Yes, this is mentioned in another thread op. But this one deserves a thread of it’s own.
4th circuit said this cross was a violation of 1st amendment (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof) because it was a religious symbal.
Supreme court 7 - 0 did what appears to be a very narrow rulling that it may be a symbal, but at the time it was a universal one and has been there long enough to be a part of the community, and removal would be likened to hostility toward a religion.
“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.
“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,’”
This part seem’s to be a telling sign of – if it’s been there a long time, don’t even try and get it removed.
The 7-2 majority on Thursday cited the structure’s historical nature in its narrowly drawn decision, saying the Latin cross design reflected the nationwide trend at the time it was erected to honor war dead with community monuments.
Good ruling by the Court, as the 7-2 shows it crossed over to the liberal side agreeing for the most part as well.
I will go into this a bit later, after I have had a chance to digest the full ruling.
However, the court seems to have (correctly) but Lemon to rest once and for all. And they have indicated that just being an “offended observer” does not provide Article III standing to bring these kinds of suits.
Lemon is acknowledged to be a failure and it is long past time to put it to rest for good. And there is no right “not to be offended” in this country. Just because YOU don’t like it does not give you legal grounds to have it removed.
To bring suit should require an “injury-in-fact”.
For example, if you want to offer a Jewish prayer at your city council, but they only allow Christian prayer, that is an injury-in-fact giving you standing to sue. But merely seeing something you don’t like is not an injury-in-fact that should give you standing to bring suit.
I will repost the links here, so that people can read the actual decision if they wish.
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.
I don’t want this to be provocative as I am asking to provide me with greater understanding: does this ruling have any relevance to a situation where some people opposed the building of a mosque near the Twin Towers site?
