[TigersEye]

For example, in 2000, the Supreme Court used the same principle when it told the State of New Jersey that the state could not require the Boy Scouts to hire gay scoutmasters because that would interfere with the scouts' First Amendment "rights of association."

I would agree that the Boy Scouts or anyone else has a right to associate with whom they please but I would argue it under the 10th as an unenumerated right. Finding it in the 1st sounds every bit as twisted as Judge Thomas' decision about Roy's rock.

[Scenic Sounds]

I would agree that the Boy Scouts or anyone else has a right to associate with whom they please but I would argue it under the 10th as an unenumerated right.

Well, that's a novel argument. I just have never heard anyone argue that the Tenth Amendment could be used to limit the powers of a State like New Jersey. The Tenth Amendment is usually used to support an argument in favor of states' rights.

Finding it in the 1st sounds every bit as twisted as Judge Thomas' decision about Roy's rock.

Well, it was Chief Justice Rehnquist who wrote the Court's opinion in the Boy Scout case. I don't view him as twisted and I don't know anyone who views him as a bomb-throwing liberal. And his opinion was joined in by, among others, Justices Scalia and Thomas.

The principle that, because of the Fourteenth Amendment, states have to comply with the First Amendment is just not considered to be very controversial anymore. As you can see, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas certainly have no problem with that position.

Do you suppose that explains why the Supreme Court chose not to hear Judge Moore's case?