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.
Schulte: “So making distinctions is all right.”
It’s not only alright, it’s an important and under-rated skill.
————————————————————–
I honestly don’t recall where Bill stood on the the Iraqi invasion, and I’m not sure it matters. As I said, Hillary was wrong to vote in favor of it and I’m not going to obsess about how she arrived at that decision.
————————————————————–
“So, you are saying that LBJ was a military lightweight?”
Not sure what you mean by lightweight. I recommend you read the book, Path to Power. As feynman and I have said, it’s fascinating .
At various times throughout his lifetime, LBJ displayed a remarkable sense of calm in times of great danger, whether it was on a combat mission or during a harrowing helicopter landing on the campaign trail.
————————————————————-
Once again, Kennedy was not sent into the theater of war as a result of any kind of punishment. He demanded to go into action and used his father’s influence to override medical restrictions, which is heroic enough, but then his valor helped save the men under his command.
It’s also important to note that JFK was not married until after the war, in 1953. So perhaps you and maybe Dick Cheney would like to condemn a single man – a sailor no less – who’s doing everything he can to get into battle to fight for his country, maybe you’d like to condemn him for wanting to get laid for possibly the last time, but I suspect the overwhelming number of humans would give him a pass.
You continue making this unsupported claim, or repeating an unsupported claim, that Kennedy was sent into battle as punishment, against all the evidence to the contrary. I have to think that you believe if you repeat often enough, the story will become true, or at least gain acceptance. Feel free to persist in this fantasy. I can no longer indulge it. Your need to denigrate JFK’s war record seems almost pathological in its desperation.
I’m not sure why it’s become so difficult to accept the fact that Kennedy was a war hero who did some good things after he became president. I have no trouble accepting the fact that he was a flawed man who committed infidelities during his marriage, and had a mixed record of success as President.
RTC – just thought I would add this to the mix on JFK. Just found it.
During WWII JFK was a security risk at the Pentagon for his well-known affair with Nazi spy Ingrid Arvad
They are auctioning some Jackie letters complaining about JFK.
http://nypost.com/2014/05/13/jackie-kennedys-letters-to-priest-reveal-loneliness-suspicion/
Oh that’s ok I understand your pain, but the brothers Dulles is a much better read.
declare = declared
Yeah but Prescott Bush was one who opposed the US entry to WWII. Only senator that has had his assets for trading with the enemy. And to think he’s the dynasty that started the bush disasters.
Keebler – this is very interesting and I have gone out and read more. I am sure you are aware that at the same time the Jewish run movie studios in Hollywood, except for one, were working hand-in-glove with the Nazis. And today movie studios, run by vaunted liberals who flog their money to Obama, Democrats and liberal causes, are making deals with the Chinese to get their films on their screens.
You are also aware that we did not declare war on Germany first, we only declare war after Hitler was kind enough to declare war on us. And he only did it because for all intents and purposes, FDR was committing war acts against Germany on a regular basis and Hitler and his generals felt they were already at war with the USA.
Feynman:
the problem wasnt doing something after 9/11, the problem was doing the right thing. The Patriot Act was a terrible idea.
Invading Iraq wasnt a bad idea if your ultimate goal was to wage a 2 front war against Iran which is the philosophical epi-center, my opinion, for Islamic craziness in this world.
I just dont think the boys in the Bush administration really thought it through enough. Smart people always think they are able to control all of the permutations which occurr as a result of human action.
It is what drives the liberals and socialists, etc. in their belief about controlling the economy. You can plan to a point but the troops on the ground need to have discretion of action once the objective is identified by policy makers and military strategists.
The problem with Saddam was that he was paying the ‘martyr’s’ families so it was financially rewarding to attack the US. Then he was unkind enough to invade Kuwait.
some woman wasnt it?
Yeppers, Byron. Rankin of MT
The political atmosphere after 9/11 was ‘you’re either with us or against us’. Flag wrapping ruled the day. The administration pulled out all stops in the effort to get us into Iraq. All media fell into line. Only one congressman had the courage to fight against the tide. It wasn’t Hillary.
Only one Congressperson voted against both our entry into WWI and WWII. It is a trivia question.
Paul Schulte wrote: “Only one Congressperson voted against both our entry into WWI and WWII.”
It was a Republican.
Jeannette Rankin, the first woman member of Congress.
That was back before the liberals had maligned Republicans as having a war against women, being warmongers, and being the party of racism. It is amazing how Democrats have gained votes and standing through subterfuge.
Chuck: Not only honest and mathematically accurate, but hilarious.
And I appreciate the deflection.
Also, the last thing I have to say about Kennedy’s time in the service is that he was positively eager to get into action, which was not uncommon during WWII, particularly for anyone interested in going into politics after the war.
Mark Caro relates a fascinating episode where LBJ goes on a single combat mission simply for the sake of saying he was in action during the war.
RTC – so, you are saying that LBJ was a military lightweight?
Schulte: Why would I support the bugging of MLK? I think it’s entirely possible to criticize someone’s actions without making blanket condemnations. Bush did several things that I approved of even though I disagreed with the overwhelming majority of his actions as President.
It’s called making distinctions, something I think lawyers consider important.
RTC – So making distinctions is all right. It is fine if I like the fact that Kennedy bugged MLK because of his communists friends, but dislike that they played the tapes at DC cocktail parties? It is okay that I think JFK is a womanizer who wound up in the Pacific because he could not keep his pants buttoned, but think he was a hero for PT109?
David: You make a pretty good point about Bush riding the wave of popular opinion to take into Afghanistan, but I think there was less enthusiasm for going into Iraq. Nevertheless, your point is well taken. And that Hilary voted in favor of the Iraqi war does redound to her credit.
RTC – Bill was supporting the Iraqi War how could Hillary not. The sold themselves as one brain, two persons.
Chuck,
Great video link from John Oliver.
Pete,
You used to be funny, well I think you still are.
pete, You used to be funny. Now you’re just a curmudgeon.
Nick Spinelli
Smarter and tougher people than you have tried. I’m here, they’re gone.
========================================
brown nosing does have its rewards
Paul S
Goldwater made the decision to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964. His stance was based on his view that the act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of states and that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do or not do business with whomever they chose.[18] In the segregated city of Phoenix in the 1950s, he had quietly supported civil rights for blacks, but would not let his name be used
Further, check with Nick on what Jackie Robinson said when the GOP nominated Goldwater for president.
I wonder when Bush and Cheney will be arrested:
http://americanotstandingstill.com/tag/bushs-close-calls-as-international-fugitive-from-justice/
Keebler – I think Obama and Biden will be on a no-fly list, too.
Feynman, RTC excellent posts.
Paul Schulte – excellent posts, right on topic, to the point.
RTC – do you support Kennedy bugging MLK?