The Supreme Court Rules the Ten Commandments Unconstitutional
Monday, June 27, 2005
Sorta. (scroll down!)Even though The Ten Commandments (and Moses) are etched into stone in their building, the US Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to display them on government property.
More details to follow...
UPDATE 10:16: The decision was, of course, 5-4. Just a guess, Kennedy in majority, O'Connor in the minority. Stay tuned.
UPDATE 10:21: SCOTUSblog is holding a Discussion Board featuring expert legal opinions--check it out.
UPDATE 10:31: The ruling above is from a Kentucky case. A similar Texas case is pending.
UPDATE 10:31: Here's The Washington Post's take:
In a narrowly drawn ruling, the Supreme Court struck down Ten Commandments displays in courthouses Monday, holding that two exhibits in Kentucky crossed the line between separation of church and state because they promoted a religious message.
The 5-4 decision, first of two seeking to mediate the bitter culture war over religion's place in public life, took a case-by-case approach to this vexing issue. In the decision, the court declined to prohibit all displays in court buildings or on government property.
The justices left themselves legal wiggle room on this issue, however, saying that some displays _ 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.
"The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the majority.
"When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality," he said.
Souter was joined in his opinion by other members of the liberal bloc _ Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Sandra Day O'Connor, who provided the swing vote.
In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that Ten Commandments displays are a legitimate tribute to the nation's religious and legal history.
Government officials may have had a religious purpose when they originally posted the Ten Commandments display by itself in 1999. But their efforts to dilute the religious message since then by hanging other historical documents in the courthouses made it constitutionally adequate, Scalia said.
He was joined in his opinion by Chief William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justice Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
I was wrong; it looks like we have O'Connor to blame for this ugly decision.
More coverage: Michelle Malkin; The Volokh Conspiracy; Bench Memos; The Corner and How Appealing.
UPDATE 10:59: A Split decision! The court has ruled that a similar display IS Constitutional. The court had adjourned without an announcement of a retirement.
UPDATE 11:10: OK, we get a little meat and discover what our gods on high demand of us. From FOXNews:
A divided Supreme Court on Monday struck down Ten Commandments displays in two Kentucky courthouses, but said a 6-foot granite replica on government land in Texas was acceptable.
In the first ruling, McCreary County v. ACLU, the court said that the Kentucky displays violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits government from endorsing or supporting one religion above others.
The justices ruled split 5-4 that the Ten Commandments could not be displayed in court buildings or on government property. However, the Biblical laws could be displayed in an historical context, as they are in a frieze in the Supreme Court building. Notably, the first four commandments, which have to do with honoring God and the Sabbath, were obscured by the artist who designed the frieze.
HUH? What foolishness. More:
In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that Ten Commandments displays are a legitimate tribute to the nation's religious and legal history.
"In the court's view , the impermissible motive was apparent from the initial displays of the Ten Commandments all by themselves: When that occurs: the Court says, a religious object is unmistakable," he wrote. "Surely that cannot be."
"The Commandments have a proper place in our civil history," Scalia wrote. He was joined in his opinion by Chief William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justice Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
They left themselves an out on the Supreme Court display, hoping I'm sure to avoid a circus when the workers come to dump the basis for our law down the memory hole.
UPDATE 11:59: O'Connor was the swing vote, riding credulity to the edge. Kennedy then switched sides. I have to agree with Scalia (hey, big suprise!), I fail to see the difference between the displays.
The upcoming confirmation, if there is one, will be one of the defining moments in our history. Which way will America go? Will freedom prevail?
Pray; just be carefull where you do it!
UPDATE 12:34: See some of the opinions here.
