Court rules Ten Commandments can stay at Capitol

Ft. Worth Star-Telegram/AP ^ | 11/13/03 | AP

[ppaul]

http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/7254764.htm

	Posted on Thu, Nov. 13, 2003
	Court rules Ten Commandments can stay at Capitol Associated Press AUSTIN - The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the state's position that the placement of the Ten Commandments monument on the Capitol grounds is not an unconstitutional attempt to establish state-sponsored religion. Thomas Van Orden, a homeless man living in Austin, had sued to have the monument removed, calling it an endorsement of Judeo-Christian beliefs by the state government. The state countered that the 6-foot tall red granite monument is more historical than religious, with key segments of law founded on the moral and cultural ethics provided by the commandments. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott applauded Wednesday's appeals court ruling. "The Ten Commandments are undoubtedly a sacred religious text, but they are also a foundational document in the development of Western legal codes and culture," Abbott said Thursday. "The Texas monument has stood for over 40 years, and the court's decision affirms that the monument is entirely consistent with the requirements of the U.S. Constitution." The Fraternal Order of Eagles donated the monument to the state in 1961.

---

[jwalsh07]

This opinion invalid to the extent it is wrong.

Nice disclaimer. :-}

I think my position is a bit more nuanced than you described but I'm thinking SCOTUS takes this one. We'll see.

[Torie]

Maybe I have this rather unrealistic point of view that SCOTUS prefers to avoid tarbabies, unless and until there is a compelling reason in their mind to just hop in and do it. If this area of the law isn't a tarbaby, I don't know what is. Sorry if I over-simplified and stereotyped your position. I did not mean to do that. Indeed, I don't like to do that to any poster.

[jwalsh07]

No problem. I wasn't castigating, just gently prodding. :_}

I don't know how they can avoid the entire issue. They've already taken the appeal from the ninth on the Pledge of Allegiance. After taking that, how can they turn a blind eye to what Americnas will see as bipolar postions of two different courts?

That was rhetorical by the by, no need to respond to it.

[jwalsh07]

Whats your take on the anti-fillibuster fillibuster?

[Torie]

It is all political. Will it gain the GOP much traction? I doubt it, unless and until there really is a widely perceived crisis arising from court vacancies, and then the issue could cut both ways. Swing voters tend to prefer the contestants to compromise, which means if they have their way, that only moderates need apply to choke point judicial slots. That would be a pity. I tend to enjoy the legal sparring of the more ideologically committed, and I think such sparring strengthens and enriches not only the law, but the public square. But then I am a lawyer.

Of course, I would prefer there be majority for the Torie reading of what is the true right path, which is itself ideosyncratic - activist in some applications of the Constitution (suspicious of "states rights," robust when it comes to trying to make the voting and political process "fair," and this nation one seamless economic unit, for example, and hands off in many other areas.

There is much to be said for dumping the 60 vote requirement in the Senate. Of course, someday, that will bite conservatives in the ass if it is done away with. Democracy is a bitch, and I love it.

[irv]

key segments of law founded on the moral and cultural ethics provided by the commandments.

This is an interesting distinction. A lot of lefties believe that anything referred to as "morality" is no different from religion.

Of course, quite a few of us who believe in God, believe the same thing. i.e.: morality comes from following God's law.

But the secular law can and should treat them as separate concepts. "Thou shalt not steal" is unambiguously a moral concept, whether you believe it comes from God or not.

I guess I don't have a point. Just making an observation that has some bearing on the fight to keep the Ten Commandments from being removed from public life.

[ChefKeith]

In Austin there are plenty of leftist lawyers that would jump at a chance like this.

[PeyersPatches]

Where would a homeless man get the funds to sue??

[Old Professer]

My grandmother used to say, "I wouldn't have in my hand what you just had in your mouth."

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

Guess all the Justice Roy Moore bashers are full of sh*t after all!

I knew it all along did'nt you ?

[Torie]

Secular humanism has the inside legal straight, I take it? I suspect you are right. In fact, I know you are right. But then I have some appreciation of what my ilk, whose attitudes on these matters tend to dominate the judiciary, tend to react to, or not. Unlike many of them however, I also am cognizant that it is not all about me, and that robust religion has certain benign and useful aspects, that should be sustained.

It is sort of like drug laws. In a different time and place, I broke the law, and did not think it wise or prudent to legalize my activity.

I suspect I am not making much sense. So be it.

[Old Professer]

Nuance is like gruel; it may be filling, but it isn't satisfying.

[Hyacinth Bucket]

Good news from Texas, Ping!

[Revel]

Oh...I'll bet the USSC will be willing to hear this one! Just wait and see.

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

I like your grandmother.

I don't understand the need for vulgarity.

[Revel]

"Two Circuits with differing opinions should almost force the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case, if it appealed, in order to
reconcile the law. This could get very interesting now. Moore may be be avenged yet."

Oh they will hear it all right. Because now they don't like the result of the 5th circuit and they have to do away with it. There is no joy in sending anything to the USSC anymore. They are moraless and lawless. Except one.

[usadave]

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the state's position that the placement of the Ten Commandments monument on the Capitol grounds is not an unconstitutional attempt to establish state-sponsored religion.

That's because no law was passed that authorized the Ten Commandments monument to be placed on the Capitol grounds.

[Revel]

"What got Roy Moore busted was that he deliberately flouted a valid order of a federal court."

That all depends on what the meaning of "Valid" is.

[Hyacinth Bucket]

Except one.

Scalia or Thomas? I like them both and Rehnquist is not so bad most of the time. The other 6 definitely have to go.

[usadave]

What got Roy Moore busted was that he deliberately flouted a valid order of a federal court.

Even though that federal court order violated the law.