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.
And what RTC said about Kennedy’s important role.
How to have an honest and mathematically accurate debate about climate.
African-Americans fought and won their battles by themselves with some help from the courts. There was no movement in Congress or by either party. Both parties were old white men and there were no firebrands amongst them. The first small and rather weak (thanks to powerful southern Dems) civil rights bill was in 1957 pushed by LBJ. It was the first such bill since reconstruction. Brown v Board was in 1954. Ike wasn’t enthusiastic, but to his credit he did send the troops to Little Rock. Other than Dirksen you aren’t going to read about a lot of Republicans fighting for Civil Rights. And he just agreed to work with JFK.
Civil Rights was won by civil resistance – coalitions of thousands of groups which, of course, included MLK Jr. It was sit-ins, boycotts and freedom riders. There were white activists but it was African-Americans who won the fight. At last the country was ready.
Congress and Kennedy seeing the handwriting on the wall (and growing unrest) began to write some legislation. After Kennedy was shot, LBJ pushed it through. I repeat, his legislative work on civil rights dated back to 1957. If you’ve read Caro, he had supported a kind of civil rights since he was a teacher in TX.
But the only white men’s names you can ascribe to civil rights is Ike, JFK, and LBJ.
and LBJ deserves all the credit for the legislation. The record shows he worked on it since 1957.
Now if you’re ready to do something more than spit out some numbers regarding the work of some white Republicans leaders leading the charge, I’m ready to listen.
It is going to hurt your little feelers, but Barry Goldwater helped found the NAACP in Phoenix. And if whites had not marched with blacks, the civil rights movement would be where it was in 1960
Shulte: easy to see why you would appreciate someone’s deflection, you do it so often. I believe the topic rolled around to Kennedy because you and a couple of others were putting forth a series of calumnious charges against Democratic politicians, particularly Sen. Cleland, for which you memorably turned to the Georgia State encyclopedia at one point.
Turning your attention to Kennedy, you failed to persuade anyone that Kennedy was anything less than valorous in the Pacific during the war. (I realize that you had a peanut gallery’s worth of support, but they were prepared to believe the worst about Kennedy.) So now you want to know what he did that had any lasting positive effect.
It is this. He federalized the Alabama National Guard in a faceoff with George Wallace over integrating the University of Alabama. By doing so, he brought the nation’s focus to bear on the ugly condition of racism in the South, and ultimately the country as a whole.In doing so, he hastened the passage of civil rights laws immeasurably.
In the process of this showdown, he strengthened the role of the federal govt in ensuring the rights of citizens, and altered the balance of state and federal power – a good thing in my view.
Kennedy also increased the role of the presidency in American politics. You ask what legislation did he ever pass. That misses the point. Symbolism is a huge part of the President’s role. Presidents rarely lead from the front; their success lies in reading public opinion, sensing how far out in front they can get without incurring resistance and far in back they can be without appearing out of touch. Their success is measured by how far they can effectively guide the public. Kennedy prepared this nation for the difficult process of confronting race relations in this country, which have not fully healed since the Civil War.
Very complicated to integrate a race into a society while another race is still saying, “We used to own you guys.” Not as easy as you think, or as easy as the Robert’s Court would tell you.
Bush was amazing in that he literally pulled this country into the messes we’re in.
RTC – the Georgia encyclopedia was Chuck’s idea not mine. Blame him if you have a problem with it. Again, since you seem hard pressed to try to brush me with others handiwork, I said that Kennedy did not get to the Pacific because he was an honorable man. Not that he was not honorable when he was there. Yes, he nationalized the Alabama National Guard but he got no legislation thru and he approved the bugging of MLK.
RTC wrote: “He federalized the Alabama National Guard in a faceoff with George Wallace over integrating the University of Alabama.”
