The Freedom From Religion Foundation responded to the Supreme Court's ruling in a number of ways. FFRF Director of Strategic Response Andrew L. Seidel, a constitutional attorney, penned a critical article published by Rewire News: “Alito’s majority opinion is bereft of both principle and reason. He could have been more concise and lost little nuance by simply writing: 'The 40-foot-tall Christian cross is really old and people will get upset if we remove it, so it stays.'”
In the op-ed, Seidel hammers the court for its decision:
The 40-foot-tall Christian cross, crumbling though it is, will remain in its traffic circle in Bladensburg, Md., because it’s been there for a long time and removing it would make people angry.
The conservative bloc on the Court went into this case seemingly united in an effort to bring “some clarity” to the caselaw surrounding the separation of state and church. In that respect, the court failed miserably. All told, there were seven separate opinions, concurrences and dissents, 87 pages, and odd bedfellows in a fractured, scattershot ruling. Only one thing is clear: the justices added no clarity to this area of the law, even though seven justices eventually voted to uphold the cross.
Photo by Chris Line