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.
Next time I see them, Nick, I’ll try to remember to ask them.
Frankly though, there’s little need to since she didn’t walk the comments back in the manner you’re claiming.
So yes, I will continue to believe in reality.
Cheese it everybody, it’s the Professor!
Ah, just kidding. We all good here, Prof. Turley?
RTC, If you were to ask either Clinton, or all their handlers, if Hillary’s “cookie” comment was “highly effective” they would say “NO,NO,NO.” Carville admitted it. It’s evidenced by her walking back on that comment. But, you are free to believe what you wish.
feyman: Hilary was not the typical political wife at the time. Up until then, politicians wives did their best to appear as traditional as possible, as though they actually did stay home and bake cookies and raise the happy family. Their role was to smile and be supportive of their husbands at all costs.
Hilary was different. She was highly educated, a brilliant student, and a career lawyer. She was, for political wives, uncharacteristically active in her husband’s gubernatorial administration in Arkansas. Her cookie comments were in response to questions on 60 Minutes about her role in her husbands political affairs and how engaged she might be f she became First Lady.
I think this was also the same interview where the Clinton’s addressed the affair with Ms. Flowers that featured Hilary proclaiming that she wasn’t like Tammy Wynette, standing by her man.
Yes, it was a pivotal moment in the campaign and it was important. And highly effective.
SWM, Rove saying what he did was stupid. The health of ANY presidential candidate is going to become part of the legit issues in a campaign. Hillary will be the same age as Reagan[69] when she runs in 2016 as he did in 1980. It will come up naturally. For a rabid partisan like Rove to throw it out there, and so early, was stupid.
Feynman, Thanks for your moment of candor. Are you a tenor or bass in the choir.
Byron,
I have deleted a comment under our civility rule. I ask you to comply with our minimal standards on civility or to stop posting comments.
RTC, I distinctly remember Hillary coming out the next day and saying what she “indelicately” was trying to say was that now women have a choice. Subsequently, years later when Carville became a pundit, he talked about how he and Steph had to have a sit down w/ her to walk back on that comment. That comment and then “I could have been Tammy Wynette and stand by your man,” made here a divisive figure. Both occurred in the 1992 election, when she was a rookie on the national stage. Those condescending comments preached to the choir, but Clinton already the choir vote. You’re obviously is the choir and you don’t understand politics except through your prism. I am an independent. Hillary has gotten MUCH wiser over the ensuing decades. Obviously, some here have not.
If there is ever a President Paul, I will be leaving planet Earth
RTC
My comment with the unfortunate typo was directed to Nick. Although I would disagree with you as to the ‘cookies’ importance. Nobody I knew thought much about it. She was and is a smart educated woman. Who the hell insists that she stay home and bake cookies?
Paul S, Do you think anyone cares about the “cookie” comment? Many of the young voters were not even born yet or were toddlers.. Aren’t you all focused on Benghazi. Now we have Rove out saying she is brain injured. That backfired.
“There are some who think she paid Lewinsky to write the article to get it out of the way early, so it would be ‘old news.’
You could be on to something, Schulte, although it would seem a little too early for me. But, you might be right.
Paul S, RTC’s statement rings true. It is happening in Texas and a few other southern states. Some Texas women chose to stand with Wendy and protest. If we get a president like Rand Paul that sponsored the personhood amendment, it will happen nationwide.
SWM – do you have any idea how hard it is to get an amendment passed? That is why there are so few of them.
Regarding Hillary’s brain. All they have to do is play her testimony from any Congressional Hearing she was at and people will be concerned. The cookie thing was not mine and I could care less. I think she is unqualified to run an ice cream truck.
If Hillary is going to run a lot is going to bubble to the surface again. There are some who think she paid Lewinsky to write the article to get it out of the way early, so it would be ‘old news.’
I remain sh/be To remain so incensed…..
RTC – don’t forget, Hillary actually baked the cookies. Just because I don’t go with the popular flow does not mean I cannot analyze the political process. Cheating the political process is how Obama got selected in the first place. He cheated Hillary of her primary votes. And he has been cheating the American public since.
How ’bout it ladies. Have I offended you?
Good grief! That “gaffe” was said how many years ago? I remain so incensed by it after all these years is remarkably bizarre.
Nick and Schulte: Hilary’s comments were by no means the only reason Clinton won, but they played an important part in helping him rise to the top of the pool of contenders. And no she didn’t back away from the comment.
Sorry your unable to analyze the political process very well, but it helps explain Mitt Romney.
Elaine, You don’t get it. You can be proud of accomplishments in a career W/O DENIGRATING women who stay home and raise children. Wow! I guess you’re still fighting the war that was won.