« "Lost" And Found | Main | The Lost Liberty Hotel »

June 28, 2005

Well, I'm Glad They Cleared That Up

So, the Supreme Court has issued rulings in two Ten Commandments cases. In a stunning act of lucid, well-reasoned logic, the Court has decided the Ten Commandments are acceptable in some cases, but not in others. What wisdom! Thank you, Supreme Court!

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that displaying the Ten Commandments on government property is constitutionally permissible in some cases but not in others.

Thank you for clearing that up!

(Justice Stephen) Breyer was the only justice to vote with the majority in both cases

Now we know who to thank for his consistency of thought.

The court said the key to whether a display is constitutional hinges on whether there is a religious purpose behind it. But the justices acknowledged that question would often be controversial.

Well, at least we have such a wise oligarchy to answer these questions. Who better, I tell you, to know what lies in the hearts of other men. All hail, the Supreme Court!

He (Justice Souter) said it was important to understand the Constitution's Establishment Clause

Well, we're in trouble now.

The rulings mean thousands of Ten Commandments displays around the nation will be validated if their primary purpose is to honor the nation's legal, rather than religious, traditions.

Again, I'm glad our nine Supreme unelected officials have this duty. Only they know what evil lurks in the hearts of men. Or is that the Shadow?

Location also will be considered, with wide open lots more acceptable than schoolhouses filled with young students.

Good grief! Is there any point in asking where in the Constitution they found the case for this reasoning?

"It means we'll litigate cases one at a time for decades," said Douglas Laycock, a church-state expert at the University of Texas law school, noting the decisions provide little guidance beyond the specific facts of the cases. "The next case may depend on who the next justice is, unfortunately," he said.

Well, it apparently won't depend on the Constitution.

Breyer, who provided the fifth vote in the holding, did not join Rehnquist's opinion. As a result, his separate concurrence, concluding that the Texas display was predominantly nonreligious and thus constitutional because it sat in a vast park

It was constitutional because it sat in a vast park?!? What? No, seriously, WTF?

God help us all!

Posted by Brian at June 28, 2005 1:11 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.caerdroia.org/MT/mt-tb.cgi/267

Comments

As far as I can tell, the Supremes have used the Constitutional provision: "'Cause I said so."

Posted by: Jeff Medcalf [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 28, 2005 6:43 AM

I understand the Texas ruling: it's part of a large display with no overall religous theme. The Kentucky one I'm still trying to figure out. At first they put up just the Commandments. When that was deemed wrong they put up more on the display: the Bill of Rights, etc. As near as I can tell the only reason Kentucky's was wrong was because the Commandments went up first and by themselves. Therefore the purpose was religious and there's no way to make it not so.

So, if Kentucky were to yank the whole thing down, and then start another display that just happened to have it would that be okay?

I guess the rule is now - like pornography - that the court will know establishment when they see it.

Scalia directly attacks the mixed message in the dissent:

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. That is what prevents judges from ruling now this way, now that - thumbs up or thumbs down - as their personal preferences dictate.

Posted by: TheOtherBlogger [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 28, 2005 7:14 AM