WHAT’S RELIGIOUS ABOUT CROSSES? | WWI Memorial Cross Can Stand | Alito Joins His Liberal Colleagues Over Sex Offender Registration Law
June 20, 2019
CROSSING THEIR T'S
|The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 today that the 40-foot cross on public land in Maryland, built to honor fallen WWI soldiers, does not violate the separation between church and state. There were multiple parts to the decision, with not all seven justices agreeing on every aspect. JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO wrote the majority opinion for the court and said the cross “has become a prominent community landmark, and its removal or radical alteration at this date would be seen by many not as a neutral act but as the manifestation of a hostility toward religion that has no place in our Establishment Clause traditions.”
BY COUNTRY, NOT BY CROSS
|The two who dissented in the Supreme Court’s ruling today in the cross case were JUSTICES RUTH BADER GINSBURG and SONIA SOTOMAYOR. Ginsburg took the unusual step of reading her dissent from the bench. Ginsburg argued, “Just as a Star of David is not suitable to honor Christians who died serving their country, so a cross is not suitable to honor those of other faiths who died defending their nation. Soldiers of all faiths ‘are united by their love of country, but they are not united by the cross.'”
PLAYING PRETEND
|Steven Waldman with The Washington Post takes a look at the outcome of the case over the Maryland “Peace Cross” which he says “demonstrates the fine art of pretending religious symbols aren’t religious.” He writes, “Time and time again, those arguing for more religion in the public square have argued that the symbols — or books or crosses — had little religious meaning. It’s as if judges and advocates enter into a mutual pact of self-delusion to preserve these religious symbols. Crèches aren’t religious, and neither is the Bible and neither is the cross.”
A FREAKISH THING
|SCOTUS today also upheld the scope of a federal sex offender registration law, ruling 5-3 in rejection of an effort to revive a legal theory that says Congress can’t delegate its legislative power to other branches without giving the proper guidance. JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO joined his liberal colleagues to make up the majority, but he didn’t agree with any of their reasoning in the decision. He actually said he’d be open to a future case where they might strike down such delegation of powers from the legislative to the executive branch. Alito wrote, “If a majority of this court were willing to reconsider the approach we have taken for the past 84 years, I would support that effort. But because a majority is not willing to do that, it would be freakish to single out the provision at issue here for special treatment.”
TOP-ED
|Linda Greenhouse with The New York Times argues that the Supreme Court seems to be focusing on its own self-preservation. The justices are “keeping out of trouble” and avoiding big, controversial questions like the one they passed up on earlier this week regarding another same-sex wedding cake case. Greenhouse uses this dodge as an example of the Supreme Court wanting to live to fight another day. ” The court already has plenty to do next term, with three cases granted on whether federal law protects gay and transgender people against discrimination on the job. The conflict between private conscience and public duty is age-old. The court has time to resolve it in future cases.”
DOCKET ADDITION
|The Supreme Court today decided to take up a series of major cases arising out of constitutional challenges to the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico — something Congress created in 2016 to help respond to and manage the Puerto Rican financial crisis. For CNN, Steve Vladeck explains the history of these challenges which justices today agreed to consider as soon as October.
CALL IT LIKE YOU SEE IT
|The Editorial Board of The Washington Post thinks SCOTUS made the right call this week when it said serial state and federal prosecutions for the same alleged conduct do not violate the Constitution. Read why the Ed Board favors a federal backstop to the states and why it invokes the likes of Rodney King and President Trump to make the argument.