« Dear Sheilagh: Suggestions for Improving the Washington Post | Main | You Got a Problem With That? »


In the article I read, it indicated that this was a "Free Speech" case only; it did not rule on the Establishment Clause. I'm no lawyer, but I think what needs to happen is a challenge based on a violation of the Establishment Clause. Then we can go in this direction:

"The Rev. Barry Lynn of the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State reacted to Wednesday's ruling by saying all permanent religious symbols should be removed from government-owned parks."

I am a lawyer, and I agree with the comment above. The case had no bearing on the separation of church and state (Establishment Clause). The court held that the monument was government speech, which is not subject to the Free Speech Clause. They did not review the monument under the Establishment Clause, which is a much more nuanced and complicated analysis when it comes to monuments, nativity scenes, etc.

Isn't the definition of "obscene" as regards to free speech delegated to each community?

The Miller Standard:
The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Relegating constitutional rights to tyranny of "contemporary community standards" is a 30 year old precedent under US law.

Roberts and Alito know exactly how fast to turn up the temperature towards their vision of a boiling pot of republican (ie failed) legal orthodoxy.

Every ruling for the next 30 years from these clowns will inch us towards dictatorship and doom.

We need to change our constitution, limit the terms of Supreme Court Justices (for life justices waiting for the political climate to change as their health deteriorates is just stupid), give the president one 5 year term, do away with the electoral college and get special elections for vacant senate seats.

But like Rome, the ruling class is too entrenched to make the obvious changes to meet a crisis.

To the lawyers:

Maybe. Here's the problem. While you're right technically you're almost certainly wrong in practical terms. I am assuming here (and I should have made that clearer) that this ruling will be used in Establishment Clause suits by the right-wing to prove that the Supreme Court has set a precedent in the Free Speech area that must of necessity be applied to EC cases because the core of the decision was about the right of local govts to control religious access to public spaces.

But if you want to return to arguing this under FS, they're still wrong because the argument is the same: can a group be deprived of their right of speech, whether about religion or anything else, simply because they represent viewpoints not part of the "community consensus" and not backed by a govt-approved organization? Of course not.

We both know that a religious monument should never have been allowed space in a public park to begin with but having done it for one, they are now required to allow any other religious group with the money and interest to do it, otherwise they are favoring one form of speech over another, allowing one and forbidding another when there is no justifiable, logical, or coherent reason for doing so.

The most damnable part of this decision to me is the rationale that the local govt may ignore the rights of a minority if not ignoring them would be "inconvenient". If that isn't unConstitutional, I don't know what is.

My objection stands. (Read it again; it doesn't rise or fall on the religious question.)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Bang for the Buck: Boosting the American Economy

Compassionate Conservatism in Action


  • "We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war."

  • Photobucket


  • "[O]ur time, our energy, should be spent in educating, agitating, organizing our fellow citizens in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in the schools. Our objective should be to build, painstakingly, patiently but energetically, a movement that, when it reaches a certain critical mass, would shake whoever is in the White House, in Congress, into changing national policy on matters of war and social justice."


  • "True religion will not let us fall asleep in the comfort of our freedom. Love thy neighbor is not a piece of advice, it's a command. ...

    God, my friends, is with the poor and God is with us, if we are with them. This is not a burden, this is an adventure."

The Reverend Al Sharpton

  • Ray wasn't singing about what he knew, 'cause Ray had been blind since he was a child. He hadn't seen many purple mountains. He hadn't seen many fruited plains. He was singing about what he believed to be.

    Mr. President, we love America, not because of all of us have seen the beauty all the time.

    But we believed if we kept on working, if we kept on marching, if we kept on voting, if we kept on believing, we would make America beautiful for everybody.


  • ''With adequate profit, capital is very bold. A certain 10 percent will ensure its employment anywhere; 20 percent will produce eagerness, 50 percent positive audacity; 100 percent will make it ready to trample on all human laws; 300 percent, and there is not a crime which it will not scruple, nor a risk it will not run, even to the chance of its owner being hanged.''

Join Us!

  • Member, Project Hamad

Happy 71st Anniversary Social Security!

  • Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting


Become a Proud Member of the Guppy Army



Count Me, Damnit!

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 01/2004

Oh, I've Won Awards

alternative hippopotamus

Paperwight's Fair Shot

Your Liberal Media