I've been reading the thread, and I noticed your attempts in 1947? Part II (Message 16)to disregard the significance of Everson.
No you haven't: I have never disregarded the significance of
Everson. Unlike you, I
know the significance of
Everson. It's just not what
you think it is.
Do you know what a LANDMARK court decision is?
Yes. Let me give you an example of a landmark case.
Reynolds v. United States.
That is why, for example, it appears on the Bill of Rights Institute's
list of landmark Supreme Court Cases. That's why academic publishers Pearson Prentice Hall have it on their
list of landmark cases. This is why
this legal scholar who is trying to prove that the
Reynolds decision was
wrong still calls it a landmark case. This is why "Common Sense Americanism" (a nakedly right-wing site, by the way, you'd like them) has it on
their list of landmark cases. This is why
this guy writes:
There have been a number of landmark Supreme Court cases on the clause. Historically, there was not much need for the Supreme Court to define the bounds of free exercise of religion. The first case regarding the subject was Reynolds v. United States, in 1879.
The first, eh? Sounds landmarky to me.
And this is
why it was cited by Black --- you don't suppose, do you, that he had the details of
every sixty-nine-year-old court case at his fingertips?
You, for weird reasons of your own, may not want to use the word "landmark" to decribe it, but I don't see how you can try to deny the significance of
Reynolds when it was the (legal)
fons et origo of the separation doctrine as it appeared in
Everson. If mention of separation is important in
Everson then
a fortiori it is important in
Reynolds.
And to deny its very
existence, as you did in the post to which I was replying, is downright dishonest.
Wikipedia puts it into words very well;
quote:
Landmark court decisions establish new precedents that establish a significant new legal principle or concept, or otherwise substantially change the interpretation of existing law.
And
Reynolds established the significant new legal concept (new
qua legal concept, that is) that the Establishment Clause meant a wall of separation between church and state. The very concept that Black cited in
Everson. The very concept that this thread is about.
"Everson" was a landmark court decision, evidenced by the large number of references to it by future courts.
A google search turns up 4050 uses of the phrase "citing Reynolds v. United States". And 514 for "citing Everson v. Board of Education".
It was a 5-4 decision ...
But in
Everson the court was
not split over Black's interpretation of the First Amendment. The dissenters just felt that given that interpretation, which they all agreed on, the state
shouldn't be paying for the buses. In Justice Rutledge's minority opinion, for example, he wrote that the First Amendment's purpose was: "to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion". He was
disagreeing with Black. But not about the doctrine of separation, on which the Court was unanimous.
... and a controversial one.
Reynolds was also controversial, especially amongst Mormons. Also, as I've shown above, there are
still legal scholars arguing that it was the wrong decision.
"Reynolds" was not a landmark decision. It was a (practically) unanimous one concerning bigamy and polygamy - it's reference to separation was very minor
(1) That the court should be split is
not part of the definition of a landmark case. (And, as I have pointed out, the court in
Everson was not split
over the meaning of the Establishment Clause.)
(2) Nor is
not being about polygamy.
(3) Your idea of what is "very minor" seems somewhat subjective. They decided that the Establishment Clause means that there is a wall of separation between church and state. I don't see how it can be "minor" when they decided it but a big deal when Hugo Black quoted it.
If you're in denial about judicial activism and its history in the US, I can see how you'd be clueless about the significance of landmark court decisions. But even if you continue to deny judicial activism, you really should consider the importance landmark court decisions can have on how a society changes, and how they themselves can make that change. You could also work on how to determine if a court decision is a landmark or not.
What a high horse! However will you get down from it?
Until you can manage to get through a post on this subject without being grossly wrong about something, I think you should abandon your attempts to patronize me.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2