SCOTUS Rules 7-2 The Bladensburg Memorial Cross Does Not Violate Establishment Clause…

The Blandensburg Cross, aka The Peace Cross, is a war memorial, located in the three-way junction of Bladensburg Road, Baltimore Avenue, and Annapolis Road in Bladensburg, Maryland.

The American Humanist Association had sued the American Legion to have the cross removed, arguing the memorial represented a Christian symbol on public land and violated the establishment clause.

Lower courts had agreed with the plaintiff, against the American Legion, and the memorial was to be removed.  The American Legion appealed the ruling all the way to the Supreme Court.

Today the Supreme Court reversed the lower court rulings (full pdf below).  In a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Alito, the court acknowledged the Bladensburg Cross -as a memorial- represents more than religion and does not violate the establishment clause.

“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.  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.”

~ Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

This entry was posted in 1st Amendment, Christian Values, Heros, History, media bias, Military, Supreme Court, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

121 Responses to SCOTUS Rules 7-2 The Bladensburg Memorial Cross Does Not Violate Establishment Clause…

  1. TwoLaine says:


    Liked by 31 people

    • Sofa King says:

      About time!

      Push back against Dim intolerance!!!

      Liked by 14 people

      • David A says:

        Can we have the Mount Soledad cross in La Jolla California back now?

        Liked by 10 people

        • davew says:

          Actually the Mount Soledad cross issue was already settled. A private organization bought the land from the DoD and the cross was saved.

          Liked by 16 people

          • THank you for that peace of good news. We lost our lovely cross on the hill, near Industrial South San Francisco lettering years ago in the Bay Area. And Brisbane hills used to have many around Christmas time. Bleak as can be now.
            San Francisco. San Jose. San Mateo. Sacramento.
            Founded by saints, blasphemed by demons.

            Liked by 5 people

      • PBR says:

        The American Humanists are not very American nor are they very humane.

        Liked by 17 people

        • PBR says:

          Please stop allowing these frivolous lawsuits! people should look into the history instead of just saying, “Gasp, a cross!”.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Frivolous lawsuits are going through because ambulance chasing lawyers rose to justice level and are hearty encouragers of them. As lawyers they’d have been easy money for the defense. As prosecutors they’d have furthered political ambitions and as judges they enrich them through behind the scenes money bribes or through activist causes furthered by corrupt judges.

            Liked by 1 person

          • My mother was a female attorney in the late 60s before there were many. She was thoroughly constitutional and very very good at it. When she retired she discouraged parents who wanted their daughters to further the woman’s cause by going into law citing, among other reasons, frivolous lawsuits and demands for preparatory documents in such abundance that it was punitive (there is another term for it, but I’m getting stuck on exculpatory and it’s not that)..

            Liked by 1 person

          • An says:

            There was this crazy interaction between the 1st amendment’s establishment clause and the 14th amendment’s incorporation, whereby suddenly states could no longer have any establishment of religion (which was traditionally a power *reserved* to the states). The ruling today points out all the reasons that was utter nonsense, but the damage has been done.

            If it isn’t already obvious, they’re trying to tear down any vestige of Christian culture. This is but one front of the battle, but make no mistake, their objection has nothing whatsoever to do with the laws, they simply want to get rid of religion. This is part of the agenda of cultural Marxism which sees power structures like family and religion to be in opposition to them and in need of ‘deconstruction’.

            That basically means that they try to identify anything that gives their opponents, or even neutral parties, power and then either convert it or destroy it. That’s why every random awards ceremony, parade, or other expression of culture has been forced to bow to them as they isolate and target individuals.

            Incidentally, it can just as easily be used against them, though I would refrain from the dirty tactics they use in so doing, as I have no wish to become like them.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Linda K. says:

            The diversity crowd does not want diversity, elsewise they would tolerate and enjoy expressions of faith and culture different than their own. They are agitators only and it is unfortunate they have the money to pursue frivolous and harmful lawsuits against others.


        • Pretty much up there with the least valid labels, such as American Civil Liberties Union and Southern Law Poverty Center.

          For good measure I’ll add GreenPEACE, Planned Parenthood and Environmental Protection Agency, which not only fails to protect the environment but also tends to violate every human freedom and curtail a thriving marketplace.

          Liked by 3 people

      • Susan Bolle says:

        Humanists proving themselves inhumane.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Bob says:

      It is beautiful, that the court rendered a good verdict…what is ugly is the Left’s continued use of the Law to clog up the system with type of foolishness. Hopefully with more conservative Judges they can dismiss this type of trash at low level until the useless idiots stop.

      Liked by 8 people

    • PBR says:

      What a beautiful monument! And a wonderful ruling. Glad they persisted!

      Liked by 5 people

  2. Steven Edwards says:

    Seven to two. It is almost like the court is not really as Liberal as it is routinely made out to be.

    Liked by 9 people

    • QCM says:

      Don’t kid yourself, if Hillary has won the outcome would have been 4/3 the other way!

      Liked by 7 people

    • Something is starting to happen. It seems the liberal judges are starting to think a bit more and not just sticking with their ideology. It was looking like the only ones thinking about anything were the conservative judges who were at times voting with the liberals, but the liberals were sticking together and never willing to budge an inch. Maybe they noticed how it was looking…and maybe they actually respect Gorsuch and Kavanough and listen to them.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Perhaps those who were doing strongarming and threats are being put at risk and their strength over their targets is diminishing.

        I know that Soros and his tactics have become better known in the last 2 years than at any time in my memory of him the last 20 years.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Your Tour Guide says:

          First off, praise be to God.

          His strength is increasing, his supporters
          are coming out of hiding.

          As to Soros? I think that perhaps his
          back door money deals are drying up.
          The protests don’t seem to be as numerous
          and well funded. Biggest example would
          be the British Press pictures of the London
          protests. Not the protests themselves, but
          the pictures of all the ready made signs,
          sitting there all bound together, never to be

          Was astounded to see those pictures. You
          would never see them in the U.S. press.
          Everything is always portrayed as spontaneous,
          spur of the moment.

          Liked by 2 people

  3. Slowkid says:

    The usual suspects dissented.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Marion says:



  5. lisabrqwc says:

    Thank God sanity prevails, even with the 2 loony dissenters. I was born and raised in Bladensburg — the Peace Cross is an historical landmark that we walked past/drove by daily. I was holding my breath on this decision — both from a freedom of religion standpoint but also from a nostalgic one.

    Liked by 10 people

  6. grlangworth says:

    Freedom of religion — NOT freedom from religion.

    Liked by 30 people

    • vegas guy says:

      Finally some common sense prevails…..

      Liked by 2 people

    • Kitty-Kat says:

      It is religious plus plus plus …

      It is a symbol of selfless sacrifice for the good of others, which is what even atheist soldiers do. There is no other symbol on this earth that represents selfless sacrifice better than the cross.

      I think this decision will give the president joy today,

      Liked by 6 people

    • Astro says:

      By the logic of those two loons, Maryland should have been renamed too.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Most of California’s old cities too, given that the place is littered with names given by Father Junipero Serra as he founded missions.

        Liked by 2 people

        • So true jkash.

          Saint This and Saint That all over the place.

          There is nothing more religious than the names of the cities and towns in California.

          Liked by 1 person

          • cthulhu says:

            …..and, then, there’s “Alameda de las Pulgas” on the Peninsula….

            (Translated: “Avenue of the Fleas.”)

            Liked by 1 person

          • cthulhu says:

            The original name of LA was (and forgive me, I’m going to try to do this from memory….) “El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora Maria de Porcincula, Reina de los Angeles”. “The Town of Our Lady Mary of the Small Corner of a Porch, Queen of the Angels.”

            [To understand this, one has to know that it is not directly named for Mary — but rather for a tiny church of Mary in Assisi, Italy — which is, of course, the town that Saint Francis made famous and is central to the Franciscan orders. Tucked away in a corner of a porch {“culo” means “tail”}, there is a revered shrine.]

            And, thus, one of the most depraved and corrupt unholy cities of this earth is named after a humble chapel to a virgin mother who witnessed her son being brutally tortured and killed, only to become queen of the angels.

            Liked by 3 people

      • Rhoda R says:

        No. Maryland was named after Queen Mary, not the Virgin Mary.


