A bit repetitive, but to underline the endorsement point:
This includes even then rare questioning from the bench such as in the case excerpted which was a mixed free speech and Establishment Clause matter. A state wished to deny stand alone religious displays in an area deemed a public forum. In this case, the desired display was a cross offered by a white supremacist group since other holiday displays were allowed. The Supreme Court held that since there was not a constitutional establishment problem, this was a violation of free speech. A majority of justices still was concerned about endorsement of religion even in this context (a private display on public land) though only two justices specifically thought the state was correct as applied.
The basic rule in place was that an illegitimate state endorsement of religion was one where (to cite O'Connor's opinion) the government makes adherence to a religion relevant to a person's standing in the political community. So, basically a stand alone creche that honors a Christian view of the winter holidays (as compared to a mixture of displays) might be illegitimate. The changing membership of the Supreme Court makes the particular rule now in place more unclear (though the Court has yet to specifically overrule the old test), but the basic concept is sound. It is especially a concern when minors are involved, Justice Kennedy's vote in particular. This case involves a minor.
As I noted, people have had standing to sue to address the constitutionality of such religious displays. It isn't seen as an inadequate "stigmatic" injury. Plus, the general concern is not merely stigma. When specific religions are favored or religion in general matters in ways it should not [see, e.g., religious oaths], it is a general problem. It has real life effects other than hurt feelings, including affecting real policy. The mere usage of "God" all over the place (on coins, courtroom walls, in our Pledge of Allegiance etc.) alone has implications. The more sectarian endorsements surely do as seen by our abortion funding policy where one view is in effect established.
I refer again to the article I cited about how state confederate flags affect trials. But, racist symbols, including Confederate war memorials, have a general purpose and effect. A subheading in the district case is telling: "Keeping the Spirit of the Confederacy Alive." The district court did not take seriously the lawyers claimed concern of physical safety or stress from the Mississippi Confederate Battle Flag. But, if thankfully less so now (but see recent events), can we really say it is totally without merit for a black person in this country? Thomas spoke of the "intimidation" of the KKK cross. Does not these racist symbols also have that character? It's not a burning cross, but frigid weather not being sub-zero is only so different.
Heritage is appealed to by some in respect to government endorsement of these symbols. Examination of the history shows that it is somewhat fatuous to take that on face value -- if heritage is honored, it is a selective one. But, as with usage of religious symbols, the fact that there might be some sort of legitimate state purposes promoted does not alone make state action acceptable. A permanent Christian cross on top of a statehouse is broadly seen as a step too far, even by Justice Kennedy, who did not go along with O'Connor in the Allegheny creche case. Why should a big Confederate cross, also honoring a racist message, okay?
Both are in effect violations of equal protection, both have their special constitutional concerns. A religious display is specifically addressed by the First Amendment. A racist display goes to the heart of equal protection, which is a general right but clearly race was and remains a special concern. Finally, the Thirteenth Amendment adds a final gloss -- it is a "badge of slavery," even if an open-ended security there is left to congressional legislation. I think the bar against slavery, which obviously has a special racial context in our country, might by nature have a penumbra protected here. Again, the lawyer should have standing to make the case.
There is little doubt that the Klan's main objective is to establish a racist white government in the United States. In Klan ceremony, the cross is a symbol of white supremacy and a tool for the intimidation and harassment of racial minorities, Catholics, Jews, Communists, and any other groups hated by the Klan.As I noted, it is suggested in one article that perhaps Justice Thomas was interested in reading a reply (it takes just one justice for the Court as a whole to request according to the article; guess a majority can overrule if desired?). The opinion cited above is one of multiple cases where Thomas was particularly concerned about white supremacists, particularly usages of crosses, including a separate dissenting opinion regarding membership of an Aryan gang being relevant in a capital sentencing case.
This includes even then rare questioning from the bench such as in the case excerpted which was a mixed free speech and Establishment Clause matter. A state wished to deny stand alone religious displays in an area deemed a public forum. In this case, the desired display was a cross offered by a white supremacist group since other holiday displays were allowed. The Supreme Court held that since there was not a constitutional establishment problem, this was a violation of free speech. A majority of justices still was concerned about endorsement of religion even in this context (a private display on public land) though only two justices specifically thought the state was correct as applied.
The basic rule in place was that an illegitimate state endorsement of religion was one where (to cite O'Connor's opinion) the government makes adherence to a religion relevant to a person's standing in the political community. So, basically a stand alone creche that honors a Christian view of the winter holidays (as compared to a mixture of displays) might be illegitimate. The changing membership of the Supreme Court makes the particular rule now in place more unclear (though the Court has yet to specifically overrule the old test), but the basic concept is sound. It is especially a concern when minors are involved, Justice Kennedy's vote in particular. This case involves a minor.
As I noted, people have had standing to sue to address the constitutionality of such religious displays. It isn't seen as an inadequate "stigmatic" injury. Plus, the general concern is not merely stigma. When specific religions are favored or religion in general matters in ways it should not [see, e.g., religious oaths], it is a general problem. It has real life effects other than hurt feelings, including affecting real policy. The mere usage of "God" all over the place (on coins, courtroom walls, in our Pledge of Allegiance etc.) alone has implications. The more sectarian endorsements surely do as seen by our abortion funding policy where one view is in effect established.
I refer again to the article I cited about how state confederate flags affect trials. But, racist symbols, including Confederate war memorials, have a general purpose and effect. A subheading in the district case is telling: "Keeping the Spirit of the Confederacy Alive." The district court did not take seriously the lawyers claimed concern of physical safety or stress from the Mississippi Confederate Battle Flag. But, if thankfully less so now (but see recent events), can we really say it is totally without merit for a black person in this country? Thomas spoke of the "intimidation" of the KKK cross. Does not these racist symbols also have that character? It's not a burning cross, but frigid weather not being sub-zero is only so different.
Heritage is appealed to by some in respect to government endorsement of these symbols. Examination of the history shows that it is somewhat fatuous to take that on face value -- if heritage is honored, it is a selective one. But, as with usage of religious symbols, the fact that there might be some sort of legitimate state purposes promoted does not alone make state action acceptable. A permanent Christian cross on top of a statehouse is broadly seen as a step too far, even by Justice Kennedy, who did not go along with O'Connor in the Allegheny creche case. Why should a big Confederate cross, also honoring a racist message, okay?
Both are in effect violations of equal protection, both have their special constitutional concerns. A religious display is specifically addressed by the First Amendment. A racist display goes to the heart of equal protection, which is a general right but clearly race was and remains a special concern. Finally, the Thirteenth Amendment adds a final gloss -- it is a "badge of slavery," even if an open-ended security there is left to congressional legislation. I think the bar against slavery, which obviously has a special racial context in our country, might by nature have a penumbra protected here. Again, the lawyer should have standing to make the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!