Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

High Court Gives Split Decisions On Ten Commandments(Kentucky bad, Texas okay)
AP ^ | 06/27/05 | AP

Posted on 06/27/2005 8:25:49 AM PDT by Pikamax

High Court Gives Split Decisions On Ten Commandments

POSTED: 9:10 am CDT June 27, 2005 UPDATED: 10:19 am CDT June 27, 2005

SUPREME COURT -- There have been two closely-watched rulings on church-state separation.

The Supreme Court said Monday that Ten Commandments displays in two Kentucky courthouses cross the line between church and state. The justices -- in a 5-4 vote -- rejected those displays, saying they promote a religious message.

But the justices declined to prohibit all displays in court buildings or on government property. They said some displays, such as the one in their own courtroom, would be permissible if they're portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation's legal history.

Writing for the majority, Justice David Souter said, "The First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and non-religion."

He was joined by other members of the court's liberal bloc, Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer, as well as Sandra Day O'Connor, who provided the swing vote.

Texas Commandments Ruling In its second ruling Monday on displays of the Ten Commandments, the Supreme Court has ruled that displays of the Commandments are allowed on government land.

The justices found that a 6 foot granite monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol does not cross the line between church and state.

Opponents challenging the monument on the Texas Capitol grounds and Ten Commandments displays in Kentucky courthouses said they are an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.

In 2003, Roy Moore was removed from office as Alabama's chief justice when he refused to obey a federal judge's order to remove a a Ten Commandments monument from the foyer of the Alabama Judicial Building.

Defenders responded that such displays, including engravings in the Supreme Court's own building, don't establish religion but merely acknowledge the nation's legal heritage.

The justices' ruling could affect thousands of Ten Commandments monuments and displays nationwide.

Previous Stories:


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cary; dayoconnor; islamokay; mccreary; newworldorder; scotus; secularism; socialism; tencommandments; texascapitol; theocracy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-133 next last

1 posted on 06/27/2005 8:25:49 AM PDT by Pikamax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pikamax

Well, at least they followed the 11th commandment. Don't Mess with Texas.


2 posted on 06/27/2005 8:27:17 AM PDT by Right_at_RiceU (You don't need a gun to kill hippies, just soap or work.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax

Which begs the question, why is one OK and not the other?


3 posted on 06/27/2005 8:28:04 AM PDT by thoughtomator (The U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
In its second ruling Monday on displays of the Ten Commandments, the Supreme Court has ruled that displays of the Commandments are allowed on government land.

The justices found that a 6 foot granite monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol does not cross the line between church and state.

Huh?

4 posted on 06/27/2005 8:28:42 AM PDT by Tired of Taxes (News junkie here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
But the justices declined to prohibit all displays in court buildings or on government property. They said some displays, such as the one in their own courtroom, would be permissible if they're portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation's legal history.

Was it Pelosi who was called out for having a Limo when she was lambasting SUV drivers? And she essentially said "I wasn't talking about me, I was talking about the public."

Look familiar?

5 posted on 06/27/2005 8:29:29 AM PDT by Zeppelin (Keep on FReepin' on.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right_at_RiceU

Yep knew better. We could always just inact the rescind clause in the Treaty to become a state, and become a Country again.


6 posted on 06/27/2005 8:30:00 AM PDT by marty60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax; MeekOneGOP; SwinneySwitch

BTTT


7 posted on 06/27/2005 8:30:21 AM PDT by Fiddlstix (This Tagline for sale. (Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
Which begs the question, why is one OK and not the other?

Oh no! John Kerry got to them!

8 posted on 06/27/2005 8:30:22 AM PDT by Zeppelin (Keep on FReepin' on.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator

The The black robed justices are going to tour the country this summer, visit every courthouse, and give thumbs up and thumbs down for every display they see.

Makes about as much sense as anything else they have done recently.


9 posted on 06/27/2005 8:31:05 AM PDT by Tarpon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax

Time to flush out the courts. I'm tired of this incoherent s**t.


10 posted on 06/27/2005 8:31:43 AM PDT by Juan Medén
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right_at_RiceU

I was just going to post that of course TX's is OKAY---

Everythings good in TEXAS!!!!! LOL

What a bunch of idiots those 5 SCOTUS' are...


11 posted on 06/27/2005 8:32:22 AM PDT by Txsleuth (Mark Levin for Supreme Court Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax

Note that 3 of 5 were appointed by Republicans. Stevens by Ford, Souter by Bush, and O'Conner by Reagan.

I hope Sandra retires, she has become an embarrassment as she drifts from one side to the other, always trying to split the baby.

But then she was only appointed because she was a female, and knew Renquist.


12 posted on 06/27/2005 8:34:17 AM PDT by rcocean (Copyright is theft and loved by Hollywood socialists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon

Here... have some cake.

Oh, you want to eat it too?


13 posted on 06/27/2005 8:34:44 AM PDT by Paloma_55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Right_at_RiceU

So now that our black robbed robbers have weighed in on "NO TEN COMMANDMENTS IN THE COURTHOUSE" I have to ask, are they going to get rid of theirs? To this point they have instructed the supreme court tours to LIE about what is being displayed in the courthouse.

There is no less than four images of the Ten Commandments in the supreme court. One over the chief justices head, one to his left with Moses holding it, one to his right and one carved into the door right in front of him.

Will they now do the right thing and get rid of their commandments or will they remain hypocrites and keep theirs while they demand others remove theirs? At least they could re-instruct the court tour people to stop their lies at what those images are. They will tell you that they are not the Ten Commandments, but rather the ten secular laws for all nations.

Now, they have to either fish or cut bait. They cannot be allowed to continue to force this ruling on others and at the same time retain their own private copies of the ten commandments in their courtroom. At least they cannot be allowed to continue to lie about what the images of the Ten Commandment are. They cannot be allowed to tell tourists that they are the ten secular moral laws for all nations.

It is now time for us to sue to have them remove their copies of the Ten Commandments, or to force them to have a restraining order established against them on explaining what they are. We shouldn't tolerate lying about what those ten are.


14 posted on 06/27/2005 8:34:52 AM PDT by TrailofTears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator

Nothing's certain but Death and Texas.


15 posted on 06/27/2005 8:35:52 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
Which begs the question, why is one OK and not the other?

I think they've made it quite plain - one is in a religious context, one in an historical context. They've been remarkably consistent about this distinction.

In short, if you want to showcase the decalogue as a foundation of US law, include other sources of the law (as the Supreme Court Building does).

16 posted on 06/27/2005 8:35:57 AM PDT by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TrailofTears

This is a CYA ruling, because you can keep the commandments in court as long as you make it look "neutral" and keep commandments on government property. It looks bad, but in effect a coward ruling.


17 posted on 06/27/2005 8:36:35 AM PDT by Pikamax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator

Because, in their opinion not mine, one recognizes the historical importance of the Commandments to our country, the other promote religion. Pretty standard.


18 posted on 06/27/2005 8:36:46 AM PDT by oldleft
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TrailofTears

Your post is misleading. The Supreme Court also has Mohammaed and Napoleon depicted alongside Moses - are they promoting France?


19 posted on 06/27/2005 8:37:04 AM PDT by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax

A Kentucky court house is not Congress as in "Congress shall make no law...". If you ask me, the Establishment clause has been grossly distorted and abused.


20 posted on 06/27/2005 8:38:10 AM PDT by Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-133 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson