• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court rules Peace Cross war memorial can stand

Common Sense 1

Common Sense 1

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
18,842
Reaction score
13,775
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
The cross has been there for close to 100 years. A good ruling 7-2


Supreme Court rules Peace Cross war memorial can stand

Supreme Court rules Peace Cross war memorial can stand | Fox News

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a Peace Cross war memorial on public land outside Washington, D.C., can stand, determining in a 7-2 decision that it does not violate the Constitution.

“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.


More detailed information on the ruling
The American Legion v. American Humanist Association

The American Legion v. American Humanist Association - SCOTUSblog

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.
 
Good call.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
The cross has been there for close to 100 years. A good ruling 7-2


Supreme Court rules Peace Cross war memorial can stand

Supreme Court rules Peace Cross war memorial can stand | Fox News

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a Peace Cross war memorial on public land outside Washington, D.C., can stand, determining in a 7-2 decision that it does not violate the Constitution.

“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.


More detailed information on the ruling
The American Legion v. American Humanist Association

The American Legion v. American Humanist Association - SCOTUSblog

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.
Click to expand...

The unbelievable part is that this actually had to be decided by the Supreme Court.
 
Moderate Right said:
The unbelievable part is that this actually had to be decided by the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

What makes that unbelievable? It's not an easy case -- as evidenced by the 7-2 split, and the fact that the next court down came out the other way. This falls squarely in a large "gray area" where it's arguable whether something gives rise to an appearance of a government endorsement of religion. One can come down with the seven-justice majority, in thinking that this falls on the near side of a fuzzy line, without thinking it's unbelievable that the high court would be needed to make that call. There are a bunch of factors one has to weigh when deciding a case like this, and there's value in having the Supreme Court issue a ruling setting some of those out in detail, to provide more guidance to lower courts for the next case that falls in the gray zone.
 
ONeuli said:
What makes that unbelievable? It's not an easy case -- as evidenced by the 7-2 split, and the fact that the next court down came out the other way. This falls squarely in a large "gray area" where it's arguable whether something gives rise to an appearance of a government endorsement of religion. One can come down with the seven-justice majority, in thinking that this falls on the near side of a fuzzy line, without thinking it's unbelievable that the high court would be needed to make that call. There are a bunch of factors one has to weigh when deciding a case like this, and there's value in having the Supreme Court issue a ruling setting some of those out in detail, to provide more guidance to lower courts for the next case that falls in the gray zone.
Click to expand...

LOL. 7-2 pretty much sings an easy case.
 
Moderate Right said:
LOL. 7-2 pretty much sings an easy case.
Click to expand...

No. Obviously, what would "sing an easy case" would be 9-0, in concurrence with a unanimous ruling at the appeals court in the same direction. Having the appeals court and two of the high court's members go the opposite way as the high-court majority pretty much sings "this is a fact pattern on which reasonable people can disagree."
 
ONeuli said:
What makes that unbelievable? It's not an easy case -- as evidenced by the 7-2 split, and the fact that the next court down came out the other way. This falls squarely in a large "gray area" where it's arguable whether something gives rise to an appearance of a government endorsement of religion. One can come down with the seven-justice majority, in thinking that this falls on the near side of a fuzzy line, without thinking it's unbelievable that the high court would be needed to make that call. There are a bunch of factors one has to weigh when deciding a case like this, and there's value in having the Supreme Court issue a ruling setting some of those out in detail, to provide more guidance to lower courts for the next case that falls in the gray zone.
Click to expand...

For a hundred years no one cared or made political hay out of this, until a group of political assholes came along and had to try and force their selfish will upon everyone else. Well they lost, and I hope they rot in Hell. It's disgusting what some people have become. Frankly I think they just wanted to make a name for themselves, and that's it.
 
ONeuli said:
No. Obviously, what would "sing an easy case" would be 9-0, in concurrence with a unanimous ruling at the appeals court in the same direction. Having the appeals court and two of the high court's members go the opposite way as the high-court majority pretty much sings "this is a fact pattern on which reasonable people can disagree."
Click to expand...

