Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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

(06-27) 07:19 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

A split Supreme Court struck down Ten Commandments displays in courthouses Monday, ruling that two exhibits in Kentucky cross the line between separation of church and state because they promote a religious message.

The 5-4 decision was the first of two seeking to mediate the bitter culture war over religion's place in public life. In it, the court declined to prohibit all displays in court buildings or on government property. Justices left legal wiggle room, 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: mccreary; scotus; tencommandments
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last
To: goldstategop
The frieze in their own chambers is still "constitutional!"

It would seem, then, that any courtroom that chose to erect a replica of the USSC frieze would be in the clear constitutionally.

21 posted on 06/27/2005 7:41:25 AM PDT by Paine in the Neck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

I won't comment on the religious aspect since Christians already know and secularist don't believe or don't care. However, from a political point of view, this ruling probably helps conservatives in the next nominee battle. The camel's back is now officially broken.


22 posted on 06/27/2005 7:43:04 AM PDT by Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clara Lou

Not quite the same 5....O'Connor wrote the scathing dissent in the land use case.


23 posted on 06/27/2005 7:43:09 AM PDT by Tulane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
"When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality," he said.

What about the when the judicial branch of government "acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of rejecting religion "? Doesn't that violate the Free Exercise clause?

24 posted on 06/27/2005 7:43:23 AM PDT by Noachian (To Control the Judiciary The People Must First Control The Senate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clara Lou

No. O'Communist was in the majority on this one.


25 posted on 06/27/2005 7:43:37 AM PDT by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: NautiNurse

1. This supreme court holds that there is no such thing as private property.

2. This supreme court hold that displays of a remotely religious nature on public property are forbidden.

1 + 2 =

3. No religious Christmas decorations on your lawn, crosses where they can be seen publically, etc. Just wait.


26 posted on 06/27/2005 7:43:45 AM PDT by MeanWestTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sam's Army

Count me in!!


27 posted on 06/27/2005 7:44:10 AM PDT by Renegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Clara Lou

O'Connor the swing vote once again. Reagan is rolling over in his grave. My how she's "grown" in office since Reagan appointed her to the bench.

I sincerely hope that she is the Justice rumored to be retiring after this term.


28 posted on 06/27/2005 7:44:27 AM PDT by borkrules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman

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.


29 posted on 06/27/2005 7:44:41 AM PDT by Redleg Duke (Getting old sucks, but it is the only viable option!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan; Liberty Wins; Fearless Flyers; Texas_Dawg; Miss Marple; 70times7; dorben; tbpiper; ...
The U.S.S.C. rules that the Ten Commandments "cross the line" and cannot be displayed in public buildings.

A bit of history on this subject - FYI:

Rights of States Built into the Constitution

Judge Roy Moore and The Ten Commandments Monument - A Timeline (ACLU Prompted Removal)

Dr. James Dobson: "We're Not Going To The Back of The Bus"

BREAKING - Mississippi Governor Ronald Musgrove Offers To Take Unwanted 10 Commandents From Alabama

When will Moore's monument be moved? (Who will replace Judge Moore?)

Stealth Move Against the Chief Justice (10 Commandments)

Supporters Intend to Resist Removal of Ten Commandments

The Beginning of Woes for Judge Roy Moore - What Started It All - The Ten Commandments Monument

How judge's stand resonates in Bible Belt

Oct. 4th, 1982 - 97th Congress Proclaimed "Year of The Bible" - Twenty Years Later What Has Changed?
TIMELINE Judge Roy Moore and The Ten Commandments Monument - A Timeline (ACLU Prompted Removal) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Judge Roy Moore And The Ten Commandemtn Monuments Lawsuit - A Time Line:
8/25/2003
8/22/2003
8/18/2003
8/18/2003
8/18/2003
8/12/2003
6/6/2003
6/1/2003
5/1/2003
2/1/2003
1/7/2003
12/20/2002
11/21/2002
10/23/2002
10/18/2002
10/9/2002
4/1/2002
2/1/2002
1/7/2002
1/2/2002
1/1/2002
11/5/2001
11/1/2001
10/4/2001
9/1/2001
9/1/2001
8/10/2001
4/1/2001
3/1/2001
7/1/1999
2/1/1998
4/1/1997
oligarchy "The question is or at least ought to be, how can such a small, godless, minority have such influence over our courts and legislative processes?"

