewish friends memorialized my passing with their symbol of our shared heritage and belief in the God of Abraham.

Might not translate quite as well the other way, but I'd like to think that most conservative (i.e., right-thinking) Jews would be as bothered by it as sigmonkey.

-Rob

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:
I take personal offense to RBG's dissent in so far as she contends that a Star of David would be inappropriate to memorialize a Christian decedent.

I wonder if she understands much about Christianity at all.

As a proud WASP and Zionist, [u]I would be honored if my Jewish friends memorialized my passing with their symbol of our shared heritage and belief in the God of Abraham.[/u]

Might not translate quite as well the other way, but I'd like to think that most conservative (i.e., right-thinking) Jews would be as bothered by it as sigmonkey.

-Rob

I second this!! (the bold and underlined emphasis mine)

Another Jew here, who is not bothered by the cross that honors our fallen soldiers, and who appreciates the Supreme Court decision (Ginsberg and Sotomayor are idiots, objecting to a symbol that honors our war dead).

Of course, I would like to see a Star of David, as well, but the reality is that most of those soldiers were Christian, and if there is to be only one symbol, I have no problem at all with that symbol being the one that represents the overwhelming majority.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
It's a memorial. It is/was not sanctioned, nor commissioned, nor ordered by any federal or state government. A stretch wider than East is from West to even try and touch the Establishment Clause.

And what a waste of the SCOTUS time and recourses.

Says this American, who also happens to be, a Jew.

No, it isn't a waste, because now others will know the law and be more likely stop bothering other local governments over such nonsense.

Depends on one's perspective, I'd suppose,

It could be referred to as a waste because it never should have happened to begin with.

SCOTUS just affirmed that stopping the arguments against these monuments.

While I agree with your analysis as well since the decision affirms what we (at least SF) thought to begin with, that their argument wasn't going to hold water.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
Another Jew here, who is not bothered by the cross that honors our fallen soldiers, and who appreciates the Supreme Court decision (Ginsberg and Sotomayor are idiots, objecting to a symbol that honors our war dead).

Of course, I would like to see a Star of David, as well, but the reality is that most of those soldiers were Christian, and if there is to be only one symbol, I have no problem at all with that symbol being the one that represents the overwhelming majority.

I am of the same tribe and agree.

Would this case have even been argued if the religious symbol concerned had been a crescent moon with a star inside of its arc?

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
No, it isn't a waste, because now others will know the law and be more likely stop bothering other local governments over such nonsense.

Dream on. The Liberals/Progressives will not be deterred by this--they'll keep on making waves about Christian memorials just to keep the Conservatives spending money to fight it.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined.

Shocker.

Took the words right off my keyboard!

Another non-believer that is not the least bit offended by it. If someone chose to honor me in death with a religious symbol that was meaningful to them, it would be fine.

How long before they go after Arlington? All of those crosses on federal land? The horror!

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
How long before they go after Arlington? All of those crosses on federal land? The horror!

If that 'ever' happens (and I wouldn't put it past them), its time for heads to be placed on polls.

Its unfortunate that SCOTUS even has to weigh in on such nonsense, but that's the ridiculous world we live in today. Hopefully this precedent will help deter further BS on the topic.

Was this another one of those Mikey Weinstein deals?

How does this ONE ASSHOLE have all this power? The guy is hellbent on removing any trace of Christianity from the USA.

I'm glad he was told to fuck off.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
It's a memorial. It is/was not sanctioned, nor commissioned, nor ordered by any federal or state government. A stretch wider than East is from West to even try and touch the Establishment Clause.

And what a waste of the SCOTUS time and recourses.

Says this American, who also happens to be, a Jew.

No, it isn't a waste, because now others will know the law and be more likely stop bothering other local governments over such nonsense.

Being youse is a lawyer, does the SC ruling now invite the argument that since a branch of the .gov has made a ruling, that it becomes defacto "Establishing" by "the State"?

Just wondering out loud.

thx.

And I do appreciate the tone of the majority of the court's position on the issue.

(There are lots of facets to my opinions, but I often generalize a specific point, to give folks a break from my endless stream of consciousness...)

I was about to post this great news in the previous forum thread...but no matter. Bladensburg Peace Cross WWI memorial Supreme Court case could have far reaching impact on Arlington and other national cemeteries

Just glad the majority of SCOTUS handed down the correct ruling.