Because I don't think this is one of the difficult cases.
I think the simplicity of this statement demonstrates what side of the argument Cortman is on. Clearly, so far throughout the entire case he has been defending the funding of the playground. While other are challenging his idea, he flat out says this case is not that difficult.
Do you think that that is the proper way to analyze this question?
In providing Cortman the opportunity to directly refute Justice Sotomayor's reasoning, I believe Justice Alito is revealing that he is part of the majority that will come to decide in favor of Trinity Lutheran.
But -- see, but that's what makes the case a -- just a little bit -- in -- in -- in my last hypothetical about earthquake safety, any problem there with giving the money to a church and spending extra money for the cross in the window? It's all -- it's for public safety.
I think this is one of the majority justices. It is still very early and his course may change but it seems like he is already convinced and suggesting that spending this money is not about advancing religion, as it would be similar for spending the earthquake proofing money on a church window.