Answer:

U.S. Supreme Court, 2003 - The Oligarchy*

ol•i•gar•chy
Pronunciation: 'ä-l&-"gär-kE, 'O-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -chies
Date: 1542
1 : government by the few
2 : a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3 : an organization under oligarchic control

30 posted on 06/27/2005 7:44:56 AM PDT by Happy2BMe ("Viva La Migra" - LONG LIVE THE BORDER PATROL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Noachian

The fertilizer's on the way to the ventilator...the next appointee should be Godly and Right...and may we have the brass to let loose the dogs of war!


31 posted on 06/27/2005 7:45:12 AM PDT by 50sDad ( ST3d - Star Trek Tri-D Chess! http://my.oh.voyager.net/~abartmes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Paine in the Neck

BINGO!!!!!!

The simplicity and incitefullness of this post is truly brillant. Absolutely brilliant.

Truly brilliant, I can't wait until this starts happening. I want to write a letter to the folks in Birminham right now...


32 posted on 06/27/2005 7:45:36 AM PDT by Tulane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
Not from this article, but part of the ruling:

"The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the majority.

Souter understands the feds should be silent on this, yet he rules like he did ?

also:

"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."

For thee but not for me.
33 posted on 06/27/2005 7:45:37 AM PDT by stylin19a (Suicide bomber ??? "I came to the wrong jihad")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

This will certainly become a wake up call for impending court nomination hearings. I suspect the silent American public will become more engaged than ever before. Too bad we'll only be fighting to hold our ground, since Rehnquist will likely be the first vacancy.


34 posted on 06/27/2005 7:46:31 AM PDT by ElkGroveDan (I'm sick and tired of being sicked and tired!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan

Yep, i can see #3 happening very soon! It is sickening!


35 posted on 06/27/2005 7:46:44 AM PDT by Halls
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

Don't know what will be the last straw, but they are so pushing the common belief of such a large number of people on all sorts of issues to the point the government they are shaping is too far away from the consensus of a large portion of the US people.

There could very well be a Rubicon where people no longer will accept it. And with the track record of this court, that day is coming sooner than later.


36 posted on 06/27/2005 7:48:42 AM PDT by Knitting A Conundrum (Act Justly, Love Mercy, and Walk Humbly With God Micah 6:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

Have We the People have become so powerless that we are now at the mercy of 5 individuals?



37 posted on 06/27/2005 7:49:57 AM PDT by Jetblack21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

What surprises me is the anger on some other threads about aledged KGB influence in the Russian church but there's not the same level of outrage that in America the Supreme court and ACLU adamatly argue for a state endorsed freedom from religion as bad or worse than the Soviet Era distrust of religious minded folks. Today's state of religion in Russia is extremely brighter than is the situation in the US with the government perging religon whenever it finds it and churches reinventing scripture to support sins against which the bible preaches. This decision is simply a clarification of what I already know: The government intends to mandate athiesm as the state religion.


38 posted on 06/27/2005 7:51:36 AM PDT by kharaku (G3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tired of Taxes

I agree. It's not the end of the world. There are certain conditions in which 10 Commandment displays would not be entirely appropriate in my opinion.


39 posted on 06/27/2005 7:52:36 AM PDT by bkepley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Pete
Well, since you took care of the political angle, I'll return to the religious aspect....lest we lose sight of the fact that our Heavenly Father told us there'd be days like this.

See Psalm 2

40 posted on 06/27/2005 7:53:24 AM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson