[Chancellor Palpatine]

His free speech rights appear in the same amendment as the prohibition on establishment.

If his free speech rights trump the establishment clause, then the establishment clause is meaningless.

The fact is, he can do anything he wants when he isn't on duty and wearing the mantle of office - once he is on duty, however, his speech rights are subordinate to the establishment clause.

[AppyPappy]

But he didn't establish a state religion. He merely had some words on a monument. He did not require that people swear allegiance to them or anything. The fact is, he can do anything he wants when he isn't on duty and wearing the mantle of office - once he is on duty, however, his speech rights are subordinate to the establishment clause.

He did not violate the establishment clause. No religion was established.

[wimpycat]

I like my analogy to the military...active duty military personnel don't have the same free speech rights as civilians; they can't publicly criticize the government, or their commander-in-chief for example. You won't see a (smart) uniformed Marine participating in an anti-war rally. He could get in trouble for it.

The analogy isn't perfect, but people do understand that active duty military personnel have some limits on their free speech rights. So it's just a short leap from that to judges. When you come to think of it, cops probably can't use their office to promote their agendas, either.