        • technoaesthete says:

          It was founded by Catholics (as opposed to all of the other colonies founded by Protestants) – aka “Mary” Land or Maryland.


    • glissmeister says:

      Atheism is NOT the national religion of the United States, but how the atheists do their damnedest to make it so!

      What an ironically wrongheaded misreading of the Constitution, these atheists. Attempting to force governmental anti-theism on the rest of us, in their attempt to make anti-theism the de facto official state religion of our nation.

      Liked by 2 people

  7. Genie says:

    The American Humanist Association? Is it related to George Costanza’s favorite charity, the Human Fund?

    Liked by 3 people

  8. The Far Side says:

    Silent majority getting our voice back? We’ll need to clear our throats many times as we have to be “in tune and on song” before Nov., 2020! Rulings like this and the Gibson/Oberlin College decision are key to our confidence and resolve.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. ESTHER says:

    All these organizations with benign sounding names like the “Humanist Society” are inherently evil. My grandmother used to say that evil people READ THE BIBLE BACKWARDS. It puzzled me as a child and for many years as an adult I found many different ways to draw wisdome from what she said. But I can truthfully say that the current Dem party epitomizes what she meant. These people do the exact opposite of everything that is good honest and Godly, that is READING THE BIBLE BACKWARDS. So we can conclude that all of their heroes like Alinsky are evil and satanic, because all their strategies are bold and opposite to anything good. This is now coming to light more broadly, but the Dems have always been evil as hell, and lying as hell too, as with how racist they are, and how they have always tried to keep their foot on the Black race while smilingly pretending that they are doing good. So proud to see Mr. Burgess say it straight to their faces today. HIs statement before congress also unmask the great hypocrisy of the Black puppets who have worked against their own people for decades, all for power and a handful of beans. So Proud of you Mr. Burgess. KEEP SPEAKING TRUTH AND BRINGING LIGHT TO EXPOSE THE DEMS!

    Liked by 23 people

    • Kitty-Kat says:

      Great post, brimming with energy — thank you!

      Liked by 2 people

    • Everyone needs to listen to this video. Wow. Amazing.He shut those race-baiting democrats up.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Esther says:

      BTW a little history: Referring to Burgess Owens is Mr. Burgess was deliberate. Slaves and Blacks for could not call their masters and even ordinary whites by their surnames far less their first names. The indignity of their status relegated them even up to half a century ago to putting titles or suffixes to the first names ( think of Driving Miss Daisy). So in this instance Mr. Burgess is my way of honoring this great man.

      Liked by 6 people

    • MaineCoon says:

      Truth cuts right through lies. Thank you Mr. Owens for speaking truth.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Dee Paul Deje says:

      “This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.” 1 John 4:2-3

      Liked by 2 people

    • TheLastDemocrat says:

      Maybe a decade ago, I figured out that the secular world can be noted to attempt to parallel anything and everything God has done, but in a perverse way.

      I had thought about the Bible, and noted a great deal of this. Nukelar family is bad. Two genders is bad. We have the account of where the languages came from – God intended there to be many languages. And so, someone somewhere decided to invent the One Language to Rule Us All: that is Esperanto. Some of us believe you should pick your mate, get married, and then have a kid. The reverse is now oh so modern: have a kid, get married, then pick your mate.

      So, I mulled over the Bible and considered what had not been copied or duplicated yet. And it occurred to me:

      The Bible is pretty strong and clear about being against incest. So, I told my wife: watch – the next thing they come up with will be that incest is OK. Soon after that, I noted a few of these stories popping up especially in the Daily Mail UK – this is their bread and butter type stuff: Man marries his mother, woman unknowingly marries her adult son, etc., etc. AND I looked at the comments posted after these stories. They mainly said: “if they are not hurting anyone, let them live their own life as they want.”

      So, there it is. General society now accepts incest.

      Maybe a year ago, I saw that young conservative guy who posts the videos showing young people answering questions that show how ignorant or foolish many people are. He asked about same-sex marriage, and many answered: “as long as they love each other and are consenting adults.” He knew in advance this would be easy to get this response. So, he then asks if it is OK for an adult brother to marry his sister.

      People get this funny squemish look on the face, then figure out they have to answer “yes, that’s OK, as long as they are consenting adults and love each other.”

      So the Prog think has gotten us to accept incestual marriage even before we consider whether it is OK or not.


  10. Kitty-Kat says:

    Thank you, God.

    Liked by 3 people

  11. bessie2003 says:

    Really great ruling!

    It was nice to see addressed in the opinion that merely being offended by someone else’s display on public property that may also carry a religious symbolism does not grant automatic standing to sue. Perhaps this will bring relief to towns that have creches at Christmas time in public places by cutting down on lawsuits where someone can simply claim being offended is grounds to screw with other’s rights and community traditions.

    Liked by 4 people

  12. magatrump says:

    Thank God!!!!

    Liked by 1 person

  13. KnowSERENoFear says:

    Courts don’t rule – royalty rules – courts hold/issue opinions.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jeff P. says:

      There are more than 1 definition for words o.0….DOH!

      Liked by 1 person

    • yes sir. Correct!! The court rules correctly, but for the wrong reason. If you want to see the correct reason (the constitutional reason), read this:


    • KnowSERENoFear says:

      First sentence from SCOTUS PDF:

      “SCOTUS Decision 7-2: In an opinion by Justice Alito on June 20, 2019.”

      Even the courts don’t call their decision a ruling.

      Words matter. Ill-advised for We the People to elevate the SCOTUS to an oligarchy of 9. If we call their opinions “rulings,” then we are inclined to acquiesce to their power and “law-making.” ONLY the Legislative branch can make law and no branch, per separation of powers, may transfer their enumerated power to another without a constitutional amendment.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Esther says:

        KnowSereNoFear – You are right!. I wrote about this somewhere else today. We have THREE EQUAL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, but the courts have recently been positioned as having Supremacy. Justice Roberts ( chief corrupter) has sat silent while the lower courts stepped out of bounds of the law of the land which directs that local federal judges, and Federal appellate courts have limited jurisdiction that is clearly spelled out. Yet continually the Executive Branch has yielded to lower court judges making National Injunctions. The fact is that Trump does not have to cooperate or adhere to opinions an injunctions imposed on his Executive Orders as Commander in Chief and President of the United States by any local court. A certified class action suit against is slightly different. But a class action suit against a Presidential directive given by a sitting president is NOT SUBJECT to intervention by the courts when the President acts withing the boundaries of his authority.

        Even if courts allow class action suits, they have no jurisdictional power to impose injunctions against Presidential Orders. This deeply erodes the power of the Executive branch and the inherent powers of the Presidency to govern this Country. At the risk of being repetitive, this fact needs to be drummed into people’s heads. There is a serious con being played out on American citizens and their duly elected President. Thus far only Justice Clarence Thomas has spoken up about it. Not even those two jesuits Trump appointed have spoken out about the courts power grab. However Justice Thomas buck the majority and in a dissenting opinion noted
        In June 2018:

        “In sum, universal injunctions are legally and historically dubious,” the justice wrote. “If federal courts continue to issue them, this court is duty-bound to adjudicate their authority to do so.” CRICKETS FROM CORRUPT JOHN ROBERTS who refused the opportunity from the beginning of this trend to put an end to judges overstepping their legally set jurisdictional boundaries.

        Justice Thomas’s Opinion continued: “These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system — preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the executive branch,”

        Behind this opening of the floodgates of permitting lower courts to overstep their set jurisdictional boundaries is the TRAITOR JEFF SESSIONS. All he had to do as AG is argue that point in any of the cases where this occurred that inevitable wound up before the SCOTUS where the justices would have been forced to address it. Of course he did not, and my prayer is that he ends up in the same place as Ruth Ginsberg after they cease existence on this earth.


      • Esther says:

        lurker2 – What a load of CRAP!!’

        You posited an argument like this on a conservative forum because you think we are idiots? You wrote –
        “It’s not always bad when the atheists sue to have religious displays removed from public property. In order to understand this you have to look ahead to a likely future when some other religion is the majority.” Let’s get this straight.

