Posted on 02/08/2005 5:19:41 PM PST by NormsRevenge
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The federal appeals court that ruled the Pledge of Allegiance was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion is being sued for allegedly displaying the Ten Commandments on its seal and courthouses.
The case was brought by Pleasanton attorney Ryan Donlon, who was admitted to practice before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in June. In his lawsuit against the San Francisco-based court, he said the certificate admitting him contains the court's seal which unlawfully contains what he believes is a tablet object that "represents the Judeo-Christian Decalogue commonly referred to as the Ten Commandments."
Cathy Catterson, the court's clerk, said the seal highlights a woman, known as "the Majesty of the Law" who is reading a large book. At her feet is a tablet with 10 unreadable lines on it, what Donlon believes is the Ten Commandments.
Catterson said the tablet has "the same shape" of the Ten Commandments but "you can't read the text of it."
She said the drawing became the court's seal decades ago, and is a depiction of a tile mosaic in one of the century-old courthouse's ornate courtrooms.
"It's been up there for 100 years," she said.
In 2002, the appeals court sided with an atheist father who challenged the words "under God" in the pledge, ruling that the pledge that public school children recite each day was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the case, saying the father, Michael Newdow, did not have legal standing to bring the case because he did not have custody of his elementary school-aged daughter and because the girl's mother objected to the lawsuit.
In 1980, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the public display of the Ten Commandments in public schools.
The high court is now considering challenges whether displays of the commandments in Kentucky courthouses and a monument on the Texas state Capitol grounds violate the separation of church and state.
Donlon, in his suit filed Friday, is urging the 9th Circuit to remove what he says are the Ten Commandments from the 9th Circuit's courtrooms, letterhead and seal.
The case is Donlon v. United States, 05-0536.
Idiot lawyer wants his 15 minutes of fame. I am really sick of these people.
But then again he's delusional. All books are not the Bible, nor are all unreadable artistic lines the Ten Commandments.
Bet this guy sees Christians under his bed and Jews hidden in his closets.
Why can't we get any over-zealous 2nd amendment lawyers?
People might actually appreciate them.
Stand the subhuman against a wall...
Yup, the cultural cleansing that the left pursues with such vigor does get old doesn't it. If leftists would support the WOT as vigorously as they pursue the destruction of all things American then we'd have this licked in no time. Of course, they believe that the enemy of my enemy is my friend which explains why they aren't big fans of the WOT.
The American Taliban... smashing other religions' symbols wherever they can find them.
Oh, Gawd, isn't this just the picture of existential perfection?!? Another neurochemically-imbalanced Kalifornia troglodyte trying to screw Western civilization, all for the sake of sating the desires of their fragile, hyperactive id. And this one has a license to drive. I'm telling you, we need to give it back to Mexico, and erect an electric fence (apologies to all the Kalifornain Freepers behind enemy lines - get the hell out while you can!).
I like it! I Really Like IT!!!!! American Taliban = Leftist Law-Yer!
Even if it does depict the 10 Commandments, it doesn't violate the first amendment establishment clause.
I hope these issues get to the Supreme Court soon so we don't have any more of these ridiculous law suits.
The first amendment is not violated with a copy of the 10 commandments, or a cross or other religious symbol on a seal or in a court room.
Congress is not passing any laws respecting the establishment of a religion.
I don't understand why a judge would even take such a law suit under consideration.
Woodshop teachers, locomotive workers and porpoise trainers are perpetually supra-digitated.
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
   |
|
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
We need to insist our legislators and Jurists understand the
definition of Establishment of religion was made back in
the US Senate Judiciary Committee Report of (1853 Jan.19) and the following session of Congress in the House(1854- March 27) And if we are going to cite the US Constitution as the "Supreme Law "and measure other laws by that standard
Then we ought insist the constitution be interpreted according to the Clear and unanbiguous meaning of the terms
and intent when written None of this fraudulant mumbojumbo
used by th ecult of law today accepted.
"He's going to find it difficult to bring other suits in the 9th in the future."
LOL. Are you kidding? Several of the rogues-in-robes there may have put him UP to it! This could be their parting shot/legacy as Congress has voted to split their jurisdiction....
And I suppose the attorney is going to try to bill if he prevails too...that Civil Rights code is one that has GOT to be fixed!
Yes, yes pretty pictures, very pretty ,and precious. But
the boys in black robes have already excused them claiming
they are special because the other stuff also displayed.
IMO they used the this stuff is our stuff so we ain't gonna say it's not legal --but your stuff aint our stuff
so we're gonna insist your stuff violates the Constitution
cause it aint our stuff. See how easy it is to think like a
Supreme Court Judge?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
