Reading the opinions, it seems clear that Moore violated the same principals which were violated in the Kentucky Supreme Court case - According to the case, the overriding issue is whether or not the display has some overriding historical or cultural significance. In otherwords, a display of the history of law could legaly include the 10 commandments, but a display of the Ten Commandments without the presence of some contextual significance would not be acceptable. In otherwords, the Ten Commandments can appear, as long as they aren't being displayed because they are the Ten Commandments. From what I can see, Judge Roy Moore's display would still be in violation of acceptable use as outlined in these decisions. Moore's display was placed by Moore, without consultation with other justices, or even the building supervisors, (I.E. the decision was not done in the same way that other courthouse issues get done) and Moore never expressed interest in decorating the Courthouse in any other sense. Moore's display was carved from granite, and was simply a pedestal of granite, which had a book carved out of the top part containing the commandments. On the front was carved a quotation (which I can't read) and carved in large lettering "Natural Law". Seems pretty clear to me that they fail the "wider purpose" test central to the court's decision.
I know everybody is complaining about these rulings but I don't have a problem with it. Christian religious symbols CAN be displayed if they are a part of a broader context. If the religious symbol is placed there as a singular religious expression, then that isn't good enough. I think it is fine.
