Slippery Jurisprudence

Some interesting comments on Scalia's dissent in McCreary:

Scalia is engaged in a slippery bit of rhetoric here, but his central argument is simply wrong. The notion that preventing the government from ordering displays honoring or endorsing a particular religious viewpoint would mean that "there could be no religion in the public forum at all" is absurd on the face of it. The issue is not what "one" may express, as he put it, in the public square, it is what government may officially declare in the public square. Individuals, including political leaders, are and will remain free to acknowledge God and their religious faith in the public square, as they do literally thousands of times every day around this country. This has precisely nothing to do with the issue in the McCreary case, and Scalia's pretense that it does is just so much overblown rhetoric.