Skip to comments.
Court: No Ten Commandments in Courthouses
A{P/ SF Chroncile ^
| Monday, June 27, 2005
| HOPE YEN
Posted on 06/27/2005 7:31:57 AM PDT by ElkGroveDan
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81 next last
confirmed now
To: ElkGroveDan
When will crews begin removing it from the SCOTUS?????
2
posted on
06/27/2005 7:33:23 AM PDT
by
TheBattman
(Islam (and liberals)- the cult of Satan)
To: ElkGroveDan
Seems like a pretty obvious result, given prior decisions by this Court.
3
posted on
06/27/2005 7:33:52 AM PDT
by
Brilliant
To: ElkGroveDan
SCOTUS will be the main reason for the upcoming resurgence of the militia movement.
4
posted on
06/27/2005 7:34:01 AM PDT
by
Sam's Army
(My neighbor gives drinking a bad name)
To: ElkGroveDan
I am the Supreme Court Justice,
thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt bow down thyself to us, and serve us.
Thou shalt not take the name of the Supreme Court in vain:
for we will not hold him guiltless that taketh our name in
vain.
5
posted on
06/27/2005 7:34:02 AM PDT
by
NautiNurse
("I'd rather see someone go to work for a Republican campaign than sit on their butt."--Howard Dean)
To: ElkGroveDan
6
posted on
06/27/2005 7:34:11 AM PDT
by
2banana
(My common ground with terrorists - They want to die for Islam, and we want to kill them.)
To: ElkGroveDan
meanwhile, terrorists at Gitmo are given free hate-guides, i mean, Korans...
7
posted on
06/27/2005 7:34:16 AM PDT
by
Zeppelin
(Keep on FReepin' on.....)
To: 2banana
8
posted on
06/27/2005 7:34:48 AM PDT
by
lugsoul
("She talks and she laughs." - Tom DeLay)
To: ElkGroveDan
In what sense does the SC honor our legal history? Take the frieze down.
9
posted on
06/27/2005 7:34:57 AM PDT
by
oblomov
To: ElkGroveDan
How many in the majority?
To: ElkGroveDan
The SCOTUS carved out an exception for itself. The frieze in their own chambers is still "constitutional!" How 'bout that! Judicial activism at its most arrogant.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
11
posted on
06/27/2005 7:36:01 AM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: ElkGroveDan
Their own 10 Commandments and renditions of Moses over at the SCOTUS must not count.
To: ElkGroveDan
13
posted on
06/27/2005 7:36:21 AM PDT
by
Chong
(America is Too Great for Small Dreams. Ronald Reagan.)
To: NautiNurse
The modern version of Baal worship..
To: ElkGroveDan
Calm down, everyone.
The justices left themselves legal wiggle room on this issue, however, saying that some displays like their own courtroom frieze would be permissible if they're portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation's legal history. But framed copies in two Kentucky courthouses went too far in endorsing religion, the court held.
Can anyone find photos of the Kentucky displays? I'm still looking...
To: ElkGroveDan
The next supreme appointee should be a devoutly religious man who's not afraid to speak his mind....
...Tom Cruse comes to mind. Couldn't be any worse than some of those already seated, and I have to admit, he does look his best in black.
To: Sam's Army
"SCOTUS will be the main reason for the upcoming resurgence of the militia movement."
I think you're right. We had a very active militia here in Missouri back in 1994, but once Bush got in, interest seemed to wane and we had few active members. They used to say that Clinton was the father of the modern militia movement, but once he was gone it went away for the most part.
Carolyn
17
posted on
06/27/2005 7:39:15 AM PDT
by
CDHart
(The world has become a lunatic asylum and the lunatics are in charge.)
To: ElkGroveDan
What goes up in it's place? The Book of the Koran?!
18
posted on
06/27/2005 7:39:24 AM PDT
by
SheLion
(Trying to make a life in the BLUE state of Maine!)
To: TheBattman
When will crews begin removing it from the SCOTUS?????
19
posted on
06/27/2005 7:40:27 AM PDT
by
Just A Nobody
(I - L O V E - my attitude problem!)
To: Don'tMessWithTexas
It was 5-4, so not a real precedent setter. I believe it was the same 5 who were for expansion of eminent domain.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson