Supreme Court to hear Mojave Cross Case

http://www.latimes.com/features/religion/la-na-supreme-court-cross24-2009feb24,0,4711867.story
"Supreme Court to hear Mojave Cross Case" by David G. Savage

Alright! So, i wanted to share the summary lead...

"In a case that could reshape the doctrine of separation of church and state, the Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether a cross to honor fallen soldiers can stand in a national preserve in California."

What a sweet lead...honestly, it gives all the necessary information, ties it to the true news...seperation of church and state...and it is interesting. The article does a good job of explaining the background and history of such issues, mentioning previous cases and supreme court justices.

The true news is the fact that the case will be heard by the supreme court. The article presents a few different perspectives...the cross is a breach of the first amendment because it is considered an "establishment of religion," by the government. The article also presents a counter point, saying that it would be a shame to remove a 70 year old war memorial.

I don't think the article covers all the different perspectives with enough detail.
There is a grand total of one sentence devoted to each of these perspectives, and no other perspectives are mentioned. Although it mentions a handful of complications, there are hardly any quotes used. I believe the arguments aren't presented in enough detail...

BUT on the other hand, the article has a very broad scope of all of the issues/complications associated with this particular case (I won't mention all of them, they're in the article). I guess it's kind of a catch 22...because if you focus on the alternating perspectives, you lose out on the opportunity to present the broad scope of problems associated with the cross, but if you don't mention enough about the dissenting views, your reader may leave feeling not as informed.

So, I read up on the issue a little more, from a law blog a friend recommended to me. (http://www.volokh.com/ you'll have to scroll down to "Salazar v. Buono") This blog mentions the Establishment Clause and endorsement test, both are standards used by the government to determine if something really is endorsing religion. The blog mentions that there are possibly five supreme court justices that are rejecting the current endorsement test. So not only is this an issue of separation of church and state, it could possibly lead to a reworking of the endorsement test. The article briefly mentions that the cross could or could not be an "establishment of religion," but it does not mention the endorsement test or Establishment Clause, both of which are really newsworthy and critical.

So, I think the article does a good job of focusing (a problem I have been having when writing articles) it's focus? the fact that the Supreme Court is going to hear the case. However some facets of the issue were left out.

Alright, so, wrapping up here...

Towards the end of the article, the author starts talking about different supreme court issues, and it never really wraps up the key point. It just goes right into talking about 2 different issues. Do articles typically do this? Maybe I just haven't seen enough to know...any thoughts guys?

SOOO...in conclusion:

this article does a good job of...
- being concise
- being focused
- summary lead
- presenting balancing arguments

I think it could...
-improve the detail regarding opposing viewpoints
- mention the Establishment Clause/endorsement test
- conclude a little stronger

Have a happy Saturday guys!

Peace :)