<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	<title>MetaFilter posts tagged with pleasantgrove</title>
	<link>http://www.metafilter.com/tags/pleasantgrove</link>
	<description>Posts tagged with 'pleasantgrove' at MetaFilter.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:16:33 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:16:33 -0800</lastBuildDate>

	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>Pleasant Grove City v. Summum</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/76506/Pleasant%2DGrove%2DCity%2Dv%2DSummum</link>
		<description> The previously-&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metafilter.com/59870/Return-Of-The-Mummy&quot;&gt;mentioned&lt;/a&gt; Summums want to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleasant_Grove_City_v._Summum&quot;&gt;place their own monument&lt;/a&gt; in a park which contains the Ten Commandments, making the Supreme Court&apos;s &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slate.com/id/2204465/pagenum/all/&quot;&gt;heads explode&lt;/a&gt; in a a hilariously weird &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-665.pdf&quot;&gt;oral argument&lt;/a&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[pdf]&lt;/sup&gt;: &lt;i&gt;&quot;Scalia: I don&apos;t know what that means. You keep saying it, and I don&apos;t know what it means. [...] Breyer: Suppose that there certain messages that private people had like &quot;eat vitamins&quot;&#8212;and then somebody comes along with a totally different content, &quot;ride the roller coaster,&quot; and they say this part of the park is designed to get healthy children, not put children at risk.&quot;&lt;/i&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slate.com/id/2204465/pagenum/all/&quot;&gt;At issue&lt;/a&gt;: &quot;Pulling a crystalline, cogent rule out of the murk of the court&apos;s First Amendment, public forum, and Establishment Clause doctrine is an act of creation too complicated for mere mortals.&quot; </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2008:site.76506</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:16:33 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>civilliberties</category>
		<category>civilrights</category>
		<category>constitution</category>
		<category>establishmentclause</category>
		<category>firstamendment</category>
		<category>freespeech</category>
		<category>pleasantgrove</category>
		<category>publicspeech</category>
		<category>religion</category>
		<category>scotus</category>
		<category>speech</category>
		<category>summum</category>
		<category>supremecourt</category>
		<dc:creator>Non Prosequitur</dc:creator>
	</item>
      
	</channel>
</rss>


