In a blow to secularists and civil libertarians, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 in Greece v. Galloway to allow Christian prayers at a local council. The Court again left little clarity on the standard for future cases in what proved a highly fractured decision. Justice Anthony Kennedy tipped the balance in favor of the Town of Greece with Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Clarence Thomas. However, his opinion was left in pieces by a series of concurring opinions. Scalia and Thomas specifically bolted over Part II-B of Kennedy’s opinion (except as to Part II–B, concluding that the town’s prayer practice does not violate the Establishment Clause.) Alito wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Scalia. Justice Thomas also wrote a concurring opinion joined by Justice Scalia in part. Even the dissenting justices divided with a Breyer opinion for himself and a dissent by Kagan that was joined by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor. In other words, an unholy mess.
The record in the case was viewed by many as highly suspicious in how the council almost exclusively used Christian ministers while professing to be open to any faith, including atheists. The town followed an informal method for selecting prayer givers under which a town employee would call the congregations listed in local directory. That itself allowed for an obvious bias but also the town only had Christian ministers. Even Kennedy admitted that “from 1999 to 2007, all of the participating ministers were too.”
The prayers often referenced Jesus or Biblical passages:
“Lord we ask you to send your spirit of upon all of us gathered here this evening to do your work for the benefit of all in our community. We ask you to bless our elected and appointed officials so they may deliberate with wisdom and act with courage. Bless the members of our community who come here to speak before the board so they may state their cause with honesty and humility. . . . Lord we ask you to bless us all, that everything we do here tonight will move you to welcome us one day into your kingdom as good and faithful servants. We ask this in the name of our brother Jesus. Amen.” Id., at 45a.
“Lord, God of all creation, we give you thanks and praise for your presence and action in the world. We look with anticipation to the celebration of Holy Week and Easter. It is in the solemn events of next week that we find the very heart and center of our Christian faith. We acknowledge the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. We draw strength, vitality, and confidence from his resurrection at Easter. . . . We pray for peace in the world, an end to terrorism,violence, conflict, and war. We pray for stability, democracy, and good government in those countries in which our armed forces are now serving, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. . . . Praise and glory be yours, O Lord, now and forever more. Amen.”
Kennedy emphasized that the Court had long recognized a historical practice of prayers as not violating the establishment clause:
An insistence on nonsectarian or ecumenical prayer as a single, fixed standard is not consistent with the tradition of legislative prayer outlined in the Court’s cases. The Court found the prayers in Marsh consistent with the First Amendment not because they espoused only a generic theism but because our history and tradition have shown that prayer in this limited context could “coexis[t] with the principles of disestablishment and religious freedom.” 463 U. S., at 786.
Kennedy found no evidence of coercion in the use of the prayers by the Town of Greece:
Ceremonial prayer is but a recognition that, since this Nation was founded and until the present day, many Americans deem that their own existence must be understood by precepts far beyond the authority of government to alter or define and that willing participation in civic affairs can be consistent with a brief acknowledgment of their belief in a higher power, always with due respect for those who adhere to other beliefs. The prayer in this case has a permissible ceremonial purpose. It is not an unconstitutional establishment of religion.
Kennedy made clear that secular values would not replace religious values in such public meetings as a constitutional mandate and refused to require “chaplains to redact the religious content from their message in order to make it acceptable for the public sphere . . . Government may not mandate a civic religion that stifles any but the most generic reference to the sacred any more than it may prescribe a religious orthodoxy.”
This does not of course help those who do not believe in theism. I suppose, like Rome, when in Greece just learn to do as the Greeks do.
The case is Greece v. Galloway, 12-696. In my Supreme Court class, the students voted overwhelmingly to affirm by a vote of 11-1. The prediction was closer. Five of us thought that the Court would reverse the Second Circuit (which it did) and seven students thought the Court would affirm.
Here are the opinions.
Paul, As we have discussed previously, the very perceptive Jackie Robinson saw JFK as a paternalistic, limo liberal. And, Jackie knew white folk better than anyone!
If it wasn’t for men like JFK, who give yours truly something to believe in – my efforts in civility would have long since been abolished. Though Eric Holder has professed (on numerous occasions – even recent) that No One is Too Big to Jail – I find that to be hogwash.
And I sincerely believe in a Kennedy Administration – such would be different.
I like ProPublica’s take on the issues of “empty promises”.
How many “empty” promises can you bind to JFK?
http://www.propublica.org/thetrade/item/seeking-tough-justice-but-settling-for-empty-promises
david – the Kennedy’s were dragged kicking and screaming into civil rights movement. I am trying to get a significant piece of legislation that JFK got passed.
Paul Schulte wrote: “… the Kennedy’s were dragged kicking and screaming into civil rights movement. I am trying to get a significant piece of legislation that JFK got passed.”
I don’t see the Kennedy’s as monolithic as you do. JFK was different from Ted. JFK is actually the kind of Democrat I would vote for, but Ted was nowhere close to getting my vote. JFK did lower taxes, and he did push for a Civil Rights Act which Johnson pushed through to completion after Kennedy was assassinated. The Republicans drafted the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but Kennedy spearheaded it by meeting with the Republicans and sharing his vision of the legislation. Ever since JFK, the Democrats have been a pro-Civil rights party, which is a good thing. If it were not of JFK, I don’t think that would have happened. The only bad aspect about it is that they constantly lie and say that Republicans are against civil rights. Because liberals control the media, the poor and uneducated believe these lies. The resulting attitude of the Democrats, which is play my way by my rules or be labeled an obstructionist and hater, has led to gridlock in Congress.
Did you see any of the speeches from the White House Correspondent’s dinner? It was one of the most vicious and deplorable displays I have ever seen. Normally the speakers roast themselves, their own party, and poke fun at themselves. Instead they were calling Chris Christie a glutton and taking every opportunity to be vicious toward those they consider their political enemies. President Obama has been so much the opposite of JFK, destroying bridges of cooperation instead of building them.
Remember that JFK only served 3 years, yet he did much to inspire nationalism and patriotism, getting behind NASA (again, opposite Obama’s vision), reducing taxes, embracing civil rights, etc. JFK, despite his personal faults, was a true leader. Remember that it was an extreme liberal who killed him, not a conservative Republican.
david – that quote was paraphased as “Ask not what your country can do for you; but what you can do for the Kennedy’s.”
rafflaw and Mike – I think I am correct in saying that it is also not your job to decide where the discussion goes. I was talking about a specific conversation between Laser and myself, not anyone else or the rest of the thread. I don’t remember for sure who got us on the JFK track.
Paul,
The reason I stated it was ok was because it is not your job to decide where the discussion goes to. It has already gone back and forth on many related and non-related subjects as MIke correctly suggested so why should you try to steer anyone else away from what they want to say just because you want to somehow suggest JFK was not a good president.
Well said Mike.
Inasmuch as the subject is a Supreme Court opinion, I suggest that the thread was hijacked several days ago. Therefore, “deflection” is hardly an issue.
Laser – other than his children, we are trying to figure out exactly what JFK’s Presidential legacy is/was?
rafflaw – I am gettng conflicting stories about this deflection thingie. Some are saying it is hijacking and is baaaaaaaaaaaad. You are saying it is okay. In this case, I said I appreciated it, but I wanted to stay on the one topic. Is there a problem with that?
Laser, You have many compatriots who love the Kennedy clan, as do
Paul and I who don’t. My parents cried w/ joy when he was elected and wept in sorrow when he was killed. But, in the ensuing decades, used their good, blue collar, common sense to see who the Kennedy’s really are. They hate women, and women are their biggest demographic loving group. Irony.
John (“Jack”) Fitzgerald Kennedy gave his life in service of his country.
Even before that ultimate sacrifice – he had left upon U.S. his
LEGACY!
Paul,
Any deflection that Laser or anyone else wants to write, as long as it is civil, is not only proper, but encouraged.
JFK was from the realm of elite families upon the planet. A bootlegging family that fully understood public service. His greatness is defined by his wit, charm and the very fact that he took his job seriously.
Hubris was not his forte.
The Kennedy’s have paid the ultimate sacrifice for this country, in ways many and dear. But there was none greater than JFK, who is quoted – often. And not just quoted in stir up ramblings inane; but of major significance.
“Ask not what your country can do for you;
but what you can do for your country”.
He was defining from the outset!
Laser – we are trying to figure out what, besides quotations and bonking Marilyn Monroe, JFK actually accomplished as president.
Laser wrote: ““Ask not what your country can do for you; but what you can do for your country”.
Laser, this is probably one of the greatest quotes ever from any President. Why is it that only the Republicans seem serious about following Kennedy’s edict? The Democrats have for the most part abandoned this principle. Their entire philosophy is about why won’t the Republicans support the idea of asking what our country can do for its citizens. They view Republicans as obstructionists for embracing this quote from Kennedy.
LD:
The President is gay? Come on, you have got to be kidding?
If you all wish to get a grasp on the REAL facts of our country; then you should purchase both “Crossing the Rubicon” by Michael Ruppert (who recently committed suicide). And also read “Presidential Puppetry” by Andrew Kreig.
Human beings are imperfect by their very nature;
but they are still a wonderment – nonetheless.
Puppetry points out neat facts about the Bush lineage, how Romney’s law firm is the one and same who represented Howard Hughes (while fleecing him) and how that same firm switched side upon the demise of Hughes (to claim the remaining billion for the Mormon Church).
Obama – too – has many skeletons in his closet (including the fact that Obama should be coming out of one and the history of why Obama’s parents were meeting at a Russian language class in Hawaii).
The fact that a POTUS is human is not persuasive on the issue that they (in an opinion piece) – failed – their constituency. I know more (good & bad) about Obama than either “side” of the politico realm would ever admit is a fact.
And I still would vote for the guy – Again!
Laser – I appreciate the deflection, however we are concentrating just on JFK right now.
JFK killed the hat business. Men, like my old man, always wore brimmed hats, Stetson being a big maker, in public. Just look @ photos of crowd scenes like @ MLB games before and after JFK. Prior, all men wore hats, after JFK, they were gone. JFK loved showing off his well coiffed look and a hat didn’t allow that. Now, this is not a slam, just showing how powerful a prez can be.
Nick;
A reflection of facts (unbiased) would not utilize the vernacular of calling an assassinated POTUS as “poor performance”.
Errors in judgment – are errors.
This does not make a leader into a “poor performer”;
especially when the end result was a Cold War.
Instead of a Nuclear War!
It is easy to cast dispersion’s from the cheap seats;
but it doesn’t bode well for the caster to disparage the slain.
As a “teacher” – you (should) understand diplomacy better than average. One who runs the most powerful nation in the world is never “fit” for the tasks (voluminous) at hand – without some experience. Even then, getting it wrong is par for the course (on occasion).
JFK remains an icon and inspiration.
Please consider choosing your words better?
Respect is – as respect does!
Laser – we are trying to figure out just what JFK did that we should be inspired by him.
Laser, I am not an expert but I do know a lot about he Cold War. It wasw my specialty in teaching history. I made the Cold War fascinating to kids. I always wished I could have taken students to the Spy Museum in DC.
Laser, If giving an accurate account of history is “disparaging” then put me down as a serial “disparager.” By KENNEDY’S OWN ADMISSION he screwed up in Vienna. So, I guess Kennedy is also a “disparager?”