Letters to the Editor

'Scalia Decries Drift of Court Over Religion'

Regarding "Scalia Decries Drift of Court Over Religion," over the past 100 years, the Supreme Court has been slowly but painfully attempting to establish a clear standard to determine whether an action of government violates the Establishment Clause [National, "Scalia Decries Drift of Court Over Religion," June 2, 2008].

Despite pronunciations of both extremes that have found their way into cases such as the quote Mr. Scalia praises from Zorach v. Clauson, or the assertion that "we have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion" in Everson v. Board of Education, the court has gradually worked to establish fair principles that can be predictably applied.

One of the clear standards that has been featured since the 1960s is the notion that laws can not favor one religion over another or religion over non-religion.

This has been a key component of the Lemon test, which has been applied as recently as 2000. Simply to declare close to 40 years of precedent null and void merely because it does not lead to favored outcomes is judicial activism at its ugliest and most degrading.

Justice Scalia can either defend extreme revisionist history or be a true judicial conservative — he cannot consistently try to do both.

DANIEL ORTNER
Waltham, Mass.