I wish Indiana was in that circuit. We still have the ACLU terrorizing our schools at any mention of God.
Posted on 12/23/2005 9:34:12 AM PST by wgeorge2001
6th Circuit rejects “separation of church and state” December 21, 2005 Values group hails unanimous decision Tuesday
6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals: “The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.”
CINCINNATI — In an astounding return to judicial interpretation of the actual text of the United States Constitution, a unanimous panel of the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Tuesday issued an historic decision declaring that “the First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.”
In upholding a Kentucky county’s right to display the Ten Commandments, the panel called the American Civil Liberties Union’s repeated claims to the contrary “extra-constitutional” and “tiresome.”
See Cincinnat Enquirer.
See page 13 of full Court of Appeals decision.
“Patriotic Americans should observe a day of prayer and thanksgiving for this stunning and historic reversal of half a century of misinformation and judicial distortion of the document that protects our religious freedoms,” said Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan.
“We are particularly excited that such an historic, factual, and truth-based decision is now a controlling precedent for the federal Court of Appeals that rules on all Michigan cases,” Glenn said.
6th Circuit Judge Richard Suhrheinrich wrote in the unanimous decision: “The ACLU makes repeated reference to the ’separation of church and state.’ This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state. Our nation’s history is replete with governmental acknowledgment and in some cases, accommodation of religion.”
The words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the U.S. Constitution, though according to polls, a majority of Americans have been misled to believe that they do, Glenn said. For background information, see: http://www.answers.com/topic/separation-of-church-and-state-in-the-united-states
A-1 Grade Supreme Court material.
LOL! Finally, judges who can read (and not read into) plain English.
I wish Indiana was in that circuit. We still have the ACLU terrorizing our schools at any mention of God.
Yeah! Put him on the short list!
Wow! Just wow!
Why is it so often that lawyers, with all their education, cannot see the simple facts that are plain as day to the average intelligent person?
Well pinch me, I must be dreaming.
A good ruling, and just in time for Christmas too. Hooray!
This is long overdue and it's about time.
“The ACLU makes repeated reference to the ’separation of church and state.’ This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state. Our nation’s history is replete with governmental acknowledgment and in some cases, accommodation of religion.”
Pure, simple and absolutely crystaline logic, worthy of a Freeper. And judge, it's become tiresome to all of us.
Bump ... now if only we can get the 5th court to do the same.
PING
Ol' Hugo Black must be turning over in his grave, pointy head and all.
Unbelievable decision in this day and age, but totally correct.
How can anyone find grounds in the simple phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" to outlaw a copy of the Ten Commandments in a courtroom or a manger scene on public property? Only the U.S Congress could ever violate the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment, and then only by establishing an official state church or religion. The Constitution isn't worth the parchment it's written on if the Judiciary can simply read into it anything that it happens to think is good for us.
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
15) Julia Smith Gibbons - Appointed: October 9, 2001; Confirmed: July 29, 2002
16) John M. Rogers - Appointed: December 19, 2001; Confirmed: November 14, 2002
17) Jeffrey S. Sutton - 1st Appointed: May 9, 2001; Re-Appointed: January 7, 2003; Confirmed: April 29, 2003
18) Deborah L. Cook - 1st Appointed: May 9, 2001; Appointed: January 7, 2003; Confirmed: May 5, 2003
19) Richard Allen Griffin 1st Appointed: June 26, 2002; 2nd-Appointed: January 7, 2003; FILIBUSTERED; 3rd Appointed: February 14, 2005; Confirmed: June 9, 2005
20) David William McKeague 1st Appointed: November 8, 2001; FILIBUSTERED; Re-Appointed: February 14, 2005; Confirmed: June 9, 2005
21) Susan Bieke Neilson 1st Appointed: November 8, 2001; 2nd Appointed: January 7, 2003; FILIBUSTERED; 3rd-Appointed: February 14, 2005; Confirmed: October 27, 2005
My post showing all of Bush's 50 Federal Appelate Court Nominees.
Link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1546086/posts
YEAH, BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PRAISE GOD! I've waited years for this.
The last five pages of the opinion present a refreshing demonstration of careful, and distinctly "legal" reasoning without out the leftist philosophical mumbo jumbo that so often reaches to form a predeterminedly desired conclusion.
So there is the key: "acknowledge and accomodate" without "advocating"!
That's always been exactly how I read the First amendment!
This is why we voted for Bush. Yes, he's let the FedGov grow like topsy, but his judges are good!
Now do all of you see the value of a GWB-appointed Judge??????
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.