Renquist called the phoney doctrine of separation of church and state "bad history" and bad law. So, I don't know what you are talking about. If he voted with the liberals on some of these cases, then he was wrong. The liberal judges don't care about history or true intent - they reshape the Constitution to coincide with their liberal atheistic ideology. CAse in point: 1992 Lee vs. Wiseman - Court rules 5-4 that prayers could not be given at public school graduations even though dissenting lawyers had made an irrefutable historical case that the founding fathers not only prayed at public graduations but GAVE SERMONS! In his concurring opinion, the idiot David Souter acknowledged these facts of history, but concluded that the founding fathers had therefore "turned their backs" on the ideals of the Constitution. Do you see that? Thank you David Souter! You know more about the ideals of the Constitution than the men who wrote, debated and ratified the 1st Amendment!!!
There is a difference between claiming that the First Amendment does not apply to the states and claiming that a particular interpretion of the First Amendment is flawed.
Once you allow the camel's nose into the tent, it's just a matter of time before the whole camel takes over the sleeping mat. The SCOTUS applied the First Amendment to the states, the current conservative judges have also applied the First Amendment to the states, and how we are left arguing whether a certain interpretation of the incorporated First Amendment is valid.
That was Judge Moore's point all along: the First Amendment does not apply to the states, and in that issue, Moore has no supporters in the SCOTUS.
At any rate, as far as religious symbols being displayed in government buildings, you think that such displays are not a "law," and therefore, displays in a public courtroom cannot be a violation of an incorporated First Amendment.
That was my initial assessment also. Then I was surprised to read about the conservatice Justices take on this.
Addressing this issue, Rehquist, Scalia, and [now retired] White wrote on their dissenting opinion in County of Allegheny v. ACLU
Excerpt:
But coercion need not be a direct tax in aid of religion or a test oath. Symbolic recognition or accommodation of religious faith may violate the Clause in an extreme case. 1 I doubt not, for example, that the Clause forbids a city to permit the permanent erection of a large Latin cross on the roof of city hall. This is not because government speech about religion is per se suspect, as the majority would have it, but because such an obtrusive year-round religious display would place the government's weight behind an obvious effort to proselytize on behalf of a particular religion.