Replies

confirmed now

When will crews begin removing it from the SCOTUS?????

Seems like a pretty obvious result, given prior decisions by this Court.

SCOTUS will be the main reason for the upcoming resurgence of the militia movement.

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.

Allah is pleased...

meanwhile, terrorists at Gitmo are given free hate-guides, i mean, Korans...

In what sense does the SC honor our legal history? Take the frieze down.

How many in the majority?

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".)

Their own 10 Commandments and renditions of Moses over at the SCOTUS must not count.

Oh, God.

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...

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.

What goes up in it's place? The Book of the Koran?!

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.

"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?

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	Chief Justice Moore Suspended
8/22/2003	Freedom at Stake in Moore Fight
8/18/2003	Chief Justice Moore's Poem at Rally
8/18/2003	Moore Defies Federal Order to Remove Ten Commandments
8/18/2003	Nation Rallies for Moore
8/12/2003	Chief Justice Moore Receives Ultimatum to Abandon “Laws of God”
6/6/2003	Appeals Court Weighs Moore Arguments
6/1/2003	162,000 Join Moore Petition
5/1/2003	Moore Appeal Set for June
2/1/2003	E-Army Delivers for Moore
1/7/2003	Federal Judge Allows Chief Justice Moore’s Ten Commandments Monument to Stay…For Now
12/20/2002	Chief Justice Moore Given New Ultimatum: Remove Monument by January 3
11/21/2002	Dr. D. James Kennedy's Statement Regarding the Ruling Against Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore.
10/23/2002	Moore Refutes Expert Witness
10/18/2002	Moore Trial Enters Fourth Day
10/9/2002	Poll: Alabama Supports Chief Justice Moore, Ten Commandments
4/1/2002	Anger Greets Moore Opinion In Homosexual Custody Suit
2/1/2002	Trial Date Set for Moore Suit
1/7/2002	Electronic Army Mobilizes for Moore
1/2/2002	Titus Explains ACLU Plan to Sue Judge Moore
1/1/2002	ACLU, Allies, Bring Suit Against Chief Justice Moore
11/5/2001	Chief Justice Roy Moore Sued by ACLU, Americans United for Separation
11/1/2001	No Lawsuit Yet Against Moore
10/4/2001	Chief Justice Moore Puts God's Law in Alabama Court
9/1/2001	Moore Puts God's Law In Alabama Supreme Court
9/1/2001	Moore Advisors Answer Ten Commandments Critics
8/10/2001	Chief Justice Roy Moore: Solid as a Rock
4/1/2001	Moore Leads Conference Lineup
3/1/2001	Judge Moore Elected Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice
7/1/1999	Anonymous Complaint Leads to Ethics Probe of Moore
2/1/1998	Moore Case Asks God's Place
4/1/1997	Judge Moore Keeps Prayer, Ten Commandments In Court

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

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.

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.

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.