Excellent point about how Kennedy stood up to the racist Democrat George Wallace. Don’t forget that he did the same thing with Tuskegee High School. Using the National Guard to protect individual constitutional rights was bold. It clearly demonstrated Kennedy’s leadership. Kennedy used federal Marshals to protect freedom riders that Democrat Governor Patterson refused to protect. Kennedy also sent the National Guard to Ole Miss that enabled James Meredith to enroll. Kennedy, being a Catholic, addressed the nation and defined the civil rights crisis as a moral issue as well as a constitutional and legal issue.
I enjoyed your informative post, except for the last two sentences. People so easily forget the social and political climate after 911 that put Bush in a position of responding. Bush did not act alone in a vacuum, and even Democrat Hillary Clinton voted with Bush. Bush had a 90% approval rating after 911. I don’t agree with everything Bush did, but 911 forever changed this country and our understanding of the threat of terrorists. Bush was in the hot seat and needed to respond. You claim he pulled the country into the messes, but I would say he was pushed. The problem for me is that he held the course of war for too long and established Islamic governments which are contrary to the values of religious liberty that we embrace.
Shulte: You ask for citation about my claims of Chief Justice Roberts. Jan Crawford Greenberg wrote an article shortly after his nomination to the Court chronicling John Roberts background and his written legal record. In it, she stated that Roberts was repulsed by the protest movements against the war in Vietnam, as well as what he viewed as the cultural slide in morals. I had saved the piece, which stretched over several full pages, until just this winter when I pitched it into the recycling bin during an office purge.
Sorry, but a cursory search failde to turn up the article. so that’s the best I can do.
RTC – I am sure you can track it down. But I wonder what difference it makes. He was on his last year in college when the war ended. He is not like Kerry who claimed he and everyone else was a war criminal.
You wrote a lot but you didn’t say a damn thing. Sorta like a politician. Smart people know that when you’re in a hole the first thing to do is to STOP digging. You just brought in a backhoe.
Easy as pie to copy the stats:
Vote totals
Totals are in “Yea–Nay” format:
The original House version: 290–130 (69–31%).
Cloture in the Senate: 71–29 (71–29%).
The Senate version: 73–27 (73–27%).
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289–126 (70–30%).
By party
The original House version:[19]
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[20]
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:[19]
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[19]
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)
By party and region
Note: “Southern”, as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. “Northern” refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
—————————
I would suggest that the breakdown by party and region offer the best information – that is the North was ready to vote for Civil Rights – the segregationist South was not. And the Southern Republicans were as opposed as Southern Democrats. It would be interesting to learn about the breakdown of the Western states by party.
Every time my daughter wants to make pizza she sheepishly calls me for my recipe. I have given it to her verbally and via email @ least a dozen times! Last week we drove up to The Cities, I took my son-in-law to Game 3 of the Wild/Hawks Stanley cup series. My artsy bride framed the recipe and we hung it on her kitchen wall. I won’t do the same. I went over this for just last week for the historically challenged.
LBJ wanted his party to be more than just a tepid supporter of the historic 1964 Civil Rights act. A Dem vote below 50% would have been a disgrace. So, LBJ whipped the Dem Caucus HARD. The vote, as related JUST LAST WEEK was, after whipping by the master whipper, LBJ was:
House: Dem Rep
63% 80%
Senate: Dem Rep
69% 82%
These FACTS are being offered to counter the stupid assertion that Jackie Robinson should have gone w/ the more enlightened Dems in 1960. If the Civil Rights Act were to have been voted on in 1960, almost certainly Dems would have been under 50%. Rep would have still been in the 80th percentile. Fat Al Gore’s old man voted NO.
Paul,
I only know what you claim. Nor should I know anything else. The comparison between the peer reviewed science on global climate change and secret orders, etc. apples and oranges.
Also, go and review your statements about JFK and the PT boats.
rafflaw – the peer reviewed science on global warming is a scientific joke. The peers control the journals, do the articles and review each other. The make sure that anyone who disagrees with them is not peer reviewed. Paleoclimitology is a very small field. Michael Mann just won another round where he protected his ‘data’ from outside evaluation claiming it was proprietary.
