Posted on 06/27/2005 8:25:49 AM PDT by Pikamax
Good question.
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/1223163.html
Sounds to me a lot like: "Do as I say, not as I do."
The USSC said the monument to the Ten Commandments in TX is legal.
Can't wait to read these rulings to find out the basis on two very different decisions...
I like you're screen name. I live in Houston, myself.
I know just how rare anyone right of the political spectrun is at Rice. One needs only to stroll through the parking lot of Rice Village to see the numerous Kerry Edwards bumber stickers, paire with Rice U. stickers, advertising the sad "groupthink" political ideology at the University.
U deserve a hearty Texas salute!
I really am confused on this, too ...... exactly what's the difference?
''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 supremes (the 5) are trying to walk a political fine line. They are making it up as they go along.
Souter is your typical liberal activist judge. The First Amendment does no such thing. It tells government that it CANNOT limit the free expression of religion. There's nothing "neutral" about it. Sheesh. What a scumbag.
How often have we seen Day-O'Connor "providing the swing vote" for the liberal side? I also hope she is the one announcing retirement today.
Sandra is the justice which makes law in this country. It depends upon which side of the bed she wakes up on...or a flip of the coin. Congress needs to begin impeachment proceedings on 5 of the justices.
Yours is the best description - - a "coward ruling".
"Don't Mess with Texas."
They knew the ____ would hit the fan if they tried to pull a fast one on Texas!
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.
-----
..so every standing church in the United States, which receives tax exemption by the IRS, is also a display of unconstitutional government endorsement of religion!!!!????
Nice try socialists. You continue to tear down the religous core and foundation that America was built on -- CHRISTIANITY.
It is clear that the Supreme Court has become a socialist-dominated politcal vehicle for the anti-America, anti-Constitutional agenda of the left.
See my post #16. Shorthand: if it's not there in an historical context, if it doesn't include other foundations for our laws or other historical documents, it's not allowed.
You may not like what they're saying, but they continue to be consistent on this issue. It's well in line with their past rulings.
When a federal court ruled those displays had the effect of endorsing religion, the counties erected a third Ten Commandments display with surrounding documents such as the Bill of Rights and Star-Spangled Banner to highlight their role in "our system of law and government."
The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal subsequently struck down the third display as a "sham" for the religious intent behind it.
This was what the Kentucky courts did, and still they were knocked down. What exactly, does it take to satisfy the "historical" context?
I still don't get how one is ok and not the other. How are the ones that are "ok" in a different context? What exactly is the different context?
Mohammad and Napolean are founders of our law?
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.
--
What can ya say?
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.