The Washington Post's Robert Barnes takes a look at the dispute over the Mojave National Preserve cross, which will be considered by the Supreme Court next month, and tries to read what tea leaves may exist.
The Supreme Court has had trouble coming up with an easily followed guideline on religious displays on government land. Instead, it has opted to issue opinions based on the specifics of a case. Thus, the court in 2005 ruled 5 to 4 that a large, granite Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas capitol, in place for decades and surrounded by other historical markers, could remain. The same day, the court ruled by the same margin that recently installed framed copies of the Ten Commandments in two Kentucky courthouses were unconstitutional.
But changes on the court could make it more difficult for those challenging religious monuments. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor voted to find both displays of the Ten Commandments unconstitutional, but she has been replaced by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who seems more sympathetic to the other view.
"I can't see many votes for removing the cross," said Charles Haynes, an expert on the establishment clause at the First Amendment Center.
Of course, there are other issues at stake besides the presence of the cross, including a troubling argument against standing being made by the government. Adopting that standard may do more to harm the Establishment Clause than any decision about the cross itself in thia case.
