Supreme Court backs push to remove Ten Commandments monument [Bloomfield NM]

Associated Press ^ | Oct 16, 2017 2:22 PM EDT

[Olog-hai]

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday sided with a lower court that ordered a New Mexico city to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the lawn outside City Hall.

Civil liberties advocates behind the case called the decision involving the city of Bloomfield a victory for the separation of church and state. ACLU of New Mexico Executive Director Peter Simonson said it sends a “strong message that the government should not be in the business of picking and choosing which sets of religious beliefs enjoy special favor in the community.”

However, David Cortman, a senior counsel and vice president of U.S. litigation with Alliance Defending Freedom, said the outcome did nothing to resolve confusion in lower courts involving such monuments. […]

Justice Neil Gorsuch did not take part in the court’s action because he was on the federal appeals court in Denver when it considered the matter. …

[marktwain]

The story does not say what the Supreme Court *did*.

Reading between the lines, it sounds like it did not grant cert to the case (which is what it does with 99% of the cases).

[Olog-hai]

The AP certainly want to hold on to the dubious title of masters of fake news.

[colorado tanker]

More ignorant crap from an AP reporter who doesn’t understand the law. The Supreme Court didn’t side with anyone. They denied certiorari and won’t hear the case, so the 10th Circuit decision stands. They are asked to take thousands of cases every year but only take a couple hundred.

[Uncle Sam 911]

Once again a fable is upheld as law but unelected tyrants.

[myerson]

The Ten Commandments are displayed on the walls of the Supreme Court building.

[Salvation]

Discouraging.

[Uncle Sam 911]

And Moses tops the sculptures at the crown of the building.

[Jacquerie]

However, David Cortman . . . said the outcome did nothing to resolve confusion in lower courts involving such monuments.<>

One of the reasons for the Federal Convention of 1787 was to design a plan that reduced the mutability of the law. Thanks to rats and Scotus, the law is whatever a shifting balance of four to five blackrobes and the administrative state say it is. Scotus does little of what it is supposed to do, and much of what is has no power to do.

[Monorprise]

Then how come the religion of no God(Atheism) is taught exclusively in Government run schools?

The court should read the 1st amendment, it says “...Congress shall make no law respecting... the establishment of religion.”

Congress had nothing to do with that monument to the origin’s of our law. This of course stands quite in contrast with the U.S. Supreme court’s own building and practices which contain the same ‘religious’ symbols of the origin of our laws which congress has a lot to do with.

Those men and women in black robes are nothing more than the U.S. Supreme court of lawless hypocrites.

[CedarDave]

NM list PING!

I may not PING for all New Mexico articles. To see New Mexico articles by topic click here: New Mexico Topics

To see NM articles by keyword, click here: New Mexico Keywords

To see the NM Message Page, click here: New Mexico Messages

(The NM list is available on my FR homepage for anyone to use. Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the list.)
(For ABQ Journal articles requiring a subscription, scroll down to the bottom of the page to view the article for free after answering a question or watching a short video commercial.)