You mean like when the court voted 9-0 that Obama overstepped his authority as president? And the left have the gall and the nerve to complain about Trump.

GOP leader: Supreme Court has ruled 13 times that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority | PolitiFact
 
American said:
For a hundred years no one cared or made political hay out of this, until a group of political assholes came along and had to try and force their selfish will upon everyone else. Well they lost, and I hope they rot in Hell. It's disgusting what some people have become. Frankly I think they just wanted to make a name for themselves, and that's it.
Click to expand...


This-the first thing the Justices should have asked these people is

WTF IS YOUR DAMAGE?
 
American said:
In other words, what is your standing?
Click to expand...

exactly-its not like moneys they paid in taxes are going to erect the cross. Its nothing more than annoying little asswipes being annoying little asswipes. A professional atheist and crap-stirring asshole in Cincinnati, sued to get rid of the Christmas Holiday. District Judge Dlott (Jewish-wife of famed tort lawyer and liberal Democrat Stan Chesley) threw out the nonsense-noting that Jews, Atheists etc all get the day off too and it had become as secular a holiday as the fourth of July or Labor day. In her comments during the argument-there was an insinuation of GET A LIFE to the plaintiff
 
American said:
For a hundred years no one cared or made political hay out of this, until a group of political assholes came along and had to try and force their selfish will upon everyone else. Well they lost, and I hope they rot in Hell. It's disgusting what some people have become. Frankly I think they just wanted to make a name for themselves, and that's it.
Click to expand...

There is NO hell for anyone to rot in. No doubt, the cross is a lousy way of commemorating the sacrifices of people who were NOT all Christian's and, even if they were, died in the service of a secular country with a godless constitution.

The inseperability of faith and violence is what's really being displayed. I hope you're satisfied with that fact. I know the right would erect crosses all over public land if they could because they act as a reminder that the religious hegemony of Christian's still exists and the constitution doesn't matter to them. Congratulations, theocrats, you've wiped your ass with the bill of rights again.

The really ****ed up part is that you'll do a victory dance around a memorial to war, something only those of low intelligence can celebrate. It actually makes sense that magical thinkers are so enamoured of organized murder. These brain-dead nihilists have already declared that nothing on this planet matters to them.
 
IMO you cannot remove the impact on or tradition of religion from history, nor should you.

I support leaving it up.
 
D_NATURED said:
There is NO hell for anyone to rot in. No doubt, the cross is a lousy way of commemorating the sacrifices of people who were NOT all Christian's and, even if they were, died in the service of a secular country with a godless constitution.

The inseperability of faith and violence is what's really being displayed. I hope you're satisfied with that fact. I know the right would erect crosses all over public land if they could because they act as a reminder that the religious hegemony of Christian's still exists and the constitution doesn't matter to them. Congratulations, theocrats, you've wiped your ass with the bill of rights again.

The really ****ed up part is that you'll do a victory dance around a memorial to war, something only those of low intelligence can celebrate. It actually makes sense that magical thinkers are so enamoured of organized murder. These brain-dead nihilists have already declared that nothing on this planet matters to them.
Click to expand...

If Christians would erect crosses everywhere, it would have been done already. And we'd see miserably desolate people climbing all over them, to tear them down. It's quite pitiful.

What's more pitiful is that these sacks of excrement would try to ruin the things that give many families the feeling that their loved one's sacrifice did not go unnoticed.
 
American said:
If Christians would erect crosses everywhere, it would have been done already. And we'd see miserably desolate people climbing all over them, to tear them down. It's quite pitiful.

What's more pitiful is that these sacks of excrement would try to ruin the things that give many families the feeling that their loved one's sacrifice did not go unnoticed.
Click to expand...

Put up a memorial. Just no crosses
 
Lursa said:
IMO you cannot remove the impact on or tradition of religion from history, nor should you.

I support leaving it up.
Click to expand...

There are too many leftwing loons that want to erase this country's history because they are unsatisfied with it, but you can't change facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom