Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ashling

(25,771 posts)
Wed May 7, 2014, 01:22 PM May 2014

WSJ Should Re-Read Kagan's Dissent In Public Prayer Case

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/05/06/wsj-should-re-read-kagan-dissent-in-public-pray/199189

The Wall Street Journal mischaracterized Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan's dissent in the Greece, New York, public prayer case, accusing Kagan and the other liberal justices who dissented of "working hard to push religion to the sidelines of American public life." In fact, Kagan made clear in her dissent that the town should lose the case because it failed to adhere to religious diversity; as she noted, the town "never sought (except briefly when this suit was filed) to involve, accommodate, or in any way reach out to adherents of non-Christian religions."

On May 5, the Supreme Court ruled in Town of Greece v. Galloway that the prayer given before town meetings did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Kagan (joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor) dissented, arguing that based on the facts of the case, a constitutional line had clearly been crossed -- the town had invited predominantly Christian clergy to the meetings to give explicitly Christian invocations.

As Kagan wrote in her dissent, "the Town of Greece should lose this case" because "the invocations given -- directly to those citizens -- were predominantly sectarian in content." The dissent went on to explain that the prayers before the town meetings in Greece went beyond what the majority opinion called "a benign acknowledgment of religion's role in society." In the dissent's view, it was not the prayer per se that crossed the constitutional line, but the fact that the prayers "repeatedly invoked a single religion's beliefs." Prayers included a discussion of "the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross" and "the plan of redemption that is fulfilled in Jesus Christ."


But the facts didn't seem to matter to the WSJ editorial board, which argued that Kagan's dissent was tantamount to "limit[ing] God in the public square."

-----------------------------
and then there is this from Slate:

[font size = 4]Let Us Pray[/font size = 4]

The Supreme Court gives its blessing for prayer at town meetings. Get ready for a lot more Jesus in your life.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/05/town_of_greece_v_galloway_the_supreme_court_upholds_sectarian_prayer_at.html?wpisrc=newsletter_slatest_morning_newsletter&mc_cid=4e3097ecc4&mc_eid=0f181771c7
--------------------------------------------

reminded me of this:

[font size = 4]
Kagan Throws Scalia's Own Religious Liberty Arguments Back In His Face
[/font size = 4]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/elena-kagan-antonin-scalia-birth-control-mandate


--- the joke is on Kagan --- Scalia can't be shamed by repeating his words against him --

he has no idea what he said - he just doesn't recall -

come to think of it, he should be recalled



1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
WSJ Should Re-Read Kagan's Dissent In Public Prayer Case (Original Post) ashling May 2014 OP
The WSJ is wrong on Kagan's dissent Gothmog May 2014 #1
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»WSJ Should Re-Read Kagan'...