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:
And true neutrality would mean that every belief system on the face of the earth should be equally recognized. That's preposterous and unworkable, and you know it.
The smattering of religious symbology the Court has allowed does nothing but further enthrone atheism as this nation's officially etablished belief system. The ACLU knows that even if you deny it. The decalogue motif at the Supreme Court building is like parsley on the corner of a dinner plate--for decoration only.
The meal is atheism and atheism alone.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Sorry, I was actually making fun of Tom Cruise's deepseated knowledge of psychiatry. :)
"First of all, Islam is not part of the foundation of the western legal tradition. Quite the contrary."
And yet Mohammed appears carved into the Supreme Court building alongside other lawgivers.
Everything in your #56 is exactly what the communist organization ACLU wants. Exactly. They, along with the rest of the world, want to remove all those things that contributed to our great nation.
BTTT
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Duly and noted (barf).
Coincidence that two of the three were flaming libs from the get-go, while the third has morphed into one??
The evidence strongly suggests an obvious and conscious policy effort (read conspiracy) by the GOP that has purposely undercut the conservative agenda, while ensuring an ideological equilibrium in the Supreme Court is maintained.
Prediction:
Dubya Bush will stall further on any SC Justices before finally pulling the trigger on a "centrist" Republican. For as many appointments as he's "allowed" to make.
What about another Scalia or Thomas?? Fagetabout.
Why oh why?
If only we could find out by asking Nelson Rockefeller's ghost, bugging a Masons' midnight meeting, or asking any number of international economists, politicians (from both parties) and bankers who are members of the Trilateral Commission.
IOW, the internationalist New World Order dictates trump American political policy.
Even if true, they're still not as powerful as they think. They're still just mortals. It would help to remember that always.
Back in 2001, the Bush Administration could have begun the "work" of reinstituting conservatism with an immediate judical high-colonic, but didn't.
Instead, we're constantly still getting the short end of the stick on a multitude of ridiculous 5-4 Circuit Court rullings.
But they will do it incrementally so the sheep don't rise up and burn them at the stake. That's why the Court issues muddleheaded decisions like this is because they know if they bite off too much too soon, they'll be run out on a rail - maybe not from the Blue States but from the Red ones.
Yes, I'll put on my propeller-cap and keep that in mind as the next 1,000,000 illegal invaders waltz across the southwest border during the summer months with the blessing of the New World Order Bush Administration.
Remember when I asked you which House of Congress you preferred? How does Justice F16 sound to you, Sir?
The GOP has offered nothing but this evidence for quite some time now.
"Justice F16"??
Lol, may as well make it Chief Justice F16," Trish.
In that case, shouldn't my first order of bit'ness be giving David Souter a "wedgie," and pulling Ruth Bader Ginsberg's chair out from under her? :-D
Yet still some folks believe Dubya will actually appoint an actual conservative to the USSC? (insert theme to 'Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds')
Absolutely, Chief Justice. My mistake, sorry Sir.
I like your idea for Bader-Ginsberg, but I'm worried Souter might enjoy the wedgie...lol.
Heh, yeah, you're right....And he might ask for a triple wedgie.
I'd forgotten Souter's "bike-riding" incident one late night in the park.
Shall I replace the wedgie with a whack over his noggin with a bike seat in the hope of knocking some sense into him? Be a nice theme as well ;-)
I haven't yet read this decision.
But I do not believe that I'll agree with any man 100% of the time. I don't blindly follow anyone - no man is perfect. Not Scalia, and not even me. ;)
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.