Podcasts about bladensburg cross

Monica Miller is the Legal Director and Senior Counsel with American Humanist Association and recently presented oral argument before the Supreme Court in the Bladensburg Cross case. She'll be speaking at FREEFLO in Orlando this November. Learn more and register now at www.freeflo.org! Freethought in Florida is a production of the Atheist Community of Polk County, Inc. (ACPC) a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. The opinions and views expressed on this program are those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily represent the ACPC. Learn more or donate at http://www.polkatheists.org

The first freedom mentioned in the Bill of Rights is the freedom of religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." First Liberty is a public interest law firm based in Texas that helps people live out that freedom. I had the opportunity to sit down with Jeremy Dys (@JeremyDys) to talk about a recent landmark decision that First Liberty won at the United States Supreme Court. The case is often referred to as the Bladensburg Cross case, but its formal style is American Legion v. American Humanist Association. You can read the official opinion here.

FR 19 - 32 - Supreme Court Upholds Bladensburg Cross - Jane Gordon - Rel Date 08 - 10 - 19 by Church State Council

On June 20, 2019, the Supreme Court decided The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, a case considering whether state funding of a war memorial in the form of a religious symbol is in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In 1925, the American Legion erected a memorial cross (Peace Cross) in Bladensburg, MD, to honor 49 soldiers who died fighting in World War I. In 1961, the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (Commission) acquired the land and has maintained the memorial using public funding. In 2014, the American Humanist Association (AHA) and other civil associations filed suit in District Court, alleging that the presence and publicly-funded maintenance of the Peace Cross violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. AHA sought relocation, demolition, or removal of the cross’s arms. The district court ruled in favor of the American Legion, applying the Supreme Court precedents Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) and Van Orden v. Perry (2005), concluding that the Peace Cross did not violate the Establishment Clause.A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed that judgment, applying the same precedents as the district court--but concluding that the Peace Cross conveyed to a reasonable observer the impression of state endorsement of Christianity, and excessively entangled the Commission with religion. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the Establishment Clause issue.By a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Fourth Circuit and remanded the case. In an opinion delivered by Justice Alito, the Court held that “[t]he Bladensburg Cross does not violate the Establishment Clause.” Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–B, II–C, III, and IV, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Kavanaugh. Justice Alito’s opinion with respect to Parts II–A and II–D was also joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer and Kavanaugh, but not Justice Kagan. A concurring opinion was filed by Justice Breyer in which Justice Kagan joined. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion and Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in part. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined.To discuss the case, we have Christopher DiPompeo, Partner at Jones Day.

On June 20, 2019, the Supreme Court decided The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, a case considering whether state funding of a war memorial in the form of a religious symbol is in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In 1925, the American Legion erected a memorial cross (Peace Cross) in Bladensburg, MD, to honor 49 soldiers who died fighting in World War I. In 1961, the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (Commission) acquired the land and has maintained the memorial using public funding. In 2014, the American Humanist Association (AHA) and other civil associations filed suit in District Court, alleging that the presence and publicly-funded maintenance of the Peace Cross violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. AHA sought relocation, demolition, or removal of the cross’s arms. The district court ruled in favor of the American Legion, applying the Supreme Court precedents Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) and Van Orden v. Perry (2005), concluding that the Peace Cross did not violate the Establishment Clause.A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed that judgment, applying the same precedents as the district court--but concluding that the Peace Cross conveyed to a reasonable observer the impression of state endorsement of Christianity, and excessively entangled the Commission with religion. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the Establishment Clause issue.By a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Fourth Circuit and remanded the case. In an opinion delivered by Justice Alito, the Court held that “[t]he Bladensburg Cross does not violate the Establishment Clause.” Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–B, II–C, III, and IV, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Kavanaugh. Justice Alito’s opinion with respect to Parts II–A and II–D was also joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer and Kavanaugh, but not Justice Kagan. A concurring opinion was filed by Justice Breyer in which Justice Kagan joined. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion and Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in part. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined.To discuss the case, we have Christopher DiPompeo, Partner at Jones Day.

