Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Ideologia liberal, Stati Uniti

Supreme Court sentenzia sul caso del Maryland. Giudici liberal disintegrati.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-06-22.

2019-06-22__Suprema_Corte__001

Con una sentenza 7 – 2 la Suprema Corte degli Stati Uniti ha posto la parola fine su di un contenzioso significativo della mentalità corrente dei liberal democratici.

American Legion et Al. v. American Humanist Assn. et Al.

«In 1918, residents of Prince George’s County, Maryland, formed a committee for the purpose of erecting a memorial for the county’s soldiers who fell in World War I. The committee decided that the memorial should be a cross, which was not surprising since the plain Latin cross had become a central symbol of the war. The image of row after row of plain white crosses marking the overseas graves of soldiers was emblazoned on the minds of Americans at home.»

Riassumendo ed ampliando:

«The case concerned a giant, early 20th century Latin cross, known as the Bladensburg Peace Cross, that stands in a Maryland intersection in the suburbs of the nation’s capital.

– The opinion of the court is authored by Justice Samuel Alito, who says the meaning of the cross was not limited to its religious context, and cautions against a government that “roams the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbolism.”

– Though the ultimate vote was 7-2, the case produced a smattering of opinions, with five justices writing separate concurrences to explain their thinking.»

*

«The court’s five conservatives as well as Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer agreed that the cross should remain on public land, while liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented»

Il parere espresso da Sua Giustizia Ginsburg è significativo della mentalità liberal democratica.

«For the same reason, using the cross as a war memorial does not transform it into a secular symbol, as the Courts of Appeals have uniformly recognized»

«By maintaining the Peace Cross on a public highway, the Commission elevates Christianity over other faiths, and religion over nonreligion»

*

Il punto centrale consiste nell’ideologia liberal democratica, ben presente anche in Europa, che della non-religiosità — ‘nonreligion‘ – fa un dogma fideistico. E questo sarebbe il meno, perché costoro vogliono anche imporlo a tutti, anche a coloro che la pensassero diversamente.

Ma se la rimozione di qualsiasi simbolo religioso soddisfa i liberal democratici, nel contempo introduce la simbologia dello spoglio eretta a sistema, fatto questo non gradito a moltissime altre persone.

Nella sua globalità questa causa è giù costata ai Contribuenti oltre quaranta milioni di dollari. Aveva prosperato fino a quando è stata che era stata discussa nelle corti inferiori, tutte con giudici liberal, che hanno sentenziato di conseguenza.

I giudizi emessi dalla Suprema Corte sul comportamento dei giudici di livello inferiore sono tranchant.

A seguito, proponiamo il razionale e taluni commenti.

* * * * * * *

La sentenza riporta anche un corposo Syllabus, Certiorari e le opinioni di ben cinque giudici.

«The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed that the memorial is unconstitutional and remanded for a determination of the proper remedy. We now reverse. ….

Applying these principles, we conclude that the Bladensburg Cross does not violate the Establishment Clause.»

Sia Giustizia Thomas aggiunge nella Opinione da Lui espressa anche un solido substrato giuridico.

«The Establishment Clause states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” U. S. Const., Amdt. 1. The text and history of this Clause suggest that it should not be incorporated against the States. Even if the Clause expresses an individual right enforceable against the States, it is limited by its text to “law[s]” enacted by a legislature, so it is unclear whether the Bladensburg Cross would implicate any incorporated right. And even if it did, this religious display does not involve the type of actual legal coercion that was a hall-mark of historical establishments of religion. Therefore, the Cross is clearly constitutional»

Sua Giustizia Gorsuch aggiunge nella Sua Opinione un tratto quasi umoristico.

«The American Humanist Association wants a federal court to order the destruction of a 94 year-old war memo-rial because its members are offended. Today, the Court explains that the plaintiffs are not entitled to demand the destruction of longstanding monuments, and I find much of its opinion compelling. In my judgment, however, it follows from the Court’s analysis that suits like this one should be dismissed for lack of standing. Accordingly, while I concur in the judgment to reverse and remand the court of appeals’ decision, I would do so with additional instructions to dismiss the case. »

* * * * * *

Significativa è invece l’opinione di Sua Giustizia Ginsburg.

«An immense Latin cross stands on a traffic island at the center of a busy three-way intersection in Bladensburg, Maryland.1 “[M]onumental, clear, and bold” by day, App. 914, the cross looms even larger illuminated against the night-time sky. Known as the Peace Cross, the monument was erected by private citizens in 1925 to honor local soldiers who lost their lives in World War I. “[T]he town’s most prominent symbol” was rededicated in 1985 and is now said to honor “the sacrifices made [in] all wars,” id., at 868 (internal quotation marks omitted), by “all veterans,” id., at 195. Both the Peace Cross and the traffic island are owned and maintained by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (Commission), an agency of the State of Maryland. ….

The Latin cross is the foremost symbol of the Christian faith, embodying the “central theological claim of Christi-anity: that the son of God died on the cross, that he rose from the dead, and that his death and resurrection offer the possibility of eternal life.” ….

For the same reason, using the cross as a war memorial does not transform it into a secular symbol, as the Courts of Appeals have uniformly recognized ….

By maintaining the Peace Cross on a public highway, the Commission elevates Christianity over other faiths, and religion over nonreligion. Memorializing the service of American soldiers is an “admirable and unquestionably secular” objective. ….

The First Amendment commands that the government “shall make no law” either “respecting an establishment of religion” or “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” ….

union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion ….

when a cross is displayed on public property, the government may be presumed to endorse its religious content. ….

Holding the Commission’s display of the Peace Cross unconstitutional would not, as the Commission fears, “inevitably require the destruction of other cross-shaped memorials throughout the country. ….

By maintaining the Peace Cross on a public highway, the Commission elevates Christianity over other faiths, and religion over nonreligion»

* * * * * * *


Cnbc. 2019-06-21. Supreme Court rules that WWI cross on Maryland public land can remain, does not violate Constitution

– The case concerned a giant, early 20th century Latin cross, known as the Bladensburg Peace Cross, that stands in a Maryland intersection in the suburbs of the nation’s capital.

– The opinion of the court is authored by Justice Samuel Alito, who says the meaning of the cross was not limited to its religious context, and cautions against a government that “roams the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbolism.”

– Though the ultimate vote was 7-2, the case produced a smattering of opinions, with five justices writing separate concurrences to explain their thinking.

*

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a 40-foot cross commemorating fallen World War I soldiers can remain on public ground because it does not violate the Constitution’s establishment clause that bars favoring one religion over others.

The case concerned a giant, early 20th century Latin cross, known as the Bladensburg Peace Cross, that stands in a Maryland intersection in the suburbs of the nation’s capital. It was erected in 1925.

The cross was conceived as a memorial by mothers of men killed in World War I and is now maintained by a municipal agency that has spent just over $100,000 on the monument since the 1980s. That expenditure has raised questions about whether the cross violates the legal prohibition against excessive entanglement between religion and government, a murky area of constitutional law.

The challenge to the cross came from the American Humanist Association, an advocacy group that promotes secular governance. 

The opinion of the court was authored by Justice Samuel Alito, who said the meaning of the cross was not limited to its religious context. The court’s five conservatives as well as Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer agreed that the cross should remain on public land, while liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

“That the cross originated as a Christian symbol and retains that meaning in many contexts does not change the fact that the symbol took on an added secular meaning when used in World War I memorials,” Alito wrote. “Not only did the Bladensburg Cross begin with this meaning, but with the passage of time, it has acquired historical importance.”

And Alito cautioned against a government that “roams the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbolism.”

In contrast, Ginsburg called the cross “the foremost symbol of the Christian faith.”

“By maintaining the Peace Cross on a public highway, the Commission elevates Christianity over other faiths, and religion over nonreligion,” Ginsburg wrote in a dissent that was joined by Sotomayor.

Though the ultimate vote was 7-2, the case produced a smattering of opinions, with five justices writing separate concurrences to explain their thinking. Breyer, in a concurring opinion joined by Kagan, wrote that the case would be different if the cross had been erected recently.

“I see no reason to order this cross torn down simply because other crosses would raise constitutional concerns,” Breyer wrote.

Annunci