When I'm wrong, I admit it.
When I wrote about the Pleasant Grove v Summun case last week, I was incensed as well as flabbergasted that the vote was unanimous and that not a single Justice seemed to question the deeper issues.
I was wrong.
Frederick Clarkson at Talk to Action went more deeply into it than I had time to do and discovered that indeed one Justice had expressed misgivings.
Justice David Souter was the only one to worry about the religious establishment implications of Pleasant Grove City: "But the government could well argue, as a development of government speech doctrine, that when it expresses its own views, it is free of the Establishment Clause's stricture against discriminating among religious sects or groups. Under this view of the relationship between the two doctrines, it would be easy for a government to favor some private religious speakers over others by its choice of monuments to accept."
No shit, Sherlock.