The reason the highest court in the land may hear this case is that the state court ruled in favor of Summum saying the city must put up the monument because to exclude it would create a bias against a specific group. (Technically, according to the ruling, this could be any group, religious or otherwise.) The city contends it has no legal obligation to allow a monument to any group that wants one.
Wall Street Journal columnist, Daniel Henninger writes: "Laughable though it looks, Pleasant Grove City v. Summum is a text-boook example of tensions that have pulled our courts between noble reading of the Constitution--in this case, the First Amendment's speech protections--and what the average person might call the common-sense requirements of running a civil society.
"This is the sort of case that cries out for the judicial wisdom of Solomon, long dead in the U.S. Indeed it was the departure from common-sense wisdom that pitched the country into endless legal thickets, most notably the ruined learning environments in public schools... A win here for Summum and its Seven Aphorisms likely would cause many cities to wash their hands of the problem by clearing their parks of all monuments, a desolate result."
Another voice for common sense... what a stupid idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment