Hold on, now. That's an assumption that you and the courts are making. Way back when, in Post, oh, I don't know, something with three digits, I stated that the provisions of the first amendment can only be applied via the 14th amendment to the extent that it comports with the actual language thereof - "privileges and immunites", "life, liberty, or property without due process of law", "equal protection of the laws". Somewhere in there a violation must lie. Where, and how?
the First Amendment being one of those privileges and/or liberties that the 14'th mentions people shall not be deprived of by the various states...
This begins to address the question, but it still needs to be asked: Is it truly one of the "privileges" of citizens to put whatever religious decoration they want in their courthouses & other government buildings? Mathematically, that's impossible, so someone's going to be deprived of that "privilege", is that not correct?
Religious expression is certainly one of those liberties, is it not? By what right does Judge Moore deny that liberty to others who seek time in the public square? And if that question sounds familiar, I think I asked it of you about 700 posts ago ;)
Mathematically, that's impossible, so someone's going to be deprived of that "privilege", is that not correct?
Could be. We could always avoid that particular can of worms by not allowing any religious displays in the first place. I'm personally inclined to go with a "best effort" standard in that sort of thing, but we could assure complete fairness by closing the door to everyone, if you like.
I think I ought to revisit this before it gets too far away and I forget about it. I'm not sure it's entirely accurate to say that this is merely an "assumption", either on my part or on the part of the courts. I'm not simply assuming, in the absence of any support, that the 14'th applies the establishment clause to the states - that is the law. It's sort of like objecting that I'm just assuming that a carrot is an edible orange vegetable that grows underground and has a long, tapering shape to it. That's not an assumption - that's what a carrot is, as a matter of definition. The courts are responsible, at the moment, for defining what the meaning and applications of the 14'th amendment are - it's not an assumption on their part any more than the nature of a carrot is an assumption by the folks at Webster's. Defining it is what they do. We may disagree with their definition, but that really doesn't make it an assumption, nor am I simply assuming that this is the law when I report it to you - that is, in fact, the law, by definition.