The cobra effect....I do believe this is what is called a Pyrrhic victory - Wikipedia , due to something called Cobra effect - Wikipedia
Twas a tough choice....<funny> or <informative>.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The cobra effect....I do believe this is what is called a Pyrrhic victory - Wikipedia , due to something called Cobra effect - Wikipedia
Well, that's your "faith" for you. You see Ginsburg as "not a Supreme Court Justice," in your own words, and yet she IS, according to every law in your land, "a Supreme Court Justice."Yes, I'm not surprised of Ginsburg. I see her as a political activist and not a Supreme Court Justice. IMHO
Well, that's your "faith" for you. You see Ginsburg as "not a Supreme Court Justice," in your own words, and yet she IS, according to every law in your land, "a Supreme Court Justice."
Do all your beliefs have so little hold on reality?
Lazy irresponsible response.Go read the decision. I won't do your homework for you. Google is at your fingertips.
Lazy irresponsible response.
The onus is on you to prove your claim. But since you cannot your statement is to be seen by your own words there as incredible.
The decision was in majority of 7 justices, two whom were crossovers as Liberals.Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, decided in favor of the cross to remain where it was.
Supreme Court upholds cross on public land in Maryland
"...
Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a majority opinion for himself and four colleagues that “when time’s passage imbues a religiously expressive monument, symbol or practice with this kind of familiarly and historical significance, removing It may no longer appear neutral.”
“A government that roams the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbolism and scrubbing away any reference to the divine will strike many as aggressively hostile to religion,” Alito wrote
Alito also wrote that the Maryland cross’ connection to World War I was important in upholding it because crosses, which marked the graves of American soldiers, became a symbol closely linked to the war. "
No source link?There is Google.
"The case would be different, in my view, if there were evidence that the organizers had “deliberately disrespected” members of minority faiths or if the Cross had been erected only recently, rather than in the aftermath of World War I. See ante, at 29; see also Van Orden, 545 U. S., at 703 (opinion of BREYER, J.) (explaining that, in light of the greater religious diversity today, “a more contemporary state effort” to put up a religious display is “likely to prove divisive in a way that [a] longstanding, pre-existing monument [would] not”). But those are not the circumstances presented to us here, and I see no reason to order this cross torn down simply because other crosses would raise constitutional concerns. Nor do I understand the Court’s opinion today to adopt a “history and tradition test” that would permit any newly constructed religious memorial on public land."
"A newer memorial, erected under different circumstances, would not necessarily be permissible under this approach."
They are letting the cross stay but they also that no other similar monuments will be entitled to protection, so people will not be able to build another cross monument on public land and expect that it is going to stay.
The source is the Supreme Court websiteNo source link?
What part of "A newer memorial, erected under different circumstances, would not necessarily be permissible under this approach.", didn't you understand?There was Google prior to you making your prior claim about the decision.
Link?The source is the Supreme Court website
Google it.Link?
This decision was 800 pages in length. And the SCOTUS blog has multiple links to avail oneself of .
Please, proceed to copy and paste the source of that which you excerpted from, "the Supreme Court website".
Thank you in advance.
I understand, "...would not necessarily be permissible under this approach."What part of "A newer memorial, erected under different circumstances, would not necessarily be permissible under this approach.", didn't you understand?
Your cop outs are boring. I did Google it. And I will say you got your excerpt from Politico. Not the SCOTUS site.Google it.
Yes, on private land with private money.Can I ask, can they erect a statue of Mohammed or maybe of Brahma? It would only be fair to represent all religions.
They can erect any representation. I wonder why they haven't?Can I ask, can they erect a statue of Mohammed or maybe of Brahma? It would only be fair to represent all religions.
Islam forbids the making of any statue of any animal or human. Brahma is God in Hindi, thus...They can erect any representation. I wonder why they haven't?
ahhhhhh! So they don't want to build a representation. Freedom in its ultimate form.Islam forbids the making of any statue of any animal or human. Brahma is God in Hindi, thus...
Apparently you aren't aware of case law precedent here.She can not understand the difference between establish and endorse. That says a lot