Since neither the Court of Appeals nor the US Supreme Court have chosen to stay or overturn the decision, it is probably considered well reasoned. Thompson describes the elements leading to his decision very clearly. It will answer, better then I ever could, the exact laws (and court interpretations) involved.
Reading some of the comments Moore made at the trial does make me wonder about his judicial temperament.
Anyway, I'd be happy to discuss it with anyone who has read it.
Thank you for posting the link. I have read it.
I thought the most telling aspect was that Thompson acknowledged that finding for the defendent would require overturning SCOTUS findings.
Exactly. This is the latest in a long line which misconstrue the establishment clause.