Scalia "clearly irritated" today when ACLU lawyer Peter Eliasberg thrashed his argument

[usregimechange]

Peter Eliasberg, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer arguing the case, explained that the cross is the predominant symbol of Christianity and commonly used at Christian grave sites, not that the devoutly Catholic Scalia needed to be told that.

"I have been in Jewish cemeteries," Eliasberg continued. "There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew."

There was mild laughter in the packed courtroom, but not from Scalia. :blush: ---> :grr:

"I don't think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that that cross honors are the Christian war dead. I think that's an outrageous conclusion," Scalia said, clearly irritated by the exchange.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_MOJAVE_CROSS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-472.pdf

[Zoeisright]

1. Then Scalia shouted:

"And get off my lawn!"

[usregimechange]

2. Wasn't he suppose to be the conservative intellectual heavyweight?

[jgraz]

7. Scalia is and always has been a demagoguing moron

I've never seen this guy write an opinion that makes sense. He's a complete idiot who's coasted through life on bullshit and bluster.

[Zomby Woof]

17. "Conservative intellectual"

Is the ultimate oxymoron.

[adamuu]

22. occassionally i meet a conservative who can make coherent arguements

there are some. It's like a breath of fresh air. Very stimulating. I'm not saying they win....

[saltpoint]

3. Scalia likes to be at the control panel.

He's not a team player. He's not an integrated mind.

He's a bad dog.

[Mind_your_head]

4. What?????

*scratches head*

Scalia is a :freak: and anyone who tries to make a silk purse out of this sow's ear is ALSO a :freak: (imo).

[BlooInBloo]

5. That's not going to reflect well on Scalia when the justices talk privately, I would imagine.

[Rex]

6. What a fucking idiot. Tony, step down.

You can't even think like a rational human being anymore. Did the theft of the 2000 election leave a permanently bad taste in your mouth, moran?

[Libertas1776]

8. There are no crosses

in Jewish cemeteries, there are no crosses in Islamic cemeteries, or any other religion under the sun, that is NOT Christianity, despite what Scalia the mook might think. Yes, how pretentious of a Jew to dare defy the infallible rulings of Pontius Pil...er, um...I mean Supreme Court Justice Scalia.

[awnobles]

25. Pontius Pilot

Good one.

[Critters2]

9. Why would that be an outrageous conclusion?

And how can I be smarter than a Supreme Court Justice?

[hedgehog]

10. I'm a Catholic, and I find Scalia embarrassing.

I would have thought better of Georgetown.

[dmr]

16. Me too, & it was a Catholic park employee who challenged the legality

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/us/july-dec09/scotus_10-07.html

The Court is also hearing arguments this week about controversy over a cross in the desert.

Seventy five years ago, the organization Veterans of Foreign Wars erected a large white cross in the desolate Mojave Desert to commemorate those who died in World War I.

In 1999, a Buddhist shrine was denied on land near the white cross by the federal agency causing a controversy as to why some religious symbols are allowed and some denied.

A park employee and devout Catholic, Frank Buono, challenged the legality of the cross saying the land belonged to everyone.

Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, a legal defense fund whose defined mission is to defend individual rights, Bruno argued that the cross was illegal because of the Constitution's decree that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

The park service agreed with Buono but before the cross could be taken down Congress passed a law trading the acre of land where the cross lies to the VFW for another acre of land, thus seeding that land to the VFW -- part of the agreement was that the cross would have to continue to stand and was designated as a national monument.

Lower courts ruled that such a move by Congress had purposefully tried to subvert the decision to remove the cross and was thus unconstitutional. The government appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

At issue in the case is who can deem a monument a religious shrine and who can take offense to it. If the Court rules against the VFW, some argue that crosses in Arlington National Cemetery could be bulldozed without warning. Opponents argue that if the cross is not removed then the government could possibly erect any religious monuments and no one would have legal ground to argue.

Douglas Laycock, who filed a brief on behalf of Muslim veterans, said "If they want to put a cross on every street corner, they could do that."

I understand the passion of wanting to keep the cross, especially because of the length of time it has been in place; but I am a strict believer in separation of church and state.

A cross is not a national symbol, nor is it a national monument - and that's a fact. Waving the Stars & Stripes would be a nice alternative.

[hedgehog]

24. I wish more religious leaders would have the guts to speak out that Christianity

is damaged when it is tied to the fortunes of a single country. Does putting that cross on the hill means that Jesus endorses the policies of Reagen? Carter? Nixon? Bush? Obama?

[defendandprotect]

11. Cross is 5' to 8' tall -- sounds more like a KKK cross . . . ???!!!

Court papers describe the cross as being 5 feet to 8 feet tall.

Meanwhile -- rather than amend the display to include everyone -- we're selling public
property?

Well -- happy Scalia looked like the jerk he is -- !!!

Supremes need to be on TV --!!!

[Prism]

12. Interestingly, the Obama administration is defending the cross

At least, defending the notion that the cross should remain where it is:

"Several conservative justices seemed open to the Obama administration's argument that Congress' decision to transfer to private ownership the land on which the cross sits ends any government endorsement of the cross and takes care of the constitutional questions."

I think the cross should remain. It was erected before the land was public, so removing the property from the federal government and restoring it back to private hands is appropriate.

That said, Scalia's logic and arguments here are just soul-destroyingly stupid.

[unblock]

13. scalia's so-called intellect has always been vastly overrated.

most of it is simply self-proclaimed; he carries himself like an intellectual and gives speeches like professorial lectures.

but his arguments are often little more than fig leafs for clearly partisan/ideological conclusions. it's quite obvious that he decides the result first and develops the logic to justify it later.

and given that much of THAT work is actually left to the CLERKS, that really doesn't say much about scalia, does it....

[usregimechange]

15. Good point and well said

[troubledamerican]

14. Do Unto Others, Tony -- Can I put a Star of David on your fucking grave?

[Contrary1]

18. Nah, put something useful on his grave...

A urinal comes to mind.

[ThomCat]

20. Seriously, would he think a Star of David, or a Cresent is is just as universal?

:grr:

[TxRider]

26. Yes in this case he likely would

It could be anything the WWI vets decided to put there in 1934, on their own, when it wasn't federal land, to honor their own.

[Warren DeMontague]

19. That's exactly why the Chucklehead shouldn't be deciding 1st Amendment Questions.

Right there.

[ThomCat]

21. I often wonder how the hell he was ever considered qualified

for the Supreme Court. :shrug:

[OneBlueSky]

23. isn't Scalia supposed to be the "intellectual" on the Court? . . . n/t

[SpiralHawk]

27. Jeeez - what a Republicon stooge Scalia is

They call this jurisprudence? I call it Christian bigotry.