from Justice Souter's opinion in the Kentucky Ten Commandments case (paragraph break added):
The Counties' second proffered limitation can be dispatched quickly. They argue that purpose in a case like this one should be inferred, if at all, only from the latest news about the last in a series of governmental actions, however close they may all be in time and subject.
But the world is not made brand new every morning, and the Counties are simply asking us to ignore perfectly probative evidence; they want an absentminded objective observer, not one presumed to be familiar with the history of the government's actions and competent to learn what history has to show. The Counties' position just bucks common sense: reasonable observers have reasonable memories, and our precedents sensibly forbid an observer "to turn a blind eye to the context in which [the] policy arose."
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Justice Scalia and Monotheism:
- Breyer's God and Bright-Line Rules:
- Coming Soon to a Ninth Circuit Near You:...
- Eminently Quotable, But Is It Sound?
- Nifty Prose,
- ScrappleFace on the Ten Commandments....
- Discussion on the Ten Commandments Cases at SCOTUSblog:
- Divisiveness and the Ten Commandments Cases:
- "Crossover Sensation, Justice Breyer":