Hedgewitch

Hello all. This is my first post ever here, and I hope I'm putting this in the right place. My husband reads here, and introduced me to it, and while I'm not an Atheist, I enjoy the logic.

I found this link in one of my usual forums, and thought you all might appreciate it:

<a href="http://law.vanderbilt.edu/lawreview/vol546/reule.pdf" target="_blank">http://law.vanderbilt.edu/lawreview/vol546/reule.pdf</a>

Requires Acrobat Reader. It's titled "The New Face of Creationism: The Establishment Clause and the Latest Efforts to Suppress Evolution
in Public Schools"

I thought it a very interesting paper.

cartman

Thanks for the link.

Toto

I guess great minds think in the same way - this article was also listed on the Infidels Newswire here:

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/wire/index.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/wire/index.shtml</a>

Hedgewitch - are you a pagan? (Just guessing from your name.) We have several atheist-friendly pagans here.

The article has a discussion of the history of church state jurisprudence, which I am still reading. I would be interesting in hearing from anyone with legal experience as to how accurate it is. (For instance, the author treats the Lemon test as still having some validity.)

hezekiah jones

Toto, can you elaborate on this question? That "ghoul in a late-night horror movie" is still controlling precedent, as far as I know. Of course it needn't be explicitly overruled, and the Court may be moving towards some sort of "endorsement test" in the meantime. For example the Court found a violation of the Establishment Clause in Kiryas Joel v. Grumet without applying, or even making much reference to, the Lemon Test. Is that what you mean?

Toto

I am not an expert on the Lemon test. I recall that Chief Justice Renquist has referred to driving a stake through its heart, but he probably doesn't have the votes to enforce that (yet). I was hoping that someone else would chime in here with more information.

On closer reading, I see that the author does footnote a number of Supreme Court decisions that cast doubt on the validity of that test.

Hedgewitch

Yes, I am Pagan.

They mention in the article regarding the Lemon test "the Court continues to apply it and has expressly reaffirmed it in two recent cases."
The notes mention two cases from 2000 - one of which I know went to the Supreme Court - Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe - is there some more recent ruling that says it's not a valid test?

Anyone know what "Writ of Certiorari" means?

hezekiah jones

Certiorari means, literally, "to be more fully informed." A writ of certiorari is what's called an extraordinary writ (a written order from a court) issued at the discretion of an appellate court, directing lower courts to deliver the record of a case for its review. That's how cases get heard by the Supreme Court: it issues writs of certiorari. Usually people just say, "the Court granted 'cert' to such and such a case," meaning, it's been accepted by the Supreme Court.

hezekiah jones

Yes, actually that was Scalia. Here is an excerpt from that concurring opinion: <a href="http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-2024.ZC.html" target="_blank">Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches School District</a>.

Scalia is a funny guy. Justice Byron "Whizzer" White, who wrote the main opinion, said: "While we are somewhat diverted by Justice Scalia's evening at the cinema, we return to the reality that there is a proper way to inter an established decision and Lemon, however frightening it might be to some, has not been overruled."

Krieger

Good read. =)