Supreme Court says no to Ten Commandments at courthouses June 27, 2005, 9:31AM A split Supreme Court struck down Ten Commandments displays in courthouses today, ruling that two exhibits in Kentucky cross the line between separation of church and state because they promote a religious message.
Interesting opinion. They say religious symbols in courthouses aren't all unconstitutional...but some are. Reminds me of the Potter Stewart definition of p*rnography, "I'll know it when I see it."
in a second opinion, the court found no constitutional violation in the display of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the state capitol building in Austin.
and this is what i don't get. if it has some "historical significance" then it is fine. but if not, it doesn't. very, very gray area there.
Very interesting. In Austin, the ten commandments is one of 17 "historical" displays. That is like the Supreme Court where the ten commandments is one of many various displays. In Kentucky, the ten commandments display was effectively the ONLY one and therefore I presume that is why they ruled it was over the line of promoting christianity. Definately grey areas but I understand that principal. So if they add a Star of David and a Quaran to a remote corner of the court grounds, will that be sufficient to leave the ten commandments right by the front door? I suspect we haven't heard the last of this.
a-freaking-men. no kidding. this is why i get so upset with Christians who get upset about this. if you truly believe that God can be "removed" from schools/courtrooms/whereever because someone takes a monument down, then your view of God is very, very limited. that's not the God I know.
I don't have a god in this fight- as long as they leave big jim's commandments alone, i'm fine: -Thou shalt not tug on superman's cape -Thou shalt not spit into the wind -Thou shalt not pull the mask off the ole Lone Ranger -Thou shalt not mess around with Jim
this may be the final word on the past weeks court rulings: http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/002240.html -- Court Allows 10 Commandments on Seized Land by Scott Ott (2005-06-27) -- In a pair of rulings on the constitutionality of the 10 Commandments on government property, the Supreme Court today said the commandments may be displayed on public land if that property has been seized from private owners for 'public purposes' under eminent domain. The 5-4 decision comes on the heels of this week's court declaration that so-called "private" property is actually government land temporarily under private management until its eventual seizure. In a second ruling handed down today, the Supreme Court banned the 10 commandments from appearing in courtrooms unless the following disclaimer is included: "Display of this historically-significant collection of laws shall not be construed as an endorsement of the God who may, or may not, have spoken them, nor of the existence of such a God, nor of the legality of the laws. Citizens may observe and obey these commandments at their own risk. Please consult your family attorney before embarking on any law-abiding regimen."
I think so too. But if today's ruling were the opposite, it woudn't be unreasonable to speculate he may get reinstated.
maybe. i think he lost his position for defying the higher court's order, though. would be interesting to see.
I really agree with the guy's philosophy about the Supreme Court's function, but reading the guy's opinion I was struck by the number of factual flaws. The most important (and common) is the mystical "founding fathers" were able to agree totally on anything, much less their religious beliefs. Scalia brings up as examples The Pledge of Allegiance, but doesn't appear to know that the phrase "...under God" was added by congress thanks to a Knights of Columbus campaign in 1954. Furthermore, he violates his stated belief that what is important in interpreting the Constitution is what the people who signed it intended. He does this by claiming that the fact that the first congress opened with a prayer and that this was not idiosyncratic to the beliefs of the period. How do what people in general or even the first congress believed have anything to do with the words and meaning of the Constitution? Below are draft examples of how the 1st amendment was proposed at different times. Variations in the way expressed make it clear that people even then didn’t agree. From James Madison - From New Hampshire - From Virginia - From New York - Source Document And Thomas Jefferson who signed the damn document, wrote on another occasion: From this I find it to be very clear that the meaning which he sees as being strongly written in and implied by the text of the Bill of Rights isn't actually there. Scalia's opinion (which can be found here in .pdf form, starting on page 46) violates both the reality of opinion at the time, but also his stated criteria for making Constitutional judgements. It is terribly sad to me to have to conclude this, as I have come to respect and believe in Scalia's stated opinions. Too bad he doesn't care to follow them as rigidly or fervrently as he would have people believe.
