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.
lottakatz
“AY, it got old after day 2 when you pursued SM across every thread with overt as well as thinly concealed digs, Use the scroll wheel, that’s what it’s for if you’re still pissed. Don’t think this is a new refrain of mine, it’s not, you’re not the first person I’ve said this too: cross thread stalking is uncool, it taints perfectly good threads with old disputes. Give it a rest.”
Nick,
Same old…same old from you. You need to get a new act. Remember…this is the 21st century!
Elaine – some acts are too good to change.
Playing victim by false accusation is not very feminist, or is it?
I have NEVER, REPEAT NEVER, used the word feminazi!!!
I was been called a feminazi and worse on this blog long before nick and this new crew joined, Annie. 😉
Annie – you spend a lot of time in other people’s home?
Well, well, well! Your old fashioned is showing Elaine. I treat you like I would a man. And, when I do, all of the allegedly liberal men come and defend you like a helpless woman. That scenario is part of what has caused many toxic threads here, “You’re being mean to Elaine” is what I’ve heard from this allegedly liberal men, and you NEVER say boo about it. You just don’t get it.
Nick – I too have been accused of being mean to the female GBer. Bad, bad Paul. Now, I keep saying that Elaine is quite capable of defending herself and doesn’t need help. She is not some 14 yo weakling.
Well, let’s just keep walkin’, then
Looks like your “few hour” laugh only lasted 11 minutes. I have walked the walk, ‘nuf said.
Nick,
Right! You’re such a modern man. Yet, my female thinking is wrong…because YOU–a man–say it is. You may have walked the walk for your wife–but you certainly haven’t done it with regard to many of the women who comment/have commented on this blog.
Nick,
You’re the one with the man/woman sex war mindset. I moved on many years ago–and haven’t looked back since.
“19th century mentality.” I moved w/ my wife from KC to Chicago to Madison, to advance HER career. I have helped my wife in researching and marketing her books. I have walked the walk. And, my comment was not “snarky” in the least. It was straightforward w/o sarcasm.
I’m reading a book about one of my favorite TV comedies, Mary Tyler Moore. The writers and producers wanted to make Mary Richards a 30 year old divorcee. Well, the network suits went ballistic. They couldn’t have a divorced woman be the heroine, particularly LAURA PETRIE! The producers and writers had pitched battles w/ many issues they wanted. They wanted Rhoda to be sexually active, which they got. But, they had to back down on divorced, the NYC suits said that was a deal breaker. I’m up to the part where they are hiring the ensemble cast. This was a ground breaking TV show on many levels. So, the 1970’s mentality is fresh in my mind. Those NYC suits were all white males. So were the writers and producers, and Mary had their backs. She actually wanted to be divorced on the show because she was in real life, although remarried to Grant Tinker. But Mary saw it was a deal breaker. I recommend this book to anyone who loved the show and to help people understand the mindset of some people here. It’s sad when a person can’t accept victory and want to keep the war going. They must get something out the continuing war. The feminist/industrial complex.
RTC
Nice analysis of how the role of First Lady changed with HRC. I agree.
Bye-bye Pat Nixon and Mamie Eisenhower.
I won’t argue about the ‘cookies’. I was young then and not a great student of the finer points of political analysis.
However, may I mention that I, too, am an Independent? I just happen to always agree with Democrats. And robustly disagree with conservatives or libertarians. But I’m as Independent as anyone here. Yep. Proud to call myself an Independent. Mark me down in the Independent column.
Nick Spinelli
You’re an older woman w/ a 1970′s mentality in a 21st century world.
*****
🙂
Oh, my goodness! A snarky comment from a man who looks forward to the 19th century. I’m going to have to stopping laughing before I respond to that. It may take a few hours!
I think a lot of men didn’t/don’t like the “Hillary” type of woman. You know “that kind of woman”–educated, articulate, highly intelligent, outspoken, successful. That kind of woman doesn’t know her place. The men around Clinton may have been horrified by the little lady’s cookie comment. Some people in this country may have been too. Then there were those of us who appreciated what she said. We had already gone past “the little lady should keep her mouth shut and let the man do the talking” stage in our lives. We were happy to see a political wife who wasn’t afraid to voice her opinion publicly.
Elaine – I married a strong, bright, articulate, accomplished woman. I just don’t like Hillary because she is Hillary, not because she is a type. I think highly of Condi Rice, think lowly of Hillary Clinton. Think highly of Elizabeth Dole, think lowly of Hillary Clinton. It is all about Hillary, not about the type.
You’re an older woman w/ a 1970’s mentality in a 21st century world.
Right! I’m a woman–but I don’t get it. I guess someone thinks I have to be instructed by a man about “how to get it.” I’ll have to assume the fight isn’t over yet…after reading many of the comments on this thread!!!!! Oh, my achin’ head!
Thanks Annie and SWM: I didn’t think I had said anything out of line but it never hurts to check
For goodness sake. Simply being a Democrat makes you a ‘divisive’ figure. Most especially if you are running for president.
Now what I do remember is the ‘vast right wing conspiracy’. That was spot on. Although this weekend I learned it also applies to JFK’s war record.
I see that dreaded deletion of death notice and I still get worried. Relexes.