Supreme Court Rules That Bladensburg Cross Will Remain Standing

Townhall.com ^ | June 20, 2019 | Cortney O'Brien

[PUGACHEV]

I particularly enjoyed reading Gorsuch’s concurring opinion, basically saying that an “offended observer” does not have standing to sue. I hope that notion catches on.

[tom h]

It appears that the computer that issues RGB’s vote did not disappoint.

[tbw2]

Glad to see the right ruling with a strong majority.

Tearing down monuments is totalitarian oppression. They want to erase history so that no one has any reminder of any other way to live than the liberal bullies’ official narrative.

[HKMk23]

“The attempted perversion of our Constitution is now over...”

THAT HAS to be THE most tone-deaf, and naive utterance among all the statements being made about this ruling.

The enemies of Constitutional religious freedom are simply going to fold like a cheap suit? NOT EVEN going to happen.

There’s ONE solution to that crap, and you can read it for yourself in Revelation 19:21.

[Palio di Siena]

Very pleased with this. I drive past the peace cross from time to time.
Glad it will continue to stand.

[itsahoot]

So we can have the ten commandments back in schools? And everyplace that was forced to remove a Cross on public property can re-place them there again?

No all they did was protect a Historical monument. Notice that they said a Historical monument was way different from building a new monument.

[itsahoot]

Wonder if these “humanists” will demand removal of crosses in Military cemeteries.

They did it years ago in Arlington.

[Bob434]

[[Notice that they said a Historical monument was way different from building a new monument]]

So then we can replace all the historical civil war monuments that were torn down then

[Bob434]

also- our historical values and traditions and constitutional rights are all under attack- I wonder if they will get prote4ctioed under the historical protection argument?

[itsahoot]

So then we can replace all the historical civil war monuments that were torn down then

also- our historical values and traditions and constitutional rights are all under attack- I wonder if they will get prote4ctioed under the historical protection argument?

Sure you can. </s>

[Bob434]

Scalia tried to argue historical protection for marriage being between just a man and woman- He made a darn good argument too- but to no avail=- The liberal dominated SC voted in favor of gay marriage despite historical tradition that marriage is between man and woman-

We just better hope the court remains conservative majority for a good long time-

[Midwesterner53]

Praise God!

[Midwesterner53]

Maybe now Oklahoma and Arkansas can get those devil statues off their grounds. Do it!!!!!

[SeekAndFind]

Ginsburg and Sotomayor were the dissenters.

The former was appointed by Clinton, the latter by Obama.

Now you know what a President Biden, Sanders or Kamala Harris will appoint to be Supreme Court Justice.

Our First Amendment rights are hanging by a thread.

[Raycpa]

Interesting that the photographer caught cross shaped utility polls in background.

[noiseman]

”The antifa crazies will target this symbol of Victory on some dark and dreary night.”

Then a group of patriots should meet them, and install a victory arch next to the cross after they win the Battle of Bladensburg 2019.

[MayflowerMadam]

“saying that an “offended observer’ does not have standing to sue. I hope that notion catches on.”

I love how he expressed that. It’s perfect. Like you, I hope it catches on. The Perpetually Offended can fade into the woodwork and embrace the suck. We have had enough of their bullying.

[Innovative]

Good. It is a historical monument.

[itsahoot]

We just better hope the court remains conservative majority for a good long time-

I just hope that we actually have a conservative court, I am no convinced by any means.

[mbrfl]

Kagan broke with her two commie comrades? Pleasant surprise.