        America is a Christian Country with Christian=Judeo principals. In case you missed it, that’s what true conservatives are fighting to maintain. The only way that would change is if Trump does not find a way to kick out ALL who came in illegally by crossing our border, no matter if subsequently the corrupt DHS gave them status. This goes for the planeloads of so-called refugees brought in by Catholic charities and other NGO’s who under our laws were not really authorized to issue visas etc. The DHS under Obummer corruptly outsourced a job that impacts our national security ,that was not in their authority to permit. Therefore, as fruit of the poisonous tree, Trump has every right to go into the computers and revisit everyone of those visa, green card and citizenship issuances by those not lawfully authorized by congress to issue them.

        If there is any crime committed or any lies told in the process of obtaining any form of immigrant status in this Country our laws say that our government can rescind that status and deport. We have a lot of good laws on our books, congress and the courts are pretending that they do not exists. But once people are educated beyond the garbage of talking heads on TV they will understand no matter how long anyone has been in this country, the government retains the right to kick their asses out if any aspect of their application is unlawful or untruthful and THERE IS NO TIME LIMIT for doing this. So go back to your Dem friends and tell them we know what they think we don’t know. There is NEVER going to be a majority of any other religion in this country. So millions of people who think they are sitting pretty had better get used to the fact that not only do we want them out, our laws permit us to throw them the hell out!!

        Liked by 3 people

    • Dee Paul Deje says:

      SCOTUS opines 7-2. Yuck.


    • Dan Dan says:

      A ruling is the outcome of a court’s decision, whether on some particular point of law (such as the admissibility of evidence) or on the case as a whole. A ruling may lead to an order–a court’s written direction or determination, which may be either interlocutory (on an intermediate matter), or more broadly, final (and therefore dispositive of the entire case).

      An opinion is a court’s written statement of the relevant facts, the applicable points of law, the reasoning that led to the court’s decision, and dicta, everything not directly germane to that reasoning. In British English, opinion may have this meaning, but the usual BrE equivalent is judgment [or judgement]. Instead, in BrE opinion typically refers to advice given by a barrister about the facts of a case or a legal memorandum prepared by a solicitor and given to the barrister.


      • KnowSERENoFear says:

        …as written by a lawyer.

        I use the source – the Constitution itself. And per the Constitution, SCOTUS does not even have jurisdiction.

        You want to find ways to justify the unconstitutional authority of the SCOTUS…have a nut…you are free to do so…for now…until the oligarchy of 9 takes over and we find ourselves right back where we were pre-1776.

        Perhaps some review of how the royalty of England used the courts to circumnavigate the Magna Carta is in order. Then perhaps Americans will begin to understand why there were long discussions prior to the ratification of the Constitution demanding that Courts be the WEAKEST branch of government. All one has to do is read the Constitution to see that the Legislature has the most authority and the Judicial the least. Heck…the standard for which to impeach a Justice is merely that they don’t exhibit “good behavior.”

        And once again, if you would prefer the courts to “rule,” you are welcome to petition your Representative to amend the Constitution to transfer the “making & executing” of rules from the Executive & Legislative branches to the Judicial.


        • Dan Dan says:

          LOL…You are confusing…

          A Rule (explicit or understood regulations or principles) with To Rule (control of or dominion over)

          No branch of government is To Rule that is reserved for … We the People..

          Liked by 1 person

    • boogywstew says:

      A ruling is an authoritative decision or opinion according to a few dictionaries I just checked. It must be nice to just make up your own definitions for words. Isn’t that something that we rail against here on a daily basis?

      Liked by 1 person

      • KnowSERENoFear says:

        Excellent. Then if they are interchangeable…let’s call a court’s decision as they do: an opinion. I didn’t make up opinion…I READ it in the actual court document….first sentence. You will NEVER read “the court ruled” in any legal document. No doubt, you are intelligent enough to know the context of “ruling,” but millions of uninformed people will not…when they hear “ruling,” they hear that the court makes rules…that courts are the “be all-end/all of law…and that is simply not true.

        The court “ruled” via Roe v Wade that fetuses are not alive…now millions of babies are dead. The court “ruled” that Obamacare was constitutional…and now our property is taken and given to others without due process. IF these instances were expressed as “opinions,” they would hold less weight.

