The Court is now hearing this case.

Salazar v. Buono (08-472)

Facts of the Case:

Quote :

"In 1934, the Veterans of Foreign Wars built a wooden cross on top of Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve (Preserve) as a memorial to those who died in World War I. The original cross no longer exists, but has been rebuilt several times. Frank Buono, a former Preserve employee, filed suit in a California federal district court seeking to prevent the permanent display of the cross. The genesis of his suit occurred in 1999 when a request to build a Buddhist shrine in the Preserve, near the cross, was denied. He argued that the cross' display on federal property violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The district court agreed and the cross was covered. While the case was pending, Congress designated Sunrise Rock a national memorial and barred its dismantling with the use of federal funds. One year later, by land swap, Congress made Sunrise Rock private property in exchange for another parcel of land. Mr. Buono moved to not only enforce the previous court order preventing the display of the cross, but also to prohibit the land swap. The district court granted both motions. The Secretary of the Interior appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The court reasoned that the government failed to show that the district court's fact findings or legal standards were clearly erroneous, nor did it show that the district court made an error in judgment. Question: 1) Can Mr. Buono's suit be maintained when he is merely offended by the fact that public land on which a cross is displayed is not a forum for other religious symbols? 2) Did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit err in not giving effect to Congress's land swap where Sunrise Rock was made private land?"

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_472

Other Major Cases This Term

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/us/politics/05scotus-side.html

This thread is for discussion of past, present, and future SCOTUS cases.

10/8/2009 1:56:48 AM

I've seen that Scalia is arguing that nobody would think that a cross is a Christian symbol, but a symbol of a resting place for the dead. (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/10/scalias_stance_that_cross_hono.html)

Now, technically that's a correct statement. The cross was Roman symbol before the Christians adopted it in the 2nd century, and something they used to execute large numbers of prisoners. It wasn't even used by the first few generations of Christians, they used the fish.

So basically, these war dead are being memorialized with a symbol of death and tyranny.


[Edited on October 8, 2009 at 4:47 PM. Reason : cross was used before rome too, think cave men making two scratches on the wall]

10/8/2009 4:26:13 PM

^ Good point. And the people who put up the cross at issue apparently weren't particularly religious.

But what I don't get is the objection to the private land deal. This transaction should've solved the "problem," right?

10/8/2009 4:29:30 PM

Quote :

"But what I don't get is the objection to the private land deal. This transaction should've solved the "problem," right?"

I don't quite understand that either. It seems like a perfect solution; the land is no longer public, and therefore the Establishment objection is moot. I mean, perhaps there's some underlying issue to the swap that I don't understand, but still.

10/8/2009 5:18:56 PM

And in the meantime, we have this thing, which is so much more aesthetically pleasing.

10/8/2009 9:02:50 PM

We should mark war graves with swastikas.

10/8/2009 9:16:06 PM

I've got a good friend who is working on a case where NC is being sued by SC with regards to the Catawba river. I understand that the hearing was canceled because some pussy from SC had a dad who was "terminally ill." Whatever.

10/9/2009 2:37:04 AM

bump

10/2/2010 8:00:29 PM

Free speech cases at top of Supreme Court's agenda
Advocates fear court could limit First Amendment freedoms
October 2, 2010

Quote :

" WASHINGTON — Free speech cases top the U.S. Supreme Court's docket as it begins a new term with a new justice and three women on the bench for the first time. The court will look at provocative anti-gay protests at military funerals and a California law banning the sale of violent video games to children. These cases worry free speech advocates, who fear the court could limit First Amendment freedoms. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees such basic rights as freedom of speech, religion and assembly. The funeral protest lawsuit, over signs praising American war deaths, 'is one of those cases that tests our commitment to the First Amendment,' said Steven Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. Another case involves a different aspect of the First Amendment, the government's relationship to religion. The justices will decide whether Arizona's income tax credit scholarship program, in essence, directs state money to religious schools in violation of the constitutional separation of church and state."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39475365/ns/politics-supreme_court

These are very tough and important cases. As much as I despise the protests, I'm not sure how much they can be limited without limiting protest rights in other more appropriate situations. As a remedy, I would suggest more anti-protestors, such as Rolling Thunder, to just drown them out.

As to the income tax credit situation, it seems to me that we already direct government money to religious institutions. Wouldn't 501(c)(3) exemptions, for example, be a type of direction of government money to religious institutions in some cases? There are other examples, too.

And, of course, there's the matter of defining "religious" and just how religious an institution must be to meet this criterion. This seems to me to depend on how broadly or how narrowly this definition is applied.

[Edited on October 2, 2010 at 8:21 PM. Reason : .]

10/2/2010 8:18:50 PM

Yeah, WBC is an unfortunate side effect of living in a free nation. Blerg.

I am completely opposed to government censorship, be it of video games, movies, books, or whatever. If you don't want your kid playing violent video games, that's your choice, not the state's. If the government were to ban violent video games, I would make the most violent, disgusting video game on the planet and distribute it freely.

On that note, fuck Australia.

10/3/2010 1:36:25 PM

And I'd help you with it. No kidding. I've been meaning to put this Computer Science degree to use (and I specialized in 3D graphics. )

I don't think it will come to that though, at least not in our lifetimes.

Quote :

"As to the income tax credit situation, it seems to me that we already direct government money to religious institutions. Wouldn't 501(c)(3) exemptions, for example, be a type of direction of government money to religious institutions in some cases? There are other examples, too. "

You're right. Churches being tax exempt is total bullshit.

10/4/2010 8:46:08 AM

Quote :

"Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project: The Humanitarian Law Project was advising groups deemed “terrorists” on how to negotiate non-violently with various political agencies, including the UN. In this 6-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court ruled that that speech constituted “aiding and abetting” a terrorist organization, as the Court determined that speech was “material support”. Therefore, the Executive and/or Congress had the right to prohibit anyone from speaking to any terrorist organization if that speech embodied “material support” to the terrorist organization. The decision is being noted by the New York Times as a Freedom of Speech issue; other commentators seem to be viewing it in those terms as well. My own take is, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project is not about limiting free speech—it's about the state expanding it power to repress. The decision limits free speech in passing, because what it is really doing is expanding the state’s power to repress whomever it unilaterally determines is a terrorist. In the decision, the Court explicitly ruled that “Congress and the Executive are uniquely positioned to make principled distinctions between activities that will further terrorist conduct and undermine United States foreign policy, and those that will not.” In other words, the Court makes it clear that Congress and/or the Executive can solely and unilaterally determine who is a “terrorist threat”, and who is not—without recourse to judicial review of this decision. And if the Executive and/or Congress determines that this group here or that group there is a “terrorist organization”, then their free speech is curtailed—as is the free speech of anyone associating with them, no matter how demonstrably peaceful that speech or interaction is. "

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-us-fascist-police-state



This decision was made back in June and was cited recently when the FBI raided/intimidated several anti-war activists in MN and questioned an activist in Durham.

10/7/2010 9:44:13 AM

Quote :

"The decision limits free speech in passing, because what it is really doing is expanding the state’s power to repress whomever it unilaterally determines is a terrorist."

This.

BTW, sure am glad I'm white.

10/8/2010 10:40:26 AM