Jeremy Dice from First Liberty Institute joins Jonathan Saenz to discuss the Bladensburg Cross case at the US Supreme Court, which was a huge victory for religious freedom.

Are you nervous about your salvation? Do you ever wonder about your fruits of the Spirit? Then this edition of the show if for you. Also, the Bladensburg Cross stands! Visit Matthew Pancake's Facebook http://www.facebook.com/matthew.pancake Visit Pastor Gary Held's Facebook http://www.facebook.com/garyheld Visit our Website www.RadicalGraceRadio.com  

The Supreme Court has ruled that a 40-foot-tall Christian cross in Bladensburg, Maryland is actually a suitable war memorial for all war dead, even if they weren't Christian. I speak with Monica Miller, who argued the case before the Court on behalf of the American Humanist Association. We also talk about Monica's work with the Nonhuman Rights Project, an organization that seeks "to secure fundamental rights for nonhuman animals through litigation, legislation, and education." Monica and I also discuss the Court's refusal to hear a case brought by long-time activist Michael Newdow, challenging the phrase "In God We Trust" on all currency. (David Driscoll and I talked about Mr. Newdow back in show #84 in 2010, and I actually interviewed him waaay back in the pre-podcast days of 2002. Have a listen!) Theme music courtesy of Body Found. Follow American Freethought on the intertubes: Website: AmericanFreethought.com  Podcast Page: http://americanfreethought.libsyn.com  Twitter: @AMERFREETHOUGHT Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/21523473365/ Libsyn Classic Feed: https://americanfreethought.libsyn.com/rss Find out how to support the show here and here. Contact: john@americanfreethought.com

Interview with Monica Miller. She is Senior Counsel at the American Humanist Association (AHA). We discuss the Supreme Court ruling on the Bladensburg Cross. We also discuss their 2019 and 2020 conventions.Investing Skeptically: 401k, Annuities in 401k, Secure ActBonus audio:Julia Sweeney on JesusSir David Attenborough reads Darwin

Today's episode takes a deep dive into executive privilege, evaluating the legal arguments being raised by the Trump administration asserting executive privilege over former communications director Hope Hicks and former counsel Don McGahn. Find out how good those arguments are -- spoiler: some aren't terrible! -- and what's next for the Congressional Democrats. First, though, we begin with coverage of the American Legion v. American Humanist Ass'n decision from last week; that's the Bladensburg Cross case that we've discussed at some length on this show. How bad is this decision? (Bad.) Then, it's time for the intersection of Rapid Response Friday and Deep Dive Tuesday in which we time travel all the way back to 1971 to evaluate the Trump Administration's claims regarding executive privilege "over the last five decades." As you've come to expect from OA, we tell you what the administration got right... and, of course, what they got wrong. If you want to know if and when Congress will ever get meaningful testimony out of Hope Hicks or Don McGahn, you need to listen to this show. Then, it's time for the answer to TTTBE #131 about the propriety of a specific question during cross-examination of a witness who testified as to the defendant's "reputation for honesty." If you love the Federal Rules of Evidence -- and really, who doesn't? -- you'll love this segment. Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links We first discussed the Bladensburg Cross case in Episode 256 with Sarah Henry of the AHA, and then got first-hand testimony about the oral argument in Episode 274 with Monica Miller. Click here to read the full Supreme Court opinion in American Legion v. American Humanist Ass'n. If you missed our coverage of Masterpiece Cakeshop, check out Episode 180. We first broke down the importance of Hope Hicks to the Congressional investigations in Episode 259; and you can click here to read the letter and subpoena she received from Rep. Nadler. NPR confirmed that Hicks's testimony was carefully managed by White House lawyers (and was therefore worthless). Click here to read Rehnquist's 1971 memorandum on executive privilege, and click here to read how President Clinton's OLC cited that memo 25 years later. Finally, this is Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F.Supp.2d 53 (2008), the district court opinion Andrew breaks down on the show. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

On Thursday, June 20, the Supreme Court decided the fate of the Bladensburg Peace Cross, a memorial to the fallen of World War 1 in Maryland. The memorial stands thanks to a 7-2 decision by the justices yet the opinion of the court was fractured. Jeff, Travis, Steven, and Chelsea circle up on the afternoon the opinion came down for this special episode to discuss the case, the opinion, dissent, and what it all means for the future of Establishment Clause. Resources from the Conversation SCOTUS | Opinion & ERLC Amicus Brief & SCOTUSblog case page ERLC press release | ERLC President Russell Moore Commends Supreme Court's Decision to Uphold Bladensburg Cross Memorial ERLC article | Top quotes from the Bladensburg Cross Supreme Court win Capitol Conversations episode | Inside the Supreme Court for the Bladensburg cross case ERLC article | What's at the Heart of the Bladensburg Cross Supreme Court Case Runner's World article | Running of the Interns at the Supreme Court

On Thursday, June 20, the Supreme Court decided the fate of the Bladensburg Peace Cross, a memorial to the fallen ...

On Thursday, June 20, the Supreme Court decided the fate of the Bladensburg Peace Cross, a memorial to the fallen ...

Bookmark today’s show as one of your classics. Today, I explain, once and for all, using several recent Supreme Court opinions, why the Supreme Court is nowhere close to having an originalist majority and why there is only one consistent originalist. Kavanaugh and Roberts are completely problematic.  I delve through three cases – the Bladensburg cross case, a capital conviction case, and a criminal alien gun conviction case – to demonstrate why the Supreme Court is a one-way street and a dead end for conservatives. Even if we had five Clarence Thomasas, we should never legitimize judicial supremacy. But we only have one. The result? We get the worst of everyone’s sensibilities and the Left keeps winning, even when we win narrow defensive victories on a few cases in the Supreme Court out of the many they allow to stand in their unconstitutional status at lower courts.    Show links Flowers v. Mississippi Rehaif v. U.S. Bladensburg Cross case   My take on Bladensburg Cross My 2016 piece on Roberts and overturning capital convictions on nonsensical grounds Copyright Blaze Media All Rights Reserved. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this very special bonus episode, the TCA's Grazie Christie, Andrea Picciotti-Bayer and Ashley McGuire bring you the latest on an important Supreme Court decision: the Bladensburg Cross. Don't miss this helpful analysis of a significant religious freedom case that happened just this week. https://thecatholicassociation.org/tca-statement-on-bladensburg-peace-cross-supreme-court-ruling/

In today’s News: A hearing on Missouri’s last abortion clinic is today The Supreme Court says the Bladensburg Cross can stay Planned Parenthood stands to lose $60-million thanks to a court ruling House Democrats try to restore funding for foreign abortion agencies

On Thursday, June 20, the Supreme Court decided the fate of the Bladensburg Peace Cross, a memorial to the fallen of World War 1 in Maryland. The memorial stands thanks to a 7-2 decision by the justices yet the opinion of the court was fractured. Jeff, Travis, Steven, and Chelsea circle up on the afternoon the opinion came down for this special episode to discuss the case, the opinion, dissent, and what it all means for the future of Establishment Clause. Resources from the Conversation SCOTUS | Opinion & ERLC Amicus Brief & SCOTUSblog case page ERLC press release | ERLC President Russell Moore Commends Supreme Court's Decision to Uphold Bladensburg Cross Memorial ERLC article | Top quotes from the Bladensburg Cross Supreme Court win Capitol Conversations episode | Inside the Supreme Court for the Bladensburg cross case ERLC article | What’s at the Heart of the Bladensburg Cross Supreme Court Case Runner’s World article | Running of the Interns at the Supreme Court

As the 2018-19 Supreme Court Session winds down, three rulings have recently been released that have the attention of talking heads everywhere. Joining Dave to chat about then is Pat the Lawyer from Constitution Thursday - The Saturday Podcast. First up, the Bladensburg Cross has passions running high, but the Court reached a 7-2 decision that this specific cross is NOT unconstitutional. Next up, the Gundy case has Progressives apoplectic over Justice Alito's concurrence to uphold the law which allows Congress to delegate to the Attorney General the control of rules constraining sexual offenders. In an unusual 5-3 ruling, Justice Alito made it clear that he would be happy to overturn the non-delegation doctrine, just not today... Last up is the much-ballyhooed Gamble case, in which the Court upheld the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine. This isn't just bad news for Mr. Gamble, but is a clear loss for the Administration and specifically President Trump. A bigger question, though, is why did the Prosecutors in Alabama feel the need to hammer Mr. Gamble?

The United States Supreme Court is pondering whether a war memorial in the shape of a Celtic cross on public property is constitutional. Jeremy Dys, Esq., Deputy General Counsel for First Liberty Institute and host Kip Allen discuss the implications on today’s World Lutheran News Digest. Read about this case at firstliberty.org/cases/bladensburg.

Christian Citizen contributors, the Rev. Daniel Headrick with his essay, “The meaning of the Bladensburg cross,” as read by Christian Citizen editor Curtis Ramsey-Lucas; the Rev. John Zehring encourages “Probing questions in Lent;” and the Rev. Mindi Welton-Mitchell shares “A communion legacy.”

Interview with Monica Miller. She is the Senior Council at the American Humanist Association (AHA). On February 27, 2019 she argued in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. It was all about the Bladensburg Cross. We also discuss AHA and her loss of faith story.Investing Skeptically: The cushion - What is in it?Extra audio - Sam Kinison

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments at the end of February on the Bladensburg cross case, in which the Justices must answer the constitutionality of a war memorial in the shape of a cross seated on government-owned property. On this episode, we go inside the courtroom with journalist Tom Strode who gives us a behind-the-scenes look at the case. Then Travis, Steven, and Jeff discuss the Establishment Clause and what makes America's idea of separation of church and state unique. Guest Biography Tom Strode serves as the bureau chief and Washington, D.C., correspondent for Baptist Press, the Southern Baptist Convention's news service. He is also a pastor at Covenant Community Church in Fredericksburg, Va. Resources from the Conversation SCOTUSblog Case Page | The American Legion v. The American Humanist Association SCOTUS | ERLC Amicus Brief ERLC article | What's at the Heart of the Bladensburg Cross Supreme Court Case Tom's BP article | Court Signals it May Change Church-State Doctrine

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments at the end of February on the Bladensburg cross case, in which the Justices ...

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments at the end of February on the Bladensburg cross case, in which the Justices ...

Jessica and I sat down to talk about several stories from the past week involving religion and politics. — Here’s what happened in the Supreme Court as they discussed the Bladensburg Cross. (1:27) — The “My Pillow” guy, Mike Lindell, told CPAC Donald Trump was the best president ever because he was “chosen by God.” (12:45) — Cardinal George Pell‘s lawyer tried to get him a more lenient sentence by referring to his actions as “plain vanilla” child rape. (15:36) — A Missouri bill would ban anonymity for anyone who files a church/state separation lawsuit. (20:00) — The United Methodist Church just voted for its own extinction by adopting an anti-LGBTQ stance. (26:56) — Skeptics came up with a clever way to expose psychic mediums. (33:22) — Richard Dawkins is giving away professionally translated versions of his books for free for readers in Muslim-majority nations. (41:22) — Pope Francis had no concrete suggestions for handling child sex abuse at a summit about handling child sex abuse. (44:18) — Portland (Oregon) now explicitly includes atheists in its non-discrimination ordinance. (46:33) — With a conservative government, Brazilian lawmakers are resurrecting old bills that promote Christian supremacy. (48:20) — In Argentina, an 11-year-old girl was forced to give birth to her rapist’s baby. Because that’s what the “pro-lifers” wanted. (51:37) — A Florida Democrat is skipping the first day of the legislative session so she can hang out with Pat Robertson. (54:06) — A Kansas lawmaker won’t endorse anti-gay “parody marriage” bill after daughter’s open letter, but he doesn’t go far enough. (56:50)

