The issue here is not the Ten Commandments or religion at all, but usurpation and abuse of power by federal judges, who have NO jurisdiction in this case, yet falsely claim that they do. Just because these abuses have been taking place for nearly a century does not mean they are legal.
It is time to cut the heads off this hydra of judicial legislation. Justice Moore, if he stays true to his cause, may be the one to slay this terrible beast and restore balance to federal versus state powers.
But he'll need help, and if the U.S. Supreme Court does not wish to uphold the law in this case, then the onus falls upon Congress, and its impeachment powers.
Here's hoping they finally do their jobs and halt the illegal abuses of power by the federal judiciary.
The issue here is not the Ten Commandments or religion at all, but usurpation and abuse of power by federal judges, who have NO jurisdiction in this case, yet falsely claim that they do. Just because these abuses have been taking place for nearly a century does not mean they are legal.
THE BLIND CITING THE BLIND, LEADING THE DEAF & DUMB CONGRESS INTO MARXISM:
One of the most important doctrines in Western law is that of stare decisis, a Latin term of art which means "to stand by decided cases; to uphold precedents; to maintain former adjudications".[1] In modern jurisprudence, however, it has come to take on a life of its own, with all precedents being presumed to be well-founded unbiased legal decisions, rather than political decisions, and presumed to have both the authority of the black-letter law on which they are based, plus that of the precedents on which they are based, so that later precedents are presumed to be more authoritative than earlier ones.
The doctrine also tends to give great weight to the opinion in the case, even to the point of treating the opinion as though it was law, even though only the order and findings have the actual force of law, and only in that case, and an explanation of how the decision was reached is only dictum, or commentary. This means that a poorly-worded opinion can define a set of legal positions that exceed the bounds of the underlying black letter law, and become the basis for future precedents, as though it were black letter law itself. The problem is exacerbated by the failure of judges to clearly delineate the boundaries between edict and dictum. How stare decisis Subverts the Law
EVEN FINDLAW RECOGNIZES:
Thus, the nature of active review in equal protection jurisprudence remains in flux, subject to shifting majorities and varying degrees of concern about judicial activism and judicial restraint. But the cases, more fully reviewed hereafter, clearly indicate that a sliding scale of review is a fact of the Court's cases, however much its doctrinal explanation lags behind.