Supreme Court rules that Maryland 'Peace Cross' honoring military dead may remain on public land

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Washington Post



The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a large cross erected as a tribute to war dead may continue to stand on public land outside Washington in the Maryland suburbs. The justices reversed a lower court that said the cross was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

“The cross is undoubtedly a Christian symbol, but that fact should not blind us to everything else that the Bladensburg Cross has come to represent,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote. “For some, that monument is a symbolic resting place for ancestors who never returned home. For others, it is a place for the community to gather and honor all veterans and their sacrifices for our Nation. For others still, it is a historical landmark. For many of these people, destroying or defacing the Cross that has stood undisturbed for nearly a century would not be neutral and would not further the ideals of respect and tolerance embodied in the First Amendment.”

The vote was 7 to 2, with several justices writing separate opinions. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, Ginsburg emphasizing her disagreement by reading part of her dissent from the bench.

The Bladensburg Peace Cross, made of granite and cement, was built in 1925 and paid for by local families, businesses and the American Legion to honor 49 World War I veterans from Prince George’s County. But the 40-foot cross sits on a now-busy highway median owned since 1961 by a state commission that pays for its maintenance and upkeep. The legal challenge began with the American Humanist Association, a nonprofit atheist organization that has filed similar lawsuits throughout the country. The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, which inherited the monument, says the court need not break new legal ground to allow the Bladensburg landmark to remain.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-says-maryland-peace-cross-honoring-military-dead-does-not-constitute-government-endorsement-of-religion/2019/06/20/a63c4c24-9365-11e9-b570-6416efdc0803_story.html

---

Original article and headline -

Supreme Court says Maryland ‘Peace Cross’ honoring military dead does not constitute government endorsement of religion

By Washington Post Staff
June 20 at 10:17 AM

The 40-foot cross in Bladensburg, Md., memorializes 49 local veterans who served during World War I. It sits on land owned by a state commission that pays for the monument’s maintenance and upkeep.

The legal challenge began with the American Humanist Association, a nonprofit atheist organization, which had argued that the cross communicates an unconstitutional message that government favors one religion over another.

This is a developing story. It will be updated.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2019/06/20/supreme-court-says-maryland-peace-cross-honoring-military-dead-does-not-constitute-government-endorsement-of-religion/?utm_term=.80cfe04ed338

[Dennis Donovan]

1. Good, although I understand the concerns...

It's a WW1 memorial.

[CTyankee]

15. I am not sure why that matters?

If I am wrong, explain it to me but were there no Jewish members of the fallen?

[christx30]

23. The memorial is nearly a hundred years old.

No one is being harmed by it existing. If people don’t like it, they can choose not to look at it.
And i day that as someone that’s not religious in any way.

[CTyankee]

24. That's not the point.

Ginsburg's objection is my own.

[ripcord]

25. I might agree if the government hadn't taken the land by imminent domain

Since the land,was taken from the owners for a highway the government has an obligation the keep and maintain the monument.

What are your options on religious markers in government owned cemeteries or Native American religious symbols on government land?

[CTyankee]

27. IDK. I am not a constitutional expert. However, I agree with Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her

dissent in the case under discussion. I would certainly like to know what her opinion is on the question you raise. Has it ever come before the Court while she has been on it?

[customerserviceguy]

32. Every time the government seizes property by eminent domain

there is a negotiation. The private party who owned the land can either accept what is offered as compensation, or has the right to go to court to secure a greater amount. I would be curious to see the deed that the owner(s) signed when they accepted compensation, or the court decision that fixed the terms of the taking.

It may well be that an easement for the memorial was carved out as part of the process. It may have included a requirement to maintain shrubbery, etc. surrounding it. If so, that's not an establishment of religion, that's a governmental entity abiding by a contract with private parties who had religious overtones in their memorializing of 49 members of their community who perished in WWI, all of whom may well have been of the Christian faith.

[Polybius]

2. Damn beat me by two minutes

[BumRushDaShow]

3. I was rushing to come up with an abbreviated version of the headline that made sense.

[Polybius]

5. I was posting from my phone

Took me 5 minutes.

[BumRushDaShow]

6. LOL okay.

[Polybius]

4. 7-2 decision

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

7. Thanks, Polybius. I mean, BumRushDaShow. This won't be the only opinion issued today.

I was in the middle of responding to the other thread when it was locked.

Live blog of opinions
By Andrew Hamm on Jun 20, 2019 at 8:45 am

We’re live-blogging as the Supreme Court releases opinions in one or more argued cases. Join us. SCOTUSblog is sponsored by Casetext: A more intelligent way to search the law.

[BumRushDaShow]

8. Good morning and happy Friday Eve!

I always used to follow SCOTUSBlog during June when they provided the summaries but have been busy with other stuff so haven't had chance.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

9. #scotus will be back with more opinions tomorrow 7:33 AM - 20 Jun 2019

Good morning to you too. Warm this a.m. Downpour this afternoon.

#scotus will be back with more opinions tomorrow

7:33 AM - 20 Jun 2019

Link to tweet

[BumRushDaShow]

11. Thanks for the update on their schedule!

Had almost an inch of rain here this morning and it's currently foggy and misty, but the sun is trying hard to break through. Thunder boomers possible this afternoon as the last gasp of this unsettled pattern and supposed to be nice Friday and through the weekend!

[thesquanderer]

10. I wonder whether any consideration was given to whether the 49 people it memorializes...

...were Christian.

[Quackers]

18. It was originally paid for by the families of the dead and the community. It was also

Erected on private property. The government bought it almost 50 years later.

[ripcord]

22. To keep things clear

The government did not simply buy the land from willing sellers but took the land through imminent domain.

[at140]

26. I think it is EMINENT domain.......... not

[LuvNewcastle]

30. I think impotent domain looks better.

[titaniumsalute]

12. I'm not surprised nor upset about this

I'm an atheist but good Lord it is a war Memorial to the fallen in WW1. Sometimes these suits makes us look like idiots. Now, hanging a big crucifix in the Courtroom or City Offices? No way.

[eggplant]

13. Just sell the land to the local VFW and be done with it.

Why is that so hard?

[DavidDvorkin]

14. Bullshit.

[Polybius]

16. I'm surprised it was a 7-2 decision

I thought it would be 5-4.

[DavidDvorkin]

17. Same here.

[turbinetree]

19. Now where going to have these things being planted everywhere on "public lands".....................

just fucking great..............................I remember some judge (Moore) trying to plant the ten commandments on court property that is basically "public land"........................................

[phandancer917]

20. I would not worry, my friend

As far as I can find online, no new ones like this have been erected since the 80s.

As an atheist, I certainly do not support these displays of religion -- but neither do they bother me. I am very comfortable being an atheist and I live in Kentucky....though I confess I do not broadcast it, but I will not shy from a conversation either.

If you remember, Moore got his ass smacked by the courts over that one....as have others than have tried in recent years.

[CTyankee]

21. I trust Ginsburg. She made the case I would have made. A cross is a cross. State land is

state land, supported by taxpayers (many of whom may be non-Christians or just not religious). That is opposed to our First Amendment.

[at140]

28. Great, let us dig up every religious symbol

All over the 50 states. There are a lot of them out there though and we will have to borrow funds to accomplish the task, cuz Trump is running Trillion dollar yearly deficits.

[CTyankee]

29. Donn't be so fast making light of the issue involved in this court case.

The fact that SCOTUS granted cert in this case indicates that it is an issue they wish to hear. How it will be applied in the future will remain to be seen. For now, I am agreeing with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who I highly regard.

[at140]

35. Relax, SCOTUS clearly indicated their decision applies only to

monuments which have been around for nearly a century or so.

[CTyankee]

36. Well, yes. The "case at hand." I get that.

[Midnightwalk]

31. Maybe ok

The decision seems to be on retaining, that is not tearing it down, the cross that was previously on private land that was taken by eminent domain.

Later in the article the mayor said they would use public funds to maintain it.

Does anyone know whether that was covered in the decision? I didn’t see that.

I don’t like putting religious symbols on public land, but I don’t think that’s what this case was about. Unless they start allowing new symbols on public land I don’t care about this monument.

Spending public money to maintain the symbol is trickier in my opinion. If that means cutting the grass around it ok. If that means spending 10 million to out on upgrades like lighting that crosses a line. Painting or maintaining the concrete is tougher decision but in my opinion ok.

We have enough trouble gaining control of government. We can keep out principles on separation of church and state without looking petty.

[tymorial]

33. Its the right decision

Be offended by the image but its existence does not seek to encourage the practice of Christianity nor does it promote or affirm that Christianity is state sanctioned. Its appearance on public land is irrelevant. Quite frankly, comparatively speaking, the words on the money in our pocket and on our federal buildings "In God We Trust." is far more unconstitutional because that IS an affirmation of religion and faith.

[keithbvadu2]

34. Now that the cross is secular, there should be no complaints about a Piss Christ.

Now that the cross is secular, there should be no complaints about a Piss Christ.