Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Big Church-State Issues Fading in Mojave Cross Case?
By Michelle Boorstein
According to close Supreme Court-watchers, the case before the justices about a 6 ½-foot cross built on a remote federal property in the California desert may not turn out to be as sweeping as some church-state types had hoped.
Justices yesterday heard arguments in Salazar v Buono. A ruling is expected by early next year. Considering their questions and comments yesterday, the justices mostly seemed to veer away from the broad questions many hoped the case might help clarify, court-watchers say.
When does a religious display on public property constitute an illegal government endorsement of that faith? If the government simply transfers ownership of that property, does that solve the problem? What are the limits of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
ScotusBlog, made up of top lawyers analyzing Supreme Court cases, called its analysis by Lyle Deniston "A Case of Disappearing Issues," though he noted that Justice Antonin Scalia seemed to be trying to keep larger issues alive, including whether the government has any obligation to allow monuments to other faiths just because it allowed the cross. He tried to push the question of whether the cross is - as he believes - a commemoration of all faiths, essentially a powerful secular symbol.
Ira Lupu, a George Washington University Law School professor whose expertise is the First Amendment's religion language, said it would be "no surprise" after yesterday to see a relatively brief opinion from the majority of the court. That opinion, he speculates, could say since the government transferred the land to private hands, there is no longer a government responsibility for the message in the memorial.
By
Michelle Boorstein
|
October 8, 2009; 8:29 AM ET
| Category:
God in Government
Save & Share:
Previous: Pew Maps Muslim Populations Worldwide |
Next: Evangelical Reaction to Obama's Peace Prize
Posted by: norriehoyt | October 8, 2009 4:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
WE THE PEOPLE,OF THE PEOPLE, AND FOR THE PEOPLE , THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR GOD WE TRUST. PLEASE NOTE THAT WE ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO BELIVE IN WHAT EVER WE WANT BUT WE CANNOT FORCE IT ON ANYONE. ANY RELIGION TO HAVE IS YOU RIGHT BUT DO NOT FORCE IT ON ANOTHER WHAT SO EVER. IF THAT WAS NOT A CROSS BUT A ISLM RELIGIOUS SIGN, WHOULD THERE BE ANY COMPLAINTS? GOD IS GOD FOR ALL BELEIVERS.
Posted by: usapdx | October 8, 2009 1:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Justice Scalia usually takes pains to conceal both his ignorance and his religious prejudice, but, for some reason, he boldly exposed both of these attributes at the oral argument.
The saving grace of his unseemly performances is that its like watching a monkey on LSD. Great fun for all.