Careful, slippery slope (argument).
Let me put it this way: SCOTUS has made a grave error in its putative definition of "establishment", giving rise to tyrannical judgements.
We demand relief from such tyranny (this is the BY WHAT LAW?).
I suggest it is impossible to avoid tyranny when you draw the line on disbursements by the state. But even if you did, does it not create an insurmountable problem if the mandate is to cleanse each and every expenditure of religious "taint"?
Note I am not denying that the main purpose for this monument being placed may be religious in nature. As I pointed out in another post, historically there is no problem with federal or state governments acting in a way to generally promote the institutions of religion. That historical truth was radically attacked in 1947.
How is preventing the government from doing something tyranny? Tyranny is when the government does too much. In this case the federal courts are preventing a state court from maintiaing a religous monument. Those federal courts are doing exactly what the Bill of Rights was intended to do, prevent unnecessary government intrusion in the lives of the citizens.
I'm not sure what you mean by "(this is the BY WHAT LAW?)." Are you quoting Romans 3:27?
...does it not create an insurmountable problem if the mandate is to cleanse each and every expenditure of religious "taint"?
No, not insurmountable. If legistlators, executives, and judges act in good faith there should not be much effort at all. The Bill of Rights does not prevent citizens from doing anything; it only prevents government agents from doing things.
As I pointed out in another post, historically there is no problem with federal or state governments acting in a way to generally promote the institutions of religion. That historical truth was radically attacked in 1947.
I disagree. There were plenty of problems with the government promoting religious institutions. They, like other violations of civil rights, simply did not get adjudicated in the 19th Century. From the very earliest Establishment cases that came before the Supreme Court they have followed a fairly consistent interpretation.
"But I'd argue that is is a difference of degree rather than kind."
Careful, slippery slope (argument).
So how are the two different?