        I was a professional indoctrinator…the first thing I was taught in training was to use words to persuade…labeling our government a democracy instead of a Republic as a tool to eradicate the electoral college….asset forfeiture instead of seizure….reproductive freedom instead of murder…etc.


  14. Jeff P. says:


    Liked by 1 person

  15. Paul B. says:

    Yes. How about we not let the 5% of people who might have “observer objections” dictate how the other 95% of the population should live. How about that? Amazing what a little common sense will do, even when it has to be dressed up in hyperarticulate legal language. We could use a lot more of it in this nation. Congrats to the Court.

    Liked by 4 people

    • tonyE says:

      The Constitution is designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority (that’s why we are a Republic).

      Lately though, the Fascists are OK with that when they are in the minority.

      But when WE conservatives are in the minority we are hosed and have no rights (because we are racist, anti this, anti that,. etc).

      Liked by 2 people

  16. waicool says:

    yay! winning!!!

    Liked by 2 people

  17. Esther says:

    There will be a puff of black smoke when RGB exhales her last breath.
    I am happy for this ruling but things must change with regards to the balance of power of the equal branches of government.
    I do not like the fact that President Trump has in a way been establishing the supremacy of the courts over the Executive Branch.

    He really should have ignored many of the lower court rulings where they obviously have no jurisdictional authority to impose Nationwide injunctions. Furthermore, these injunctions are not just over persons, but over the authority of the Presidency. Hopefully, going forward Trump will stand his ground and will not yield anymore to the courts. Obummer put him on the backfoot to rely on the courts and make his presidency and the executive branch subservient to the Courts. This MUST NOT CONTINUE. Trump, not being an attorney relied on traitors like McGahn and other implanted WH counsel to yield to the lower court’s rather than stand his ground that LOCAL FEDERAL JUDGES LACK ANY AUTHORITY TO ORDER NATIONAL INJUNCTIONS ON ANY TOPIC UNLESS IT IS A CLASS ACTION SUIT, FAR-LESS OVER THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE.

    Trump can impose an Executive Order to first name all these monuments as Historical National Landmarks, and in that same order institute guidelines for their preservation as vital to our progeny and American History.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Stop5G, Trump says:

    “…would NOT further the IDEALS of respect and TOLERANCE embodied in the First Amendment.” (Alito).

    Beautifully & non-antagonistically stated. Reminds me of Apostle Paul’s advice to “HEAP FIERY COALS ON THEIR HEADS” (ie, “Be Nice” in order to make the guilty ashamed, though it’s hard to imagine any such contriteness from any group called “Humanist.”)

    So, on that note, I would like to include a dig into the hearts of the rebels & crybabies by adding: “SCOTUS THREW ‘TOLERANCE’ BACK in YOUR FACES! How does it feel, suckas?!” 😀

    Liked by 1 person

    • Stop5G, Trump says:

      Too bad, so sad, though, there was no similar safeguarding “opinions” to stop the wave of destruction by the Crazed Commies of the many historical statues & flags a few years ago. 😦

      Liked by 1 person

  19. 7 to 2 = a good day.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. MaineCoon says:

    Well written opinion, particularly the paragraph Sundance excerpted. Any dissenter who cannot view the Brandensburg Cross from one or more of the perspectives Justice Alito states has major, major emotional, mental health issues. Maybe they could better align with another country, say, China?

    Liked by 4 people

  21. hoghead says:

    The fools who instigate this sort of crap want a secular, Godless society with Godless laws. In the not-too-distant future, they shall have their wish, a totally Godless world and Godless culture. Until it’s coming out of their nostrils. Then the Lord of Lords and King of Kings returns.

    Even so, come Lord Jesus.

    Liked by 2 people

  22. DonnyVee says:

    Seven to two is a pleasant surprise. Makes my more hopeful for the future.

    Liked by 5 people

    • betseyross says:

      Especially the issue of the separation of church and state. Most of the Supreme Court understands it, except for two of them. Most Liberals don’t understand the concept.


