Posted on 06/27/2005 8:25:49 AM PDT by Pikamax
High Court Gives Split Decisions On Ten Commandments
POSTED: 9:10 am CDT June 27, 2005 UPDATED: 10:19 am CDT June 27, 2005
SUPREME COURT -- There have been two closely-watched rulings on church-state separation.
The Supreme Court said Monday that Ten Commandments displays in two Kentucky courthouses cross the line between church and state. The justices -- in a 5-4 vote -- rejected those displays, saying they promote a religious message.
But the justices declined to prohibit all displays in court buildings or on government property. They said some displays, such as the one in their own courtroom, would be permissible if they're portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation's legal history.
Writing for the majority, Justice David Souter said, "The First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and non-religion."
He was joined by other members of the court's liberal bloc, Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer, as well as Sandra Day O'Connor, who provided the swing vote.
Texas Commandments Ruling In its second ruling Monday on displays of the Ten Commandments, the Supreme Court has ruled that displays of the Commandments are allowed on government land.
The justices found that a 6 foot granite monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol does not cross the line between church and state.
Opponents challenging the monument on the Texas Capitol grounds and Ten Commandments displays in Kentucky courthouses said they are an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.
In 2003, Roy Moore was removed from office as Alabama's chief justice when he refused to obey a federal judge's order to remove a a Ten Commandments monument from the foyer of the Alabama Judicial Building.
Defenders responded that such displays, including engravings in the Supreme Court's own building, don't establish religion but merely acknowledge the nation's legal heritage.
The justices' ruling could affect thousands of Ten Commandments monuments and displays nationwide.
Previous Stories:
pinging you to a lively discussion
Oh, fer cryin' out loud....
Advice & consent of the Skull & Bones society. John F'n Kerry is a member if that, isn't he? I bet they had a meeting of the brotherhood at which they decided not to discuss the border or immigration in the campaign, because they sure didn't.
Hear ya.
Shouldn't that be 'Hear ye?' Honorable F16, Sir? ;o)
Lol, that's a two-fer!
The Supreme Court is only part of the problem. The entire system of arrogant, corrupt federal and state judges have made enough bad decisions to create an honest-to-gosh revolution.
The question is, what are we going to do about it?
I like the solution advocated by Mark Levin, the brilliant President of the Landmark Legal Foundation, in his recent book, Men in Black. He would like the Constitution to be amended in two ways: 1. Term limits for justices and judges; and 2. Authorizing Congress to veto Supreme Court decisions with a super-majority (two-thirds) vote of both houses.
He supports term limits for two basic reasons. First, if justices and judges are going to behave like politicians, legislating at will, they should not serve for life. Moreover, especially as applies to Supreme Court justices, too many have served well beyond their ability to perform their duties.
There's no need to go that far. Just cut off the courts' jurisdiction for a while until they learn how to read the Constitution right. Congress already has that power.
Hey, "Honorable F16" has quite a ring to it. I like it, but probably not as much as he does...lol.
He actually is an honorable man, onyx. Just no law degree, so no SCOTUS for F16. No way I'm calling him SIR, though. Got that, Pookie? :o)
One need not have a law degree to sit on SCOTUS! F16 is still my choice for Chief Justice.
He's mine, as well. :oP
Vee do have our vays to make you call me "SIR."
And you vill luff it ;-)
"He's mine, as well. :oP"
Ladies, I'm honored and flattered...and thirsty.
Shall we discuss my "qualifications" at the Supreme Court Justice Lounge? ;-)
Actually, Lancey, the first amendment prohibits congress from passing a law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. So you're right in that the government cannot pass a law prohibiting free expression of religion. But it is similarly prohibited from actually establishing a religion, either. Historically, this has been interpreted as the US government being prohibited from treating one religion more favorably than another, as this would create an "establishment" where congress could de-facto declare the US a Christian state, where other religions were allowed but not treated equally.
So when it comes to Federal courthouses and such, I can see how displaying the 10 commandments only would be perceived as an establishment of Judeo-Christian values, whereas displaying them with other historical documents (the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, etc) would not.
Now what this has to do with the US Government's right to determine what a *STATE* decides to display on their own grounds with their own money, I can't figure out.
You tawkinna ME?
Yeah, you've got those ways all right. NBC and WAT, to name a couple. LOL
SIR says: Eyeball-to-Eyeball.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.