Connect with us

News

The Separation of Church and State Under Threat From Current Supreme Court

Published

on

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could allow local governments to display religious iconography on public property.

The case — a consolidation of American Legion v. American Humanist Association and Maryland-National Capital Park v. American Humanist Association  — revolves around a memorial to World War I soldiers. The memorial features a 40-foot tall cross, and was erected on public property in Bladenberg, Maryland.

A federal appeals court showed that the “Peace Cross” memorial violates the Constitution’s ban regarding “respecting an establishment of religion” under the First Amendment, but it is likely that the new Supreme Court, with a five person conservative majority, will reverse the lower court’s ruling.

The issue of religious imagery on public lands had appeared settled in the 1980s, after County of Allegheny v. ACLU. In that ruling, Justice Harry Blackmun wrote that the United States Constitution, “prohibits government from appearing to take a position on questions of religious belief or from ‘making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person’s standing in the political community.’”

This ruling did allow some leeway, including images of Muhammad or Moses, due to their connections with the law, but did not allow for other religious symbols.

This test has also been at the heart of fights over displays of the Ten Commandments and if such a display is that of a legal document or a religious one.

A Supreme Court reversal could lead to additional religious imagery at city halls, courthouse, schools and other institutions, and open the door to future challenges over school prayer and other changes sought by American evangelicals.

It will also signal future challenges with a religious bent, including potential “religious freedom” cases that can limit LGBTQ and other civil rights.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Grand Jury Announces Charges Against Only One Louisville Officer – But None in Killing of Breonna Taylor

Published

on

A grand jury has announced criminal charges against a single Louisville, Kentucky police officer, but no charges in the March 13 killing of Breonna Taylor. The charges are against former officer Brett Hankison and include wanton endangerment, unrelated to Taylor’s killing. No homicide charges were announced.

The charges are being described as insufficient by MSNBC’s Al Sharpton.

“It feels to me like these charges entirely delete the murder” of Breonna Taylor, MSNBC’s Joy Ann Reid commented on the network after the charges were announced. “This was a Black Lives Don’t Matter ruling.”

“They can just shoot you,” she lamented.

“There’s nothing in this charge that mentions Breonna Taylor,” she continued. “There’s no charge that says you need to at least care” about the lives of others, Reid said.

The Nation’s Elie Mystal weighs in:

Live video:

This is a breaking news and developing story. Details may change. This article has been updated, including the title and other details to reflect new details.

Continue Reading

News

Romney’s ‘Pathetically Weasel-Worded’ Defense of His Vow to Vote for Trump SCOTUS Pick Mocked and Destroyed

Published

on

U.S. Senator Mitt Romney is being highly criticized Tuesday, after he announced he will vote to confirm President Donald Trump’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, even before the candidate has been named.

CNN’s take is that Senator Romney’s “backing of Supreme Court vote paves way for election-year confirmation.”

Romney said he would vote for any nominee who is qualified, although he struggled to define what the term meant to him.

Many are attacking the Utah Republican Senator for green lighting Trump’s unnamed SCOTUS nominee despite voting to impeach the president.

Former Dept. of Defense communications official:

Sen. Romney also made several remarks, both to reporters (video below) and in a statement, that are provably false.

“The historical precedent of election year nominations is that the Senate generally does not confirm an opposing party’s nominee but does confirm a nominee of its own,” Romney said in a statement.

Journalist Joan McCarter points out that’s false.

Civil rights attorney Sasha Samberg-Champion blasts Romney for cloaking a purely political decision in the rule of law.

Historian Kevin Kruse:

Reporter and analyst for Inside Elections, Jacob Rubashkin, notes just how false Romney’s claim is that America is a “center-right” nation – and embarrasses him in the process:

As does journalist Jay Willis:

Romney’s false claims that the Supreme Court has been liberal for years is also easily debunked as “utter nonsense” – by Norman Ornstein, a resident scholar at a conservative think tank:

And by this HuffPost journalist:

More:

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

News

Romney: I Will Vote to Confirm Trump SCOTUS Nominee if Qualified

Published

on

U.S. Senator Mitt Romney says he will vote for President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee to hold the seat of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg if that candidate is qualified.

The Republican from Utah says a “liberal court” is “not written in the stars,” and implied his decision to buck fairness and Republican precedent is based on helping to mold a “center-right” Supreme Court – which it already is.

He also falsely claims the nation is “center-right.”

Two Republicans have said they will not vote before the election. Democrats need four Republicans to not vote before the inauguration.

 

This is a breaking news and developing story. 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.