Supremes rule 5-4 against 10 Commandments in public buildings. Refused

[flpoljunkie]

to hear the appeal of reporters Judith Miller, of New York Times and Curveball fame" and Matt Cooper, TIME magazine.

Swing vote in 5-4 ruling in Ten Commandments case was Sandra Day O'Connor.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062700416_pf.html

Court: No Ten Commandments in Courthouses

The Associated Press
Monday, June 27, 2005; 10:11 AM


A split Supreme Court struck down Ten Commandments displays in courthouses Monday, ruling that two exhibits in Kentucky cross the line between separation of church and state because they promote a religious message.

The 5-4 decision was the first of two seeking to mediate the bitter culture war over religion's place in public life. In it, the court declined to prohibit all displays in court buildings or on government property. Justices left legal wiggle room, saying that some displays - like their own courtroom frieze - would be permissible if they're portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation's legal history.

<>"The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the majority.

<>Souter was joined in his opinion by other members of the liberal bloc - Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Sandra Day O'Connor, who provided the swing vote.

[saigon68]

1. GOOD

[skooooo]

2. Ok the ruling about...

...10 Commandments maintains the separation of church and state. What does the refusal to hear the reporter's case mean?

[Richard Steele]

5. I believe they now must REVEAL SOURCES or go to jail.

So this is a nice break for the PLAME case.

[mbperrin]

3. VERY good!

Especially after the "taking" fiasco the other day! YIKES!

[OKNancy]

4. Please supply a link asap

especially since this is the first post about this issue

Thanks!

[flpoljunkie]

13. Link now up.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Roland99]

7. CNN Breaking News: [SCOTUS] rules 10 Commandments displays are not allowed

http://www.cnn.com


More details soon.



Good to hear! Although, I don't know why the "Christians" weren't trying to get the Beatitudes displayed.

[Beetwasher]

8. Bwhaahahah! Take That Fundy Fascist Fucks!

N/T

[Renew Deal]

9. Those rats!!! I want my abstinence education.

:rofl:

[derby378]

10. There is a God...he loves us all so much...

Sorry. Just getting into that Bill Hicks frame of mind.

YES!!!!

[Darkhawk32]

25. This is a victory for our Constitution! Let's hope this trend continues.nt

[Dukkha]

35. aw, those poor oppressed "Christians"

Why must they always have their religion suppressed?
Never allowed to speak of their faith or wear symbols?
If only there was a church they could go to express their faith...or say several thousand.
:sarcasm:

To all you Fundy Cult Wackos I say...

HA-HA!

[Bill McBlueState]

11. finally.

This is great news! Now there's one less distraction on the table.

Hey Christofascists -- if you actually read your damn Bibles from time to time, you would notice that they contain the ten commandments (and two more important ones), thus eliminating the need to put them in public places.

[Beetwasher]

12. WHOA!!! Miller's Gotta SING or GO TO JAIL?????

Bwhahahahahahaahahaha!

[Junkdrawer]

14. That ought to rally the Fundies in the coming Supreme Court fights...

I don't question the ruling, just its timing.

[hang a left]

15. 5 to 4

Should have been unanimous

[AnnInLa]

16. What are the implications re Novak and Rove?

thx

[wtmusic]

17. This is God's work

He wants nothing to do with our fucked up government

[derby378]

18. FReeper meltdown

Check it out, if you dare:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1431522/posts

[Richard Steele]

29. I was weak...I looked.... ...... ...OH>>>MY>>>GOD!!!!

Made it all the way to post #25:

"This country has got to be rid of this judicial injustice."


Holy crap, it's SUPER-MOSES!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[derby378]

32. Ain't it a beaut? (n/t)

[bunkerbuster1]

34. "What do they think our criminal system is based on?"

These freepers are just hopeless, aren't they?

[hootinholler]

50. Well, many don't seem to know

Any of this stuff.

-Hoot

[AllyCat]

37. I liked the comment about 2-3 of those justices will be gone soon

Of course, so will 1 or 2 from the "conservative bloc". Good logic there freepclown!

[Pryderi]

48. They don't even know what is contained in the 10 Commandments

1. I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

3. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

5. Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long.

6. Thou shalt not kill.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

8. Thou shalt not steal.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.

How are the first 5 and number 10 the basis of any law or the US Constitution?

[Mari333]

19. Good.

[Ilsa]

28. They are a mess