I guess, just to hell with the rule of law as long as we can have a theocracy ...

This degenerates into 'well fuck, I guess we NEED a King'

It's how David became king of israel ...

And more like Central Africa's Bokassa (but white - or rather, orange).

. . . not David. See 1 Samuel, chapters 8, 9, and 10.

it's IN THE CONSTITUTION. What we might see, though, is an interpretation of it that purports to allow such displays.

..are these people too stupid to realize that?

when it asserts that a clause in the constitution will be found unconstitutional. If the author gets that fundamental issue wrong, it is unlikely I could rely on anything else the article has to offer.

Regardless - or, I should say, because of - its prominent place in the Constitution itself.

It's no secret that reich-wingers object to most of the U.S. Constitution - and see the Cheeto regime as their big chance to rescind most of it.

They may object to how it is being interpreted - which is an entirely different matter from finding the constitution itself unconstitutional.

But try telling this gang that.

strict constructionist, or originalism?

None of these justices are a bit interest in getting rid of the constitution. They just want it strictly construed, or rolled back to the meaning it had when it was written. Using a different standard for interpretation is a very different thing than wanting to declare an amendment to the constitution invalid.

"Originalism," for many years, was simply code for stripping away every amendment from the 14th onward - or at least for limiting their application as much as possible.

Sheer sophistry, and nothing more.

Now, of course, they're dispensing with that nuance outright, and simply pushing for the restriction - if not outright rescission - of any constitutional amendment or even article that stands in the way of authoritarian, Mussolini-style governance.

Luckily for us all, they don't have the last word on all that - for now.

Opening up the Constitution, giving them license to change all kinds of things!

One of the big underreported stories of the decade.

The news media aren't taking them seriously; but they should.

by making it so no one can sue.

And, although I realize that there are deep divisions on the court, I really can't imagine that a majority of the justices would abrogate such a key element of our Constitution.

And - on a lighter side - I think Kavanagh would want to replace the Peace Cross with a huge, shiny Beer Can.

that leaves Roberts and Kavenaugh. While neither of them may be willing to permanently shut the courthouse door to any plaintiff in any establishment case, they also have expressed skepticism about enforcing the establishment clause against Christians.

When an article contains something that is nonsense on its face, it isn't worth my time to read it. I would need to independently research it, since the author has already proven him/herself unreliable. So my pracitice is to completely ignore articles that contain obvious, blatantly invalid assertions.

but as a practical matter he is right. Gorsich's idea of how the court should work in those cases is that it would be impossible to sue for any violation of the clause.

is very different from declaring it unconstitutional.

unenforcable.

That is blatantly inaccuate making the rest of the article unreliable.

So it doesn't matter what his viewpoint is - I choose not to spend my time sorting out fact from fiction.

Gorsuch is talking about individuals standing to sue on that basis. Not the constitutionality of the contents of the constitution. It's an issue of standing. Not constitutionality.

I would be curious to see the full conversation, but the article for reasons unknown only includes a snippet. I wish it had a good analysis of that opinion, instead of wandering down a speculative path.

Anyway, I'm curious what vector Gorsuch believes is the correct way to sue the Feds for violating that aspect. I would speculate that he would say the states have that right to sue, but then I'm just speculating like the author.

An author that doesn't understand that a portion of the constitution cannot be found unconstitutional is not worth spending time with.

In a public park somewhere, and some apoplectic Christian sues the city to have it destroyed...


And the Court uses this case as a reason to tell them 'fuck right off.'

But, the next step in right wing fuckwittery is a judge denying it because we are a christian country.

manipulated that. How I don't know...it's quite clear what it means.

who clearly doesn't understand American constitutional law. The case that was referenced, Lemon v. Kurzman, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/403/602 , held that government funds could not be used to reimburse private schools for teachers' salaries, and that the statute permitting this was unconstitutional. The case gave rise to what's called the Lemon test:

The statute must have a secular legislative purpose.
The principal or primary effect of the statute must not advance nor inhibit religion.
The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

Factors to be considered are:
The character and purpose of the institution benefited.
The nature of aid the state provides.
The resulting relationship between government and religious authority.

If the Peace Cross is not religious, the Christian right will have no problems if someone puts it in a jar of urine.

What will they say/do when it is not their version of Christianity in charge?


http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/americas-true-history-of-religious-tolerance-61312684/?no-ist=;

Madison also made a point that any believer of any religion should understand: that the government sanction of a religion was, in essence, a threat to religion. "Who does not see," he wrote, "that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?" Madison was writing from his memory of Baptist ministers being arrested in his native Virginia.

That is in the fucking constitution!!!

Note, this probably won't be popular here, but I think you must take into account historical context

The monument wasn't built by the government and it's at, or approaching 100 years old. A similar example might be a church, or chapel that becomes a state, or city monument. Do you have to purge the religious stuff?

In other words, I think it falls into the same category of 'In Good we Trust' on our money.

I see the case very differently from ten commandment cases, ad.nauseum and many or establishment clause cases.

For me, it's a pretty clear.line and the monument doesn't not cross it.

We have historically used crosses to memorialize our war dead, especially 100 years ago. There are countless crosses in government cemeteries. I kind of see this as the same.

I agree. It is not a popular opinion here. But we have bigger fish to fry.

What does the cross signify if not Christianity?

can't establish a religion but a state can.

Gorsuch is talking about STANDING to sue as an individual in the case of establishment.

He's saying that you and I, or a group of us do not have such standing. To me, this is even worse than the incorrect conclusion that the author drew.

I would bet that Gorsuch believes that the States have the standing to sue, but not us.

Still I think the separation wall will not come down under any circumstances. One asshole appointed by an asshole does not make a complete Supreme Court.

I'm the ACLU. Get yer g&% d@^&% cross off MY government land. NOW!