American Legion v. American Humanist Assoc.

Comments

  • Three comments:

    1. Thomas only concurred in the judgment and not the opinion because he thought it stopped an insufficient amount of bullshit.

    2. The land the cross was on was acquired by eminent domain AFTER the cross was erected. Once the land the cross was on belonged to a local government entity they began caring for it as a median strip having nothing to do with the cross itself and I find the idea that mowing the grass constitutes establishment to be absurd on its face.

    3. This decision, unless I misunderstand something important, eliminates a long standing and terribly clumsy 3-part test for establishment and replaces it with something that approaches common sense. The new standard seems to be that if you want to claim establishment, you need to show that the govt is doing something beyond just allowing reminders that religion exists.
  • edited June 21
    MC Escher said:

     3. This decision, unless I misunderstand something important, eliminates a long standing and terribly clumsy 3-part test for establishment and replaces it with something that approaches common sense. The new standard seems to be that if you want to claim establishment, you need to show that the govt is doing something beyond just allowing reminders that religion exists.

    It doesn't overrule the Lemon test the way Lawrence v. Texas overruled Bowers v. Hardwick, i.e. explicitly, but it does extensively discredit the test.  If the Lemon test were a man, I wouldn't say it was killed, but someone beat it nearly to death and you can come to the hospital and watch the ventilator do its thing if you are family.

    Not since Thurgood Marshal soiled the bench figuratively and literally has a Justice been as detached from the job as Ginsburg.
  • Think they’ll name it the Lime test?
  • *Badump-ching*
  • I've never heard of the Lemon test but it appears to have been a source for lots of problems and the cause of the "offended observer" that brought many cases like this forward.  It's nice to see the court killed this test.  Thomas and Gorsuch seem particularly dismissive of it.  Roberts brings the smack down on the 4th Circuit.  I think Ginsberg's dissent was one of her better ones but is ton deaf to the points the others make regarding the harm of tearing down historical markers.
Sign In or Register to comment.