WSJ: Supreme Ending - Good news on copyrights, more confusion on religion.

...In van Orden v. Perry, the Court allowed a six-foot granite monument to the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas capitol. But in McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, it decided that a display of framed copies of the Ten Commandments inside two Kentucky courthouses was going too far.

...Reading through the majority opinions, it seems that the difference boils down to such "context" dependent issues as the fact that the granite monument was old -- it had been there since 1961 -- while the Kentucky commandments were of newer vintage and therefore possibly a product of the dreaded religious right.

As Justice Scalia wrote in a particularly blistering dissent in McCreary: "What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle." By refusing to offer such a principle here, the Supremes have guaranteed even more church-state appeals. We'd add that this is a subject where a plain-language reading of the First Amendment -- which prohibits Congress only from establishing a state religion or "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" -- would be immensely clarifying.

Which brings us to a possible Court vacancy, perhaps as early as today. President Bush has declared himself a "strict constructionist" on the Constitution and said he particularly admires Justices Scalia and Thomas. This past term has proven the need for a nominee in precisely that mold. The current Court's decisions too often come down to what either Justice Kennedy or O'Connor decide on that particular day, and they have an increasingly ad hoc, legislative character. Such lack of principle is not a virtue when it comes to courts.

We hope Mr. Bush keeps... his... promise... to help craft a more intellectually coherent court.

We'd add that this is a subject where a plain-language reading of the First Amendment -- which prohibits Congress only from establishing a state religion or "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" -- would be immensely clarifying.

Exactly! Souter justified the 5-4 decision on the grounds that the first amendment requires the federal government to be neutral between religions and between religion and non-religion. Of course, that's not what the Constitution says at all:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

It's about Congress (not the state of Kentucky), and it's about making laws, not about court house decor. Rather than actually reading the constitution, Souter based his argument on a 1968 decision written by that illustrious founder, Abe Fortas. When you've got to refer to Abe Fortas to get the decision you want, rather than referring to the Constitution itself, well, that pretty well gives away the game. You're making it up as you go along, grasping at straws rather than standing on the Constitution.

Coburn on 10 Commandments ruling

Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn released the following statement in response to today's Supreme Court ruling on the 10 Commandments:

Today’s decision is yet another example of activist judges ignoring the Constitution and our founding principles. In an astonishing act of judicial hypocrisy, the Supreme Court outlawed some Ten Commandments displays as they sat beneath a display of the Ten Commandments. A future court may well decide that today the Supreme Court declared its own meeting chambers unconstitutional,” Dr. Coburn said.

This decision underscores the need for the Senate to confirm judges who will interpret, not rewrite, the Constitution. Far left academics and activists will celebrate this ruling because it demonstrates their success in enacting agendas through the courts that would fail at the ballot box,” Dr. Coburn said, adding that according to an Associated Press poll 76 percent of Americans support displaying the Ten Commandments on government ground.

The genius of our founders is that they recognized that individual rights derive from a Creator, not from a King or the State. Our founders were concerned that if our rights derived from the State – or a Court – they could be taken away by the State. This ruling contradicts our founders’ vision of democracy and freedom,” Dr. Coburn said. “Our entire system of government and belief in the rule of law is built on a foundation of religion, not irreligion. We should remind ourselves of a quote by Thomas Jefferson etched in the Jefferson Memorial. Jefferson asked in an argument today’s Supreme Court might treat as a dissenting opinion, ‘Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?’

-- fromthebleachers.blogspot.com/

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.