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.
David: I don’t want to be unnecessarily disparaging. How about if I simply say your argument that women’s choice don’t need to be codified as rights is specious? You OK with that? Cuz it works for me.
I never said that there aren’t competing interests in the decision to terminate a pregnancy. Nor have I ever said that women should undergo abortions as casually as a pedicure. You’re making assumptions and putting words i my mouth.
I wish we lived in a world where abortions were unnecessary, but not at the expense of limiting women’s sexual freedom. I share your believe that late term abortion should be illegal, except when it’s necessary to protect the life and the health of the mother. And I don’t think abortion should be used as a rudimentary form of birth control, which is why I view abstinence only approaches as flawed and unworkable. Access to contraceptives is essential to preventing abortions.
There is an ongoing effort in some states to make abortion illegal across the board. Simultaneously, efforts are taking place to teach abstinence only in school sex education programs while omitting any mention of contraceptives, in addition to making it illegal for sexually active minors to have access to contraceptives. That’s a recipe for increasing abortions.
And if women don’t speak up for their rights, the moralizing religious nutjobs of this country will reduce them to the status of breeding stock.
RTC –
This is one of the most demeaning statements about women I have ever seen on this blog. If they women on here do not take you to task for this it is to their everylasting shame.
RTC wrote: “I never said that there aren’t competing interests in the decision to terminate a pregnancy. Nor have I ever said that women should undergo abortions as casually as a pedicure. You’re making assumptions and putting words i my mouth.”
Then the idea that Reproductive Choice is a woman’s right is false. Reproductive choice involves many rights, including the rights of a man and of the unborn. Do you agree?
RTC wrote: “I wish we lived in a world where abortions were unnecessary, but not at the expense of limiting women’s sexual freedom.”
Why not acknowledge that so-called “sexual freedom” is not so important as to trump the right to life of the unborn? Why do you hold sexual freedom as so important? I think the woman’s choice is most firm before she chooses to have sexual relations. Once she chooses to have sexual relations, she takes upon herself duties and obligations that limit her freedom and right to choose. Why would this analysis bother anybody?
RTC wrote: “I share your believe that late term abortion should be illegal, except when it’s necessary to protect the life and the health of the mother. And I don’t think abortion should be used as a rudimentary form of birth control, which is why I view abstinence only approaches as flawed and unworkable.”
I do not support abstinence only approaches to sex education. We really are not that far apart on this issue.
RTC wrote: “There is an ongoing effort in some states to make abortion illegal across the board.”
It will not happen. Only about 20% want that, with an equal percentage wanting unfettered access to abortion at all times.
RTC wrote: “And if women don’t speak up for their rights, the moralizing religious nutjobs of this country will reduce them to the status of breeding stock.”
I think it is far more noble for men to speak up for women’s rights. They need to define those rights accurately and compare them with the rights of others.
I do not believe your statement here that moralizing religious people will reduce women to the status of breeding stock. For thousands of years, throughout human history actually, there have been great women leaders, going all the way back to before the time of Miriam, the sister of Moses. Religion did not keep Deborah from being the highest Judge in the land, nor did it keep Esther from becoming a Queen who would save the Jews from a holocaust.
Elaine – I might have voted for womanizer Bill Clinton, but I did not like ball buster Hillary.
There are millions of women who prefer to be more than cookie bakers. Some people understood what Hillary was saying. There were also people at that time in our country’s history–as there are today–who think that a woman should know her place. Strident is in the eyes of the beholder. Many of us who were forward looking women with careers understood and agreed with Hillary.
RTC, Come on man, Hilary backed away from that cookie comment immediately. You’re being disingenuous to say that comment is why Clinton won and you know it. He won in spite of that gaffe. And as we know, a gaffe in politics is when someone actually says what they really think.
RTC – got to go with Nick on the Hillary cookie comment. As I recall she said and she was pretty pissy about it.
Paul, Both Oprah and Steadman adopted gays.
Nick – I do not really keep up, but I was unaware that either Oprah or Steadman had adopted anyone.
But if you prefer same sex adoption that is okay, too.
“We are becoming a disturbingly increasing narcissistic culture.”
You can thank Oprah.
——————————————————–
Hilary’s comment about not choosing to stay at home and bake cookies was one of the most effective political campaign statements in modern times, and helped launch the Clinton’s into the White House. Apparently, you misunderstand the messsage, which resonated with millions of women across the country.
——————————————————–
” blown by a wind to random destinations.”
Sums up Byron’s philosophical believes.
——————————————————-
His desperate search for “safe harbor” is crying out with fear. What Byron and DavidM have done is underpin their views with insecurity.
Is there a Dr. in the house?
——————————————————–
Schulte: What do you have against old Hispanic gangsters?
———————————————————
There used to be someone here who could have determined how little you know about Aristotelian and Stoic philosophy.
——————————————————–
You refer me to Westmoreland v. CBS? Why? Does it have anything to do with Frontline?
Let me refer you to…uh…to…ummm…well…to, uh, have a nice day. How’s that!
Paul S, Of course you can. 🙂
RTC – I knew a few OGs in my day. Had nothing against them.
I do wish you could connect the dots without my having to do it for you.However, I refuse to take you by the hand and lead you to knowledge anymore.
I am sure that your buddy is happy at his own little blog, blogging away about philosophy. I think he made a star turn here a couple of weeks ago, but few cheered his arrival.
David m, Are you opposed to gay adoptions?
SWM – I didn’t know you could adopt gays.
swarthmoremom wrote: “Are you opposed to gay adoptions?”
No.
David, We are becoming a disturbingly increasing narcissistic culture. Technology is feeing it. So, a big yes to what Byron said about us not having a guiding philosophy. I grew up in a blue collar home but where religion and philosophy were important. I took 24 credit in religion and philosophy in college. We understand the need for core values and have them. As Byron pointed out, too many people have a core or even know they need one.
The uncomfortable truth was uttered by Hillary during her husband’s first election. She said, “Well, I could have stayed home and baked cookies.” Of course, Carville and Stephanopolous got her mind right on that comment and she backpedaled like a cornerback covering a wide receiver. Now, not all liberal women think that way. I remember when that was said and my sister, wife, and some liberal friends[my wife is liberal] were taken aback. I also remember some women applauding her for saying that. In the ensuing decades since Hillary had the misfortune of speaking the unspeakable truth, I have seen that condescending attitude begin to wane.
Our daughter[Obama twice] and most of her friends find that attitude appalling. And, since those words were uttered by Hillary, I have seen an increase in the traditional wedding ceremonies. I see young women following the “conservative” path of graduating from high school or college, starting a career, but putting that career on hold to do the MOST IMPORTANT JOB in any culture, raising children. My wife and I laugh @ how 20 something kids have in some respects gone back to our parents, and even grandparents ethos. My wife and I got married in a park by a judge and had a small reception, with good food[Italian influence]. We paid for everything and never even considered having our parents pay. I never even considered asking my wife’s father “for her hand.” Hell, I know neither of our fathers did. My maternal grandfather was an alcoholic who was incarcerated when my parents got married. My wife’s parents eloped. But, my wonderful son-in-law nervously asked me for permission to marry my daughter. I was shocked! He is also liberal from Minnesota.
What I’m saying is the philosophy that “I could have stayed home and baked cookies” is becoming archaic. Back in the 60’s/70’s that strident attitude did serve a function. Because most women didn’t feel like they had a choice. To change a cultural norm takes stridency. But, what I see going on here are old soldiers fighting an old war. Our children have a choice. Some women do choose to follow the strident path. Being a libertarian, I say great. But, more and more are choosing the traditional path, and that too is great. The war is over women. Just ask your daughters.
Nick, It’s great that people have a choice in life, but I call your attention to Byron’s excellent analysis:
“Most people don’t even know the philosophical basis from which they operate. They go through life as if blown by a wind to random destinations. They have no way to steer back to the path that will lead them to a safe port and so they fester and die in a miserable existence wondering why they never reached safe harbour and why the journey was so terrible.”
RTC – may I refer you to Westmoreland v CBS
davidm said:
“When women usurp the role of men, and women keep the talents they have that men lack, it leads to men feeling unnecessary, worthless, and disrespected. Many men in such relationships won’t work. They basically become bums. It has led to all kinds of financial problems in marriages and arguments about it. Ultimately, many marriages have been destroyed by it.”
What male roles would it be that women usurp making men feel worthless, unnecessary, and disrespected? It would seem to me if a man felt secure in his own manhood no woman could make him feel less of a man. I pity the poor fellows who blame women because they feel emasculated. Maybe they should look in the mirror and ask themselves what the real problem is.
I can tell you this–when my husband does his own laundry and cooks dinner, I don’t feel any less of a woman…I don’t feel unnecessary, worthless, and disrespected. I feel happy!
DavidM: My wife and I have the same running joke. It’s like Schulte said, “happy wife, happy life.”
I find your line of reasoning eristic in the sense that if women’s reproductive choices aren’t recognized as rights, the states have demonstrated a willingness to legislate against them.
Schulte: Frontline reports the truth. You come from a place where the truth is a liberal bias. For the record, Greenspan and Dole were interviewed for the program and neither disclaimed the report afterwards. So, whatever
RTC wrote: “I find your line of reasoning eristic in the sense that if women’s reproductive choices aren’t recognized as rights, the states have demonstrated a willingness to legislate against them.”
The word “eristic” is not the right word choice here. It is unnecessarily disparaging. It implies that my line of reasoning is not serious but made simply for the sake of arguing. It would be more cordial for you to simply say that you find my reasoning faulty because … [state your reasons]
I don’t have a problem with States being willing to legislate against abortion. Even in Roe v. Wade, the right of the unborn was recognized. That decision said that States could legislate against late term abortions, and that as science advanced, the period of time for which they legislated would be earlier and earlier because advances in science lead to earlier times of viability.
The problem with reproductive choice being an absolute 100% right of the mother is that such a notion is false. You treat abortion like a woman’s right to clip her nails. It is nowhere near that simple.
When a woman engages in reproduction, at least two other parties become involved, and often more than that. The man with whom she has sexual relations has rights. Without his donation of genetic material, there would be no baby. Should not the father’s rights be considered? Does a wife have the right to an abortion without the husband even knowing about it? Then you have the right to life of the unborn. The SCOTUS used viability outside the womb to recognize rights of the unborn, but what makes that rationality better than another line of thinking that the woman has a duty and obligation to her unborn child to nourish it and care for it to birth and beyond birth?
The sooner the pro-choice people acknowledge that there exist competing rights of the mother, the father, and the unborn child or children, the sooner resolution can be reached about the morality of abortion and the rights of the mother concerning her reproductive choices.
Paul S, “Young Hispanic males are not “men” until they get some girl pregnant, so they start as early as they can.” Wow… I knew many young hispanic males when we lived in Texas. They were not interested in getting a girl pregnant. They were interested in getting into a good college and one of them is now doing his residency and engaged to another resident. Don’t think she is pregnant. Good grief.
SWM – maybe I should have prefaced that by saying young Hispanic gangsters.
David:
Philosophy has a huge impact on a person’s life. Most people dont even know the philosophical basis from which they operate. They go through life as if blown by a wind to random destinations. They have no way to steer back to the path that will lead them to a safe port and so they fester and die in a miserable existence wondering why they never reached safe harbour and why the journey was so terrible.
Byron – having once taught Philosophy (and I do mean once) I stumbled upon my philosophy of life, which is actually a combination of two philosophies.
Paul wrote: “I stumbled upon my philosophy of life, which is actually a combination of two philosophies.”
And those philosophies are.. ?
Aristotelian and Stoic.
RTC – Frontlne is liberal
Wow,David. I give your comment a big two thumbs down. I don’t think you’ve even analyzed Hollywood films correctly.
In the interests of civility, all I can say is, in the words of Jerry Seinfeld. “Good luck with all that.”
RTC wrote: “I don’t think you’ve even analyzed Hollywood films correctly.”
I challenge you to relate here the title of just one film that does not follow that pattern. You will soon learn how difficult it is to find one. My wife is the one who taught me this. I didn’t believe it either, but as usual, she was right. My wife and I have a running joke between us about how she is always right.
Try this again.
“Women simply have a biological function which men lack”
Correction, David, women are capable of a biological function that men lack. As has been noted so many times before, if men shared this capability, then the fight to eliminate abortion would cease
“Women simply have a biological function which men lack”
Correction, David, women are capable of a biological function that men lack. As has been noted so many times before, if men shared this capability, then the fight to eliminate abortion would cease
RTC – you seem to ignore the polls that show that most people only want abortion under very limited circumstances. That would include women voting against abortion on demand.