Justices Seem Skeptical of Boston's Refusal to Fly Christian Flag

 The Supreme Court seems inclined to require the City of Boston to fly a Christian flag in front of City Hall because it has allowed other groups to temporarily fly flags on the City's flagpole symbolizing their organizations. (1/19, A18) The justices appear to subscribe to the notion that this is a freedom of speech rather than an establishment of religion issue under the First Amendment.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett would allow a city to "get behind" an idea of which it approves and prohibit those it abhors; yes to the cross, no to a swastika. 

That analysis is simply wrong. Yes, a government should be required to allow equally the use of its facilities to express a variety of ideas, even those that are controversial, and be permitted to bar such use by patently undemocratic hate groups. That comes within the free speech provisions of the First Amendment.

But, when it comes to religious symbolism, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is implicated. A government is not permitted to take any action which smacks of endorsing, or "getting behind" a particular or, indeed, any religion. That's what separation of Church and State was intended to prevent.

Biden-Cheney in 2024?

 

Thomas Friedman is right to warn that America is facing an existential moment and that drastic measures may be required to save our democratic form of government. He suggests that drawing five to ten percent of Republican voters away from Trump would assure his defeat and keep democracy safe.

However, his suggestion, that America temporarily adopt the current Israeli model of a cross-ticket, fusion government, such as a Biden- Cheney slate in 2024, misses the mark. That tactic is neither necessary nor doable here. Israel was able to create a unity government because the leaders of the opposing factions agreed to switch roles after two years, each serving for a time as Prime Minister. That would not be constitutionally permissible in the United States.

There is already a growing minority of Republicans who put country above party and are ready to support a Democratic candidate. While these "never Trumpers" like those who formed the Lincoln Project should be courted and commended, Liz Cheney backers are not going to vote for Trump regardless of whether she is a nominee. Besides, there already exists a majority of Democratic voters. The imperative is to get them out to vote. Pairing the Democratic nominee with a conservative Republican would likely depress rather than galvanize Democratic turnout.

Do We Have the Supreme Court We Deserve

 

The column by Linda Greenhouse makes the reader focus on the changing approach of the justices to the role of the court. Ms. Greenhouse makes clear that unlike its predecessors, the current majority exhibits little regard for precedent and an increased willingness to do the political bidding of its appointor. A court of last resort and national scope, as is the Supreme Court, must achieve a delicate balance between respect for settled law and the flexibility to adapt to a changing world.

Rather than rely upon the broadening of wisdom and understanding, hoped for qualities as justices mature, a surer way would be to make appointments for a fixed term, say fifteen years, on a staggered basis, with a turnover of three justices every five years.

While such a mechanism may not insure respect for precedent ( for that we would have to rely upon a judge’s ingrained training and the presence of the longer serving justices ) but it would increase the likelihood that a fresh approach, one more in sync with the popular will, would be brought to the decision-making process.