  23. lurker2 says:

    Let me present some food for thought here, it’s a little bit random, I’m not trying to get an A for this. 🙂

    I’m an atheist. This news made me smile. There are some anti-religion atheists but they are actually in the minority, believe it or not. I see no reason to remove religious symbols from public spaces where the expression of religion doesn’t give the impression that if you don’t adhere to that religion you will not be treated fairly. So Roy Moore’s Ten Commandments in a court building isn’t acceptable, IMO, but a cross in a park or in some other public building is fine. Again, not seeing an A here, and I’m not going to fully flesh out my thinking here though I could if necessary. This is my only comment in this thread and I probably won’t come back to read any replies. Not interested in arguing, just presenting a point of view.

    It’s not always bad when the atheists sue to have religious displays removed from public property. In order to understand this you have to look ahead to a likely future when some other religion is the majority. In several decades Christians will probably be a minority. Whatever Christians ask for now will be demanded by the adherents of the other religion that becomes the majority. You have to choose your battles wisely now to avoid problems later on.


    • Responding to this “in a likewise cordial and respectful manner,” I would advance this point:

      [I think that …] there definitely exists someone who should [I think …] definitely be referred to as an “anti-theist.” This is the sort of person who, when confronted with an expression of religion [in a public space …], simply cannot leave it alone. Can’t pick a different route to go to work. Has to file a court case and doggedly fight it all the way to the top. These people seem to be affronted by the existence(!) of “religion” in society.

      The simple truth of the matter is that “religion always has been a very fundamental part of human society, literally for many thousands of years.” You’re entitled to be offended by it if you want to, but you should have no legal standing whatsoever to make a court case out of it. At the end of the day, all of us have to somehow get along with one another.


      • P.S. In the above response please note that I entirely declined your invitation to “look ahead to a likely future.” I see no reason to do so. I see no reason at all “to [sue to] remove ‘religious displays’ from public property.” Who am I to say that ancestors from the past (or, for that matter, people of the present) have/had no right to do what they did, such that I must now take it upon myself to ‘correct’ it? It’s a great big world there, filled by literally billions of people, every one of which has a personal opinion . . .

        Liked by 2 people

  24. Git-R-Done says:

    Anyone offended should just think of it as a very large letter “T”. Of course that would also trigger them since they will immediately think it stands for TRUMP!

    Liked by 1 person

  25. TigerBear says:

    Should have been a 9-0 ruling, but…….The SCOTUS has drifted far from the roots of our Constitution and the original founding of this great nation based on its judeo-christian beliefs. The video I suggested gives clear and factual proof of my statement. 🙂

    “A Nation Adrift”
    “This is the true story of how God’s sovereign hand guided the founders of America, says producer Brian Barkley. It takes you on a journey from Christopher Columbus to Jamestown, from Valley Forge to the Constitutional Convention, from the Civil War to the Industrial Revolution, from the First World War to the Stock Market Crash, from FDR to the present. The journey gives a basic grasp of God’s sovereign hand behind the history of our nation, which our Founding Fathers so clearly understood. The result of this journey gives us a better understanding of where America is today, how she arrived here and where she must turn at this critical hour.”

    Amazon prime has it as part of their prime deal. Otherwise it costs to rent or buy. It is well worth the money.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. chojun says:

    This just proves that “civil liberties for some” is not an intellectually defensible position for even some liberals.



  27. john edward lorenz says:

    Ginsberg and Sotomyor dissenters. Figures


  28. YY4U says:

    Sotomayor and Ginsberg never disappoint. They are politicians first and foremost, The law is the last thing on their minds; they’re interested solely in advancing Marxism in the United States. I wish they had run for office instead of besmirching the SCOTUS the way they have. Roberts is no jewel either, nor are Kagan and Breyer, but at least they occasionally check their politics at the door and give a glance to the Constitution.

    Liked by 3 people

  29. doit4atlas says:

    Dear God, elections have consequences.


  30. beachbum31 says:

    YouTube Is an excellent source for WWII era news film archives. It is endless. Show your pride for the nearly extinct generation of Allies those films depict, and check them out… its easy on ROKU ect, and know how much their efforts mattered then and now. TY dad.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. MIKE says:

    Despite Ginsboyg and Sodo mizor, a piece of American history was saved today. Sucks that is probably only temporary.
    If I get time this weekend, i’m going to go plant an American flag on the Peace Cross island, and personally salute the vets of Bladensburg past and present.
    A teeming tobacco port in the 18th and 19th centuries, when the Anacostia was still semi-deep water.
    Our company did the riverside waterfront park, thought he job was referred to as the “Colmar manor” job. I must say, we did a helluva good job.
    And I will keep you, lisabrqwc and betseyross, in mind when i plant that flag.
    Take care, all treepers, and God bless us.

