It is interesting that the White House seeks diversity in its judicial nominations. I assume that Judge Ketanji Jackson will make a fine justice. But I would point that when she takes a seat on Supreme Court after Justice Breyer's retirement, blacks will hold 22% of the seats while the U.S. black population is 12% (2020). That doesn't bother me much either. (Making up for lost time.) Rather, I am concerned 100% of the justices self-identify with a religion yet 23-26% of Americans self-identify as "nones". If America truly believes in diversity, it is time to put two non-religiously affiliated justices on the Supreme Court and end Christian privilege. While I'm at it, there are two justices on the Court who identify themselves as Jewish (22%), while Jews comprise 1.9% of the U.S. population. That is not overly concerning either, as many Jews are secular. Ah, but Justice Breyer (Jewish) blew it in 2005 when he was the deciding vote in Van Orden v. Perry which permitted a Fraternal Order of Eagles Ten Commandments monument to remain the grounds of the Texas State Capitol. I don't forgive him for that awful vote.
Thursday, April 7, 2022
Add two secularists to the Court if you believe in diversity
It is interesting that the White House seeks diversity in its judicial nominations. I assume that Judge Ketanji Jackson will make a fine justice. But I would point that when she takes a seat on Supreme Court after Justice Breyer's retirement, blacks will hold 22% of the seats while the U.S. black population is 12% (2020). That doesn't bother me much either. (Making up for lost time.) Rather, I am concerned 100% of the justices self-identify with a religion yet 23-26% of Americans self-identify as "nones". If America truly believes in diversity, it is time to put two non-religiously affiliated justices on the Supreme Court and end Christian privilege. While I'm at it, there are two justices on the Court who identify themselves as Jewish (22%), while Jews comprise 1.9% of the U.S. population. That is not overly concerning either, as many Jews are secular. Ah, but Justice Breyer (Jewish) blew it in 2005 when he was the deciding vote in Van Orden v. Perry which permitted a Fraternal Order of Eagles Ten Commandments monument to remain the grounds of the Texas State Capitol. I don't forgive him for that awful vote.
Thursday, July 9, 2020
Justice Breyer flip-flops on time makiing a wrong right
Justice Gorsuch, writing for the majority in McGirt v. Oklahoma, said today: "Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law. To hold otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen and longstanding injustices over the law, both rewarding wrong and failing those in the right."
I agree with both the Court's decision in McGirt and Justice Gorsuch's statement. Fifteen years ago, Justice Breyer, who signed on to Justice Gorsuch's opinion, had a different view in Van Orden v. Perry (2005). Justice Breyer concurred in the judgement in Van Orden, joining four Christian nationalist justices in holding that a 1961 Fraternal Order of Eagles Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol did not violate the Establishment Clause because it had been on the Capitol grounds for 44 years.
In other words, in Van Orden, Justice Breyer opined that a wrong (i.e., a religious monument on public property) should be allowed to stay (i.e., go uncorrected) because the passage of time is an alchemy for making a wrong right (or, simply, let sleeping dogs lie). Hypocrisy at its finest -- in the Supreme Court of the United States.
Bottom line: the Van Orden v. Perry decision is a blatant example of Christian privilege and needs to be reversed. It has resulted in 120 Eagles Ten Commandments monuments remaining on public property in violation of the First Amendment.
By: Robert V. Ritter, Founder, Jefferson Madison Center for Religious Liberty, July 9, 2020
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Myth #12: 40 Years Maketh a Wrong Right
[Chapter 9, post #14]
Time, money and frustration are at major reasons why potential plaintiffs decline to bring or delay bringing meritorious lawsuit. There are four other considerations which explain the time delay.
First, Separationists didn’t wait 40 years to file the first lawsuit challenging the placement of Eagles-donated Ten Commandments monuments on public property. In 1972, a lawsuit was filed against the Salt Lake City seeking the removal its Eagles-donated monument.[5] Numerous other challenges to Eagles-donated monuments were filed prior to the decision in Van Orden being handed down on June 27, 2005, and others have been filed since. Lawsuits challenging Eagles-donated Ten Commandments monuments are pending in Fargo, North Dakota,[6] Connellsville, Pennsylvania[7] and New Kensington, Pennsylvania.[8]
Second, Ten Commandment monument cases are not a criminal case or other type where material evidence will be lost due to the passage of time, including the memory of witnesses. There is no harm if it takes one year, ten years or 40 years to bring the lawsuit – for the religious nature of the monuments speaks for themselves. Each and every day is an ongoing violation of the First Amendment.
Third, there is also a flip side to the Chief Justice and Justice Breyer’s argument. Nonbelievers are the most hated group in America of which Van Orden was a member.[9] While I am not aware that Thomas Van Orden felt intimidated, I can that during the course of my representing plaintiffs in Newdow v. Roberts,[10] one of the plaintiffs had had her house burned down by an arsonist who was upset with prior litigation the plaintiff was involved in. Further, Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy were shot to death by assassins who ideologically disagreed with their policies. Similarly, churches have been burned down, persons hanged, beaten or burned to death by persons who disagreed with the victim’s race, religion, national origin or gender identity. There is an ugly side to America to which a lawsuit exposes a person to..[11]
And fourth, plaintiffs seek to avoid the stigmatization as a second class citizen that follows the filing a lawsuit challenging a practice of the majority religion
Justice Souter offered a most delightful rebuttal to the Chief Justice and Justice Breyer: