Federal Judge Agrees to Hear 10 Commandments Case

Fox News | August 28, 2003 | Fox News

[Peach]

FNC reports that the original judge who heard the 10 Commandments case, Judge Thompson, has agreed to hear the case on behalf of some people who say their religious rights are being violated.

Case could be heard as soon as this afteroon.

[lawgirl]

Hmm..if the judge wants to hear the case this afternoon, I think he already has his mind made up, which does not fare well for our side.

[Peach]

I agree with that. Too bad it isn't a different judge.

[Joe Brower]

I agree. I have a hunch that this judge plans to let them air their views and then shoot them down, all the while claiming the high road for having "let them have their say".

Cynical, maybe? But to me it's a very transparent tactic.

[Protagoras]

Our side? Which side would that be?

[BubbaBasher]

He wants to snag it and kill it before someone else gets it.

[Peach]

You're right, I'm afraid.

[microgood]

Maybe he saw the CNN poll that saide 4 in 5 Americans disagree with his sorry as*.

[Protagoras]

Maybe he saw the CNN poll that saide 4 in 5 Americans disagree with his sorry as*.

Or maybe he doesn't care what 4 in 5 people say. Like any good judge would.

4 out of 5 southern slave holders were opposed to emancipation.

[Rome2000]

If Congress pased a law Prohibiting the display of the 10 commandments in State Court houses tomorrow, I guess this judge would rule that it didn't violate the "Congress shall make no law....prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clause and was constitutional.

I'm surprised they let a Church witin a mile of a school or government building.

[Revolutionary]

Their rights are being violated under the "free exercise" clause. Free exercise means everywhere, not just in churches and not just by clergy.

[lilylangtree]

No way! The petitioners don't have a chance with this dips**t Myron Thompson. They won't get a fair shake. He's going to quote that erroneous phrase "separation of church and state" as a reason for ruling against the petitioners. Why Thompson? Everyone knows he's already prejudiced against the monument.

[Williams]

You are correct. Frankly, a good judge is like a good umpire and doesn't care which side wins. The goal should be to apply the law to the given facts. I generally would support a depiction of the 10 C's at a courthouse, but in this case it looks like the judge practically set up the commandments as a challenge to everyone walking in the building. It's in your face to a degree that might be intimidating to those who don't follow the judge's religious views. And I don't mean atheists, I mean other religions.

[Protagoras]

It's in your face to a degree that might be intimidating to those who don't follow the judge's religious views.

And if you see it that way many here will accuse you of being anti-religion or even anti-God.

[RAY]

This judge is just another pompus AH who doesn't care or doesn't understand the Constitution. The Federal Courts are intent on controlling everything, every aspect of your life.

[aspiring.hillbilly]

Just to point out how Ridiculously strange the order to remove the stone commandments by this ignorant lower court "judge" so called; the very facade of the Supreme Court bulding in Wash DC has carved in stone Moses himself decending the mountain with the two stone tablets in hand as the central figure in the stone facade adorning the front of the building. This butthead needs to order that that carving of moses himself be taken off the front of the highest court in the land to be consistant and not a hypocrite.... Lets see this butthead take on the Supremes and order the facade of their building be removed.....!!
and lets see the Supremes twist in the wind over this...

[microgood]

4 out of 5 southern slave holders were opposed to emancipation.

Is this supposed to have something to do with this case? Quite the stretch although I've seen this misdirection around this story quite a bit.

[lugsoul]

Why would he use that phrase in this case? He didn't rely on it in Glassroth v. Moore.

This dispute is not about Myron Thompson. The result in his decision is mandated by binding precedent, and was emphatically affirmed by a conservative appeals court.

Those who continue to demonize Thompson while being strangely silent about the appellate judges give the impression that there is a reason for attacking one and not the others. Since their rulings were identical, that leaves other obvious reasons for singling Thompson out.

If you want to criticize judges over this ruling, you need to criticize the ones who issued the decisions that REQUIRED the ruling in this case. Under existing precedent, this was not a close case. It was a slam-dunk.

[Peach]

Oh, boy. Great POST!!! I did not know that about the Supreme Court building. Guess the ACLU will be asking sand blasters to remove that now.

[microgood]

Lets see this butthead take on the Supremes and order the facade of their building be removed

I would like to see all the federal courts remove any pictures of the Judges themselves from the building. Wouldn't want to have pictures of false gods in the federal buildings.