Ginsburg, Kellie, Thomas Cavenaugh discussed on Mornings on the Mall with Brian Wilson

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

And if if limited dead, that's a huge change. So I do think if you look within the seven to you've got Justice course it and Thomas cavenaugh and, you know, you get the five that I do think we're gonna see a pretty strong change in the future. And this was just the beginning of that, you know, I wonder Kellie, if you can give us a sense of what you think the future holds based on this new precedent, or whether or not this helped result, you know, more firmly, resolved, what the president is because the debate over religion in the public square as often, well, if you put up across that comes across as an endorsement of the government is endorsing, a particular religion, but the, the Alito decision yesterday, his, his opinion I thought it was interesting because he brought he said this, its removal, or radical alteration, meaning the blades across at this date would be seen. By many not as a neutral act. But as the manifestation of quote, a hostility toward religion that has no place in our establishment, clause traditions would basically Lido seems to be saying is the first amendment is not about endorsing religion. It's about protecting religion from being infringed upon by hostility now. You're exactly right. I think the endorsement test is dead. It was killed yesterday, and it was a horrible test, and again that lemon taste back years ago twisted the savage clauses about not establishing national church and not forcing us all to contribute to national church. And so, that's what the law should be if the government's not establishing national church coursing, you with Guardia religion, there should be no violation. And there should be no problem with, you know, the fact that we have religious and secular monuments, across our nation, but this has was leading all these attacks like Nativity, scenes and ten. Commandments and veterans memorials. And again, I think yesterday was the beginning of the end of those tax. And it's because, you know, Trump has been appointing these kinds of judges, and justices and this cake who think their job is go back to what the constitution says and to go back to the regional, meaning and that what's happening. Now we're moving back to that really. That religious freedom in our country was built upon not sort of decisions from the sixties, or seventies by more liberal judges that sort of took us away from the constitution, and I'll say this, if people haven't read it read it, so we've got all the information on the case, clean, the background the history of pictures at the first liberty dot org. At our website, they can look at it themselves. But this I think this was a landmark decision on religious freedom. We're gonna look back and see that this was the beginning of the turning of the ship back in a really positive way for our country, which free and Kelly Shackelford just to clarify, only because it's interesting that there aren't. It's not a nine zero slam dunk. There, there are two of justices who basically said, this is tantamount to endorsement is that, basically the way I interpreted Ginsburg's dissent that this cross was somehow governmental endorsement of Christianity over other fades, yes. You know, Ginsburg I mean, they arguments, they make their Ginsburg and soda, my or is that essentially that you can't have symbols in public on government land if they're quote, sectarian, will every religious symbol, a sectarian. I mean, a star of David is Jewish, you know, across is Christian, you can't have a religious symbol. So what they're essentially saying is wipe out all the religious symbols, and, you know, that's just not what our founders would be appalled that he buddy saying such a thing as much less than us the constitution to affect you. Wait this. What are found is believed is? And look go into the courtroom of the United States. Moses is holding a ten commandments above their head. I mean you go n..

Coming up next