Supreme Court says Mojave cross can stand (Sotomayor aligns with Liberal bloc on Church/State)

[usregimechange]

This undated photo shows the memorial known as the "Mojave Cross", on an outcrop known as Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve. (Liberty Legal Institute, Henry and Wanda Sandoz / Associated Press)


The Supreme Court gave its approval Wednesday to displaying a cross on public land to honor fallen soldiers, saying the Constitution "does not require the eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm."

Speaking for a divided court, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the 1st Amendment called for a middle-ground "policy of accommodation" toward religious displays on public land, not a strict separation of church and state...

Retiring Justice John Paul Stevens spoke for the dissenters. The government has good reason for "honoring all those who have rendered heroic public service regardless of creed," but it should "avoid endorsement of a particular religious view" in doing so, he said.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor agreed.

The Mojave cross has been tied in litigation for years. The case had been watched closely because it was the first church-state-separation dispute to come before the Supreme Court since John Roberts became chief justice.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-mojave-cross-20100429,0,6850286.story


Sad that the Robert's Court continues to dissolve Constitutional protections but it is very good news that Justice Sotomayor joined the Liberal Justices on the court in refusing to do so, for the first time regarding the Separation of Church and State.

[fascisthunter]

1. those right wing Supreme Court Judges have no merit to be where they are

like everything else the right wing does, they never play by the rules and have very little respect for our democracy.

[Nikki Stone1]

2. Um.. why do five justices not get separation of church and state?

?

[usregimechange]

5. Ideology blinders

[SidDithers]

3. It's Obama's fault...

He should have replaced one retiring liberal justice with 2 new ones.

Sid

[SemiCharmedQuark]

6. That's why I'm for Mercer '12

[cali]

9. no shit. what a fascist corporatist!!!!

[usregimechange]

4. Steven's exposing their poor logic:

In evaluating a claimthat the Government would impermissibly “permit” the cross’ display by effecting a transfer, a court cannot start from a baseline in which the cross has already been transferred.

[The Straight Story]

7. I think it had more to do with the land sale than anything else, could be wrong though (nt)

[usregimechange]

13. "Transferring the land pursuant to §8121 would perpetuate rather than cure that unambiguous...

...endorsement of a sectarian message." -Justice Stevens

[usregimechange]

8. Steven's sums it up:

In my view, the transfer ordered by §8121 would not end government endorsement of the cross for two independently sufficient reasons. First, after the transfer it would continue to appear to any reasonable observer that the Government has endorsed the cross, notwithstanding that the name has changed on the title to a small patch of underlying land. This is particularly true because the Government has designated the cross as a national memorial, and that endorsement continues regardless of whether the cross sits on public or private land. Second, the transfer continues the existing government endorsement of the cross because the purpose of the transfer is to preserve its display. Congress’ intent to preserve the display of the cross maintains the Government’s endorsement
of the cross.

[usregimechange]

10. more

Particularly important to this analysis is that although the transfer might remove the implicit endorsement that presence on public land signifies, see Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U. S. 753, 801 (1995) (STEVENS, J., dissenting) (“The very fact that a sign is installed on public property implies official recognition and reinforcement of its message”), it would not change the fact that the Government has taken several explicit actions to endorse this cross.

[usregimechange]

11. Congress made it worse...

Congress passed legislation officially designating the “five-foot-tall white cross” in the Mojave Desert “as a national memorial commemorating United States participation in World War I and honoring the American veterans of that war.” §8137(a), 115 Stat. 2278.Thereafter, the cross was no longer just a local artifact; it acquired a formal national status of the highest order.

[usregimechange]

12. Ouch!

The cross cannot take on a nonsectarian character by congressional (or judicial) fiat, and the plurality’s evaluation of Congress’ actions is divorced from the methodology prescribed by our doctrine.11

[usregimechange]

14. Breyer's more cautious approach didn't entice Kennedy and note Sotomayor's position...

would have plainly prohibited the violation. In more general terms, her position was further "left" than Breyer's.

[usregimechange]

15. His reasoning:

Because my conclusion rests primarily upon the law of injunctions, because that law is fairly clear, and because we cannot properly reach beyond that law to consider the underlying Establishment Clause and standing questions, I can find no federal question of general significance in this case. I believe we should not have granted the petition for certiorari. Having granted it, the Court should now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted. Since the Court has not done so, however, I believe that we should simply affirm the Ninth Circuit’s judgment.
With respect, I dissent.