    Liked by 1 person

  32. “Inquiring minds would like to know” how it is that three(!) offended atheists, having their respective pants and panties all tied up in a knot over the “affront” of having to view this cross as they drove by it every day, were nonetheless successful in taking their sense of personal offense all the way to the US Supreme Court. How is it that this “court case” was accepted in the first place, let alone that it drove itself all the way to the top – passing an obviously biased District Court judge along the way. Doesn’t the Court system have better things to do?


  33. mazziflol says:

    Slippery slope in Oregon.
    Gov. Brown authorizes Oregon State Police to round up walkout GOP senators
    Senate Republicans walked out in protest over a cap-and-trade bill that pushes Oregonians to lower pollution by ditching fossil fuel engines.”


    • NICCO says:

      This is the goal of the socialist/communists.People in these states need to pray and stand up to these jackals and vote them out of office.


  34. Jerry Joe says:

    I did not read the entire opinion. After expecting what should have been a 9-0 decision, I wanted to read the dissenting opinion. The Dissent points begins with the admission the gov’t did not erect, but that a commission “owns and maintains” the cross. By voting to affirm the lower court ruling, the dissent would have ordered removal of something private persons erected. Rather than then focus on the propriety of its maintenance and accepting ownership, the dissent expounds on interpretive meanings of symbols in religion. The dissent would have the nation, after nearly 100 years, now bow to the current objection of a few over the labors of others.

    Two observations: it would be hard to believe that Justice Ginsberg, in all her wisdom and experience, could have authored such reasoning. If she so approved the work of her staff, then perhaps there should be an occasion where continued commitment should be re-examined. Sadly, Justice Sotomayor did not contribute; she could have addressed this shortcoming.


  35. J Gottfred says:

    I am proud to be a member of American Legion Post 291 who took a stand with others for this cross. We filed an Amicus Brief with the Supreme Court supporting allowing this cross and others to continue to exist! —Some time you gotta take a stand!

    From the brief…
    “American Legion Newport Harbor Post 291
    based in Newport Beach, California is the local
    American Legion chapter in that community, which
    focuses its mission on serving the various needs of
    veterans (through many projects, and the donation of
    over $100,000 per year to veterans in financial need),
    protecting children and youth, and defending
    traditional patriotic American values. Post 291 is the
    largest active American Legion post in the United
    States, with over 4,000 wartime veteran members,
    and an additional 3,000 members of the Sons of the
    American Legion or the Auxiliary. Uniquely, Post 291
    operates its own Defense of Veterans Memorials
    Project, protecting memorials “where they are, as
    they are” against desecration by individuals and
    organizations allegedly offended by the sight of a
    cross or other symbol that may have religious
    significance in addition to its significance for honoring
    veterans. Post 291 was actively involved in the
    successful fights to preserve the Mojave Desert
    National Veterans Memorial and the Mt. Soledad
    National Veterans Memorial, both of which contain
    crosses as part of their commemoration of veterans.
    Post 291 seeks clarity in the law to avoid the need to
    expend precious time and resources defending
    memorials that should not be considered
    controversial. It also seeks clarity in the law to
    extinguish the fear it currently has regarding
    whether memorials it is planning to construct on city
    property to honor the service of veterans, and a
    veterans cemetery it is actively engaged in trying to
    establish in Orange County, California, will provoke
    lawsuits if crosses or other elements that may have a
    religious connotation in addition to their significance
    for commemorating military service are included.”


  36. covfefe999 says:

    Once again the libtards/Dems lose bigly. 🙂 They have had a string of major losses since mid-2015. Hahaha.


  37. NJF says:

    I’m so pleased by this decision!!!


  38. HdwJunlkie says:

    What’s the over/under on how long it takes for vandals to destroy the monument?


  39. Ned2 says:

    And the supreme court is involved in this why?
    This is a local government issue, nothing to do with the Federales.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s