http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/sc...mmandments.ap/

It's okay to have a 6 foot statue of the Ten Commandments outside a public building (Texas State Capital) but it's not okay for the Ten Commandments to be hung inside a public building (Kentucky Courtroom).

Yeah, I follow the logic of that...NOT!

This is the worst court I have seen in my lifetime. Every decision is a 5-4 decision. How can nine people reading the very same Constitution have such differing views on what it says? Words have meaning. They mean no more nor less than what they say. So long as judges begin with that understanding, there is little chance of such differing views, as we currently have on this court. In BOTH cases, it's either establishment of religion or it isn't. Which one is it? This court decided to slice the baby in two and give each side one half of a dead child.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

Justice Antonin Scalia "What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle."

"Of course, the Ten Commandments are religious -- they were so viewed at their inception and so remain. The monument therefore has religious significance," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the majority in the case involving the display outside the state capitol of Texas.

"Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment clause," he said.

"While the court correctly rejects the challenge to the Ten Commandments monument on the Texas Capitol grounds, a more fundamental rethinking of our Establishment Clause jurisprudence remains in order," Thomas wrote in a separate opinion.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

With the exception for the USSC, that is. It's okay there!!

This is certainly one goof up by Ronald Reagan: the appointment of Sandra Day O'Conner to the USSC. Can't believe she sided with the liberals on the Kentucky ruling. You are right: it makes no sense.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

was a Reagan appointee, and he sided with the libs in the land grab case last week.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

Yeah....it's no wonder so many of the Dems liked Reagan. He was pretty liberal with his USSC nominees.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

I thought all the "theocracy kooks" would be all over this decision.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

watcha ya going to do? All the way back to Washington there have been references to God.
So if the Supreme Court decides they are the new dictators of the USA, then will anyone get really angry? I'm not angry. I am not surprised. I am sad that the USSC has decided to vote on party lines instead of the way of the constitution. I guess their next step is to say the Constitution is Unconstitutional.

__________________
Those who think they know everything, usually know the least.

I understand your feelings, but in the two decisions, the court ruled two different ways. Both cases involved the display of the Ten Commandments on Government property. In the case of the Commandments being outside a State Capital, on a 6 foot marble monument, the court ruled that was okay, but if the same Commandments are hung on a wall inside a courthouse, that was not okay.

You are absolutely correct about Washington. If he gave a speech today, the ACLU would be all over him.

The First Amendment is very clear. It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Amendment is restrictive to Congressional acts that would establish a religion. At the time the Amendment was written, some States even required that their representative to the Constitutional convention belong to the Anglican church. There is NOTHING in the First Amendment that prohibits the expression of religion by the government. As Chief Rehnquist correctly writes in the Texas decision:

"Of course, the Ten Commandments are religious -- they were so viewed at their inception and so remain. The monument therefore has religious significance. Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment clause,"

As Justice Thomas notes, “While the court correctly rejects the challenge to the Ten Commandments monument on the Texas Capitol grounds, a more fundamental rethinking of our Establishment Clause jurisprudence remains in order,"

He is exactly correct—a more fundamental rethinking of our Establishment Clause jurisprudence remains in order.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

I haven't read the decisions yet, but on the surface, I can't reconcile them.

To the highly religious people here, I have to ask the question: Why do you support posting the 10 commandments on public property? I mean, people who care about the 10 commandments have already memorized them, and the people who don't care about them...well, they don't care about them.

A large segment of the American public has the obsessive need to evangelize their religion on others and I guess they like to have props available to help them. I am of two minds on these cases. My initial reaction is that they aren't unconstitutional, but then I think that the government, by allowing these displays, can be seen as giving its imprimatur to the contents of the displays. And while not an establishment of religion, it is close. The first amendment doesn't require a "wall of separation" between church and state, so it is unnecessary to discuss it.

Just a question to anyone who knows...the taxpayers didn't pay for either of these displays, right?

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller

The Ten Commandments do not form the moral fabric of our society. The Social Contract forms for the moral fabric of our society.

__________________
"Nothing is true. Everything is permitted." - Hassan-i-Saba