Another Ruling

[Themosticles]

Court Splits on Ten Commandments Displays By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 4 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A sharply divided Supreme Court on Monday upheld the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments on government land, but drew the line on displays inside courthouses, saying they violated the doctrine of separation of church and state.

Sending dual signals in closely-watched cases, the high court said displays of the Ten Commandments — like their own courtroom frieze — are not inherently unconstitutional. But each exhibit demands scrutiny to determine whether it goes too far in amounting to a governmental promotin of religion, the court said in a case involving Kentucky courthouse exhibits.

In that 5-4 ruling and another ruling, involving the positioning of a 6-foot granite monument of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas capitol, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the swing vote. The second ruling, likewise, was 5-4.

In a stinging dissent to the ruling involving Kentucky's courthouse exhibits, Justice Antonin Scalia declared: "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."

The justices voting on the prevailing side in the Kentucky case left themselves legal wiggle room, saying that some displays inside courthouses — like their own courtroom frieze — would be permissible if they're portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation's legal history.

But framed copies in two Kentucky courthouses went too far in endorsing religion, the court held. Those courthouse displays are unconstitutional, the justices said, because their religious content is overemphasized.

In contrast, a 6-foot-granite monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol — one of 17 historical displays on the 22-acre lot — was determined to be a legitimate tribute to the nation's legal and religious history.

"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.

Article

I am confused here. So they're saying its ok to have dipictions of the Ten Commandments on some governemt buildings or property but not others? A framed copy of the Ten Commandments in KY is over-emphasizing religion but the same, albeit not-framed version on the Supreme court doors is not? A 6ft tall display does not?

The best lines, from my point of view, are bolded. From what I gather they're saying that the principles behind the displays are religious but the display itself isn't and that's ok? WTF?! Someone smarter than me please help explain.

[labbats]

I'll explain. The Courts are stupid.

[Lyion]

From the Kentucky ruling:

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. Today's opinion forthrightly (or actually, somewhat less than forthrightly) admits that it does not rest upon consistently applied principle. In a revealing footnote, ante, at 11, n. 10, the Court acknowledges that the Establishment Clause doctrine it purports to be applying lacks the comfort of categorical absolutes. What the Court means by this lovely euphemism is that sometimes the Court chooses to decide cases on the principle that government cannot favor religion, and sometimes it does not. The footnote goes on to say that [i]n special instances we have found good reason to dispense with the principle, but [n]o such reasons present themselves here. Ibid. It does not identify all of those special instances, much less identify the good reason for their existence.

[Themosticles]

If I'm reading this right the line the Court acknowledges that the Establishment Clause doctrine it purports to be applying lacks the comfort of categorical absolutes. What the Court means by this lovely euphemism is that sometimes the Court chooses to decide cases on the principle that government cannot favor religion, and sometimes it does not, basically means they can vote on stuff like this whatever way the wind is blowing that particular day?

[Gidan]

Really is a screwy decision by the court.

All it really means is sometimes its ok sometimes its not, depends on the day.

[Lyion]

It somewhat makes sense.

A mosaic as a piece of art adorning a courthouse that does not stand out or empasize itself is ok

A monster version of the ten commandments in your face as you enter the courthouse is a tad over the top and should not be allowed.

I agree with the ruling, if I completely see Scalia's point as usual.