Today's episode takes a deep dive into the Bladensburg Cross case currently pending before the Supreme Court with special guest Sarah Henry of the American Humanist Association.  You'll learn that Andrew is going to speak at the AHA rally on Wednesday, February 27 right before oral arguments! We bookend the interview with an Andrew Was Right segment about the recent Supreme Court ruling in Timbs v. Indiana first discussed back in Episode 234. And on the back end, we briefly discuss Clarence Thomas's bizarre and dangerous concurrence in McKee v. Cosby.  Did Justice Thomas really call for the reversal of New York Times v. Sullivan?  (Hint:  yes, yes he did.) After all that, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #115 about whether you can use facts contained in settlement negotiations.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesAndrew was just a guest on Episode 87 of the So Here's My Story podcast; go check it out!  And if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Click here to check out the American Humanist Association. We first analyzed Timbs v. Indiana back in Episode 234. Click here to read Thomas's concurrence in McKee v. Cosby., and here to brush up on the classic New York Times v. Sullivan. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Rod Arquette Show Daily Rundown - Monday, February 25, 20194:20 pm: Representative Jeff Stenquist joins Rod to discuss his bill that would provide a financial incentive for people who own cars from model year 2003 or older to purchase a new car in an effort to clean up Utah’s polluted air. Rod will take your calls on the subject at 888-570-80105:05 pm: Two male high-school track and field runners who identify as transgender females dominated a recent state tournament in Connecticut to the dismay of many of the truly female athletes.Is this fair competition?Rod will take your calls at 888-570-80106:05 pm: Robert Natelson, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence for the Independence Institute joins Rod to discuss his recent column in the Deseret News about how to fix the Federal Government6:20 pm: Susan Crabtree, White House and Political Correspondent for Real Clear News, joins the show to discuss President Trump’s decision to slash nearly $1 billion in federal funds to California that was supposed to be used to build a high speed train system6:35 pm: Josh Hammer of the Daily Wire joins the show for a conversation about the Supreme Court taking up the case of the Bladensburg Cross

A conversation on the case of The American Legion v. American Humanist Association. The post Bladensburg Cross Case: A Discussion with Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman appeared first on BJC.

I interview Monica Miller, Senior Counsel for the American Humanist Association. Ms. Miller will be representing AHA before the Supreme Court in February, arguing that the 94-year-old, four-story-high "Peace Cross" in Bladensburg, Maryland is an unconstitutional endorsement of Christianity by the government. For more info visit americanhumanist.org. Plus: More SCOTUS talk! I ramble on about David Kaplan's book The Most Dangerous Branch, the Ruth Bader Ginsburg biopic On the Basis of Sex, the Ruth Bader Ginsburg documentary RBG, Jane Sherron de Hart's book Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Life, and Forrest Gump. Also mentioned: an article from a few years ago that argues he Religious Right isn't so concerned about Roe v Wade as they are about using abortion as a stalking horse for keeping segregation alive by protecting private schools. Liberty Counsel (an evangelical non-profit that frequently gets involved in legal controversies) wants LGBT people removed from the Justice for Victims of Lynching Act of 2018, passed last month by the US Senate. Although this bill tweaks and narrows the proper meaning of the word "lynch," it's an important step forward in preventing mob violence against historically persecuted minorities. Theme music courtesy of Body Found. Follow American Freethought on the intertubes: Website: AmericanFreethought.com  Podcast Page: http://americanfreethought.libsyn.com  Twitter: @AMERFREETHOUGHT Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/21523473365/ Libsyn Classic Feed: https://americanfreethought.libsyn.com/rss Find out how to support the show here and here. Contact: john@americanfreethought.com  

The American Legion v The American Humanist Association (a/k/a The Bladensburg Cross) The Supreme Court will hear the Bladensburg Cross case after the 4th Circuit ruled that public expenditures used to maintain the monument violate the 1st Amendment prohibition against the establishment of religion by the Government. It is always a touchy subject, and the debates are always passionate. From Bladensburg to San Diego, the debate rages as to what exactly constitutes "establishment" and whether or not the long history of various monuments has any sway in the question of the status of the monument. Like most things, it's not as simple as it seems. Nor is the hyperbole - on both sides - helping to sort through the real issues.