In a message dated 7/8/2005 12:18:52 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
    Would city councils be permitted to express their dissenting views this way?
In Roe, the Supreme Court concluded that states could not entirely prohibit abortion, that they could, in fact, do almost nothing about abortion practices in the early parts of the now disregarded trimester approach.  But in subsequent cases, the Court affirmed the ability of states and municipalities (the City of St. Louis in one case) to prefer child birth over abortion.  It seems to me that the principle that the Court sustains in those cases is that the people, acting through their elected representatives, may take a collective view of things -- even when contrary to the machinations of that eminent tribunal.  So really the question is focused on whether there is a violation of the Establishment Clause in such a display.
 
But the way Eugene presents the hypothetical, religious purpose is, in fact, non-existent or tertiary at best.  So, rather than the purpose problem, the question would be effect.  While she remains pending appointment of her successor, would O'Connor's reasonable observer be informed of the long (back beyond colonial days) tradition of dissent and disagreement that runs through this nation's civil veins?  If so, how could such a reasonable observer draw any conclusion but that anger at the Court and justification for that anger drove that display, and understanding of that anger and understanding of the justification for that anger were the primary effects of it?
 
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Reply via email to