Court rules Ten Commandments can stay at Capitol

Ft. Worth Star-Telegram/AP ^ | 11/13/03 | AP

[ppaul]

http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/7254764.htm

	Posted on Thu, Nov. 13, 2003
	Court rules Ten Commandments can stay at Capitol Associated Press AUSTIN - The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the state's position that the placement of the Ten Commandments monument on the Capitol grounds is not an unconstitutional attempt to establish state-sponsored religion. Thomas Van Orden, a homeless man living in Austin, had sued to have the monument removed, calling it an endorsement of Judeo-Christian beliefs by the state government. The state countered that the 6-foot tall red granite monument is more historical than religious, with key segments of law founded on the moral and cultural ethics provided by the commandments. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott applauded Wednesday's appeals court ruling. "The Ten Commandments are undoubtedly a sacred religious text, but they are also a foundational document in the development of Western legal codes and culture," Abbott said Thursday. "The Texas monument has stood for over 40 years, and the court's decision affirms that the monument is entirely consistent with the requirements of the U.S. Constitution." The Fraternal Order of Eagles donated the monument to the state in 1961.

---

[c-b 1]

Just wonderin here. How does a "homeless" man afford to hire a lawyer to sue in Federal court?

He doesn't, the ACLU recruits front men.

[GOPcapitalist]

Is this smaller or larger than Judge Moore's "rock"?

It's a huge granite slab that is about twice as big as Moore's monument. Here's a photo of it I found on a quick web search that has a lady standing next to it for size comparison.

http://www.geocities.com/jrothra/images/texas_ten_commandments.jpg

[jwalsh07]

I don't see much downside for the pubbies.

As you know, I favor he original intent of the Constitution that requires a simple majority for the appointment of judges.

The pubbies don't have the wherewithal to withstand the pounding of the left leaning media if they attempted to fillibuster a democrat Presidents selections at this kind of rate.

So, if they can get out of this with a simple majority, I see that as a net plus for the party and the country. Win, win.

[Revel]

"Scalia or Thomas?"

Actually I was thinking more of Scalia. Thomas is ok in some ways, but some of his decisions lately have not apeared to conservative to me. He seems wishy washy. Reading the opinion of Scalia in the sodomy case was a fresh of breath air. It was not just and opinion on the case. It was a fight for the preservation of the constituion itself. The way it should be.

[jwalsh07]

Nuance is like gruel; it may be filling, but it isn't satisfying.

:-} Tell me about it, I'm relegated to soybean bacon and eggbeaters with a splash of caffeine free diet coke.

[abigailsmybaby]

Where did a homeless person get the money to file a law suit?

[Torie]

The only thing is, is that the liberal media no longer dominates. Conservatives may still try to assert that, but they are wrong, totally wrong. That is why the GOP is now at parity. The dominance of the liberal media is dead, in part because so many articulate types have found that they can make a good living taking the conservative position in the media. If you think that many of the talk radio and TV conservatives are doing anything other than realizing where the demand is, you would be well, naive. I have noticed indeed that many rather apolitical talk radio types, have since turned hard right. That is where the audience is.

[jwalsh07]

LOL, yeah I've noticed, ain't America grand?

But the national audience on each of the network news stations is still an oreder of magnitude larger than the top rated cable news show.

By the way, I would love to see Scalia and Tribe debate. All prejudice aside I think Scalia would eat him up.

[Hyacinth Bucket]

I very much agree with you on Scalia. Very bright, very articulate man, and very conservative.

One thing about Clarence Thomas is that he has great respect for the Constitution and the oath he took to abide by it. He said that there have been quite a few times when his own personal opinions, values, and preferences disagreed with his interpretation of the Constitution and in these cases he had no choice but to abide by the Constitution. I can't ask for anymore than that from a judge.

The other 6 liberal justices, on the other hand, think that they know what is good for the country and I always get the feeling that their votes are based on their personal agendas rather than the interpretation of the Constitution.

[Sloth]

but the issue is what Mr. Moore claimed as the reason he placed it.

Thoughtcrime?

[WinOne4TheGipper]

I don't know about running...;-)

[WinOne4TheGipper]

[WinOne4TheGipper]

I got it!

[ppaul]

...the only question is what will Madame O'Connor of European more precedetn fame do????

We can surmise what Darth Bader Ginsburg will do, however.