Barry, I believe the Supreme Court ultimately will conclude that the plaintiff did not have legal standing here - that this challenge was legally flawed from the very start.
Merely being 'offended' does not give the plaintiff a legal green light to go to court to challenge this memorial. As you know, just because the 'standing' issue did not receive a lot of attention during oral argument does not mean the Justices are ignoring it. They won't and in the end I believe our side will carry the day on this issue.
Second issue: the Establishment Clause question. Does the placement of a cross on what was once public land - but now private land - constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause? I believe the answer is 'no' and I am hopeful that's what a majority of the court will determine.
As you know, there were several spirited exchanges in court. One that caught my attention was this exchange between Chief Justice Roberts and ACLU attorney, Peter J. Eliasberg, about the text on the plaque - as reported by the New York Times.
________________________________________________________________________
The chief justice asked for the text of the plaque.
" 'This cross' -- in big letters -- 'erected in honor of the dead of foreign wars,' " Mr. Eliasberg responded.
A couple of minutes later, Chief Justice Roberts returned to the subject and corrected Mr. Eliasberg. The actual text on the plaque, the chief justice said, was more elaborate: "The cross, erected in memory of the dead of all wars, erected 1934 by members of Veterans of Foreign Wars, Death Valley Post 2884."
"That's a big difference," the chief justice said, explaining that the longer version made clear that the cross was not a government memorial.
________________________________________________________________________
I believe the court will reach the same conclusion about this war memorial as it did in a case that I argued last term.
In February, the high court ruled on our behalf in a case where a
While it is difficult to predict the outcome of any First Amendment case of this nature, I believe the court will conclude that the war memorial cross can stay.
To subscribe to "Lynn v. Sekulow" click here.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Boris,
IF Jesus existed? Do you know how many non-biblical texts confirm the historicity of Christ? You live in a dream world if you think the person of Jesus Christ never existed. That's anti-intellectual in the highest degree. But then, that doesn't surprise me; I've read your other posts before; you're obviously a tool!
The "secular purpose" trap
What happens if the one observing the Cross sees a purpose different from the one intended?
In other words -- I intend a little secular purpose. You come along and decide to see no secular purpose, and you, wanting 100% secular, sue cuz YOU say that there is no secular purpose.
So, how much "secular purpose" must there be in, say, putting up a cross? Must it be 100%? Does the Constitution require 100% secularity? If you say it does, why "Freedom of 'Religion'" as first mention in the Bill of Rights?
Atheists say they have no belief [though they do; they believe something]. Therefore, the First Amendment's "religion" clause doesn't apply to them.
Frank
October 21, 2009 12:27 AM
Boris,
IF Jesus existed? Do you know how many non-biblical texts confirm the historicity of Christ? You live in a dream world if you think the person of Jesus Christ never existed. That's anti-intellectual in the highest degree. But then, that doesn't surprise me; I've read your other posts before; you're obviously a tool!
-----------------------------------------------------------
Frank, you gotta understand that there are two Borises -- the regular Boris we never see here, and Bizarro Boris, the contrary one you see here all the time who is always on the wrong side all the time, too.
I am an average American who wonders how The Establishment Clause could be over turned. From what I have read, none of the cases that were used to establish this clause resulted in a state run religion. The Supreme Court has yet to make judgement on anyone act that has resulted in a state run religion, but is "prohibiting the free exercese thereof..." various religions because an act has occured. One act of religion doesn't establish a completed religion. Is there a method to over turning the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause. It's estamated that 86% of Americans believe in Jesus Christ. But the government continues to limit the majority of Americnans by limiting the free exercise of religion. Is there a way to bring a vote to the people over turning The Establishment Clause.
Frank...please show me the contemporay evidence that an individual known as Jesus the Christ existed. Josephus is often trotted out, but he lived a couple centuries after the supposed death of the alleged Jesus and references the Gospels as a source. Any "fact" that uses itself as a reference fails.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.