When I was taking my science classes we learned, evidently falsely, that the key to science was that other people could duplicate what you did using your data. That seems to no longer hold true.
Paul wrote: “The peers control the journals, do the articles and review each other.”
Yeah, most people do not understand exactly how the peer review process works. You usually have like 3 other reviewers in your field critique your paper and judge it suitable or unsuitable for publication. In many situations, it is a way to introduce subjectivity and confirmation bias into the publication if your reviewers are working from the same paradigm.
I once had a paper rejected simply because the reviewer could not understand the math involved. When I applied a logarithmic transformation to the data in order to use linear regression analysis instead of curvilinear regression analysis, then the paper suddenly became suitable for publication. I thought using the untransformed data made more sense, but sometimes you have to dumb down the results so others can follow along. The overall results led to the same conclusion, so I wasn’t complaining too much. From what I understand, the problem with Mann’s data transformations is that they also selectively discard data they don’t like.
I was thinking recently about how much debate there is over President Kennedy’s assassination. Here is an event observed by many and analyzed carefully by numerous scientists, yet look at how many different theories there are about his assassination. If that happens with an event caught on video and carefully scrutinized and analyzed, we hardly have any chance with scientifically analyzing climate change, especially when the raw data the papers are based upon is not shared.
Not worthy of response.
Nick,
You’re correct but wrong century. Try the 1860s.
Paul,
Sorry, but being an alleged Independent does not answer or respond to the issue. You are claiming that JFK didn’t do anything, didn’t really earn his status in the military and as an independent, wouldn’t the Republicans who will not be dragged into agreeing with prevailing science, equal rights for women in the workplace or marriage equality, just to name a few issues. You don’t have to be a Republican to agree or disagree with the statement. Why would you be afraid of the specter of the GOP?
rafflaw – I never said anything about Kennedy and PT109 except about how he ended up in that assignment.
Do you have any proof that I am not an independent? Prevailing science says a lot of things that are not true. When you have ‘scientists’ who claim their data is confidential and therefore not open to being verified by others, I always have doubts. I have the same doubts about secret orders, secret courts, secret decision and double secret probation.
Nick,
Perhaps this will provide a better understanding
The 1950s had been, like much of the preceding 80 years, a period of stagnation for civil rights. The Democratic Party was split between northern liberals and southern segregationists, resulting in perpetual paralysis — the Party was afraid that it would fracture over civil rights (correctly, as it turned out) and so Southerners got a high degree of deference. Segregationists also controlled key committee posts in Congress, which allowed them to block civil rights bills before they could be considered by the full House or Senate. President Harry Truman, a Democrat, made some gestures towards civil rights in the late 1940s, but these were calculated to deflect attacks from the left by Henry A. Wallace, his former Secretary of Commerce and the Progressive Party candidate for president in 1948 and the proposals predictably died in Congress. The New Deal, with its focus on raising the living standards of the poor, did help African Americans economically (however grudgingly some southern administrators delivered it), but equal civil and political rights were off limits.
——————–
That’s a quick (even ‘facile’ – second definition) description of post WWII Democratic Party civil rights policy.
Now, can you provide a view of the Republican Party’s policies during the same period – perhaps something a bit meatier than a three word catch phrase?
It appears someone here thinks Al is smarter than Jackie.
Paul, That’s racist. Just doing a preemptive strike.
Byron regarding my use of ‘facile’.
Why the preferred, the first definition, of course.
Nick,
I don’t believe most smart, respected men who live in Greenwich, CT who become active in civil rights base their positions and judgements of presidents upon seeing whatever it is you call a limo liberal.
And here’s another one of my questions: how can one be both paternalistic and disinterested in civil rights? I’ll give you disinterested, but how does that jibe with paternalistic?
Here is a morning palate cleanser
rafflaw – I am a registered Independent. Raising the specter of the GOP does not frighten me. 🙂
Feynman, You are unworthy of debate. The Dem party in 1960 was the racist party, and still were in 1964.
Thought you would enjoy this article on the accomplishments of JFK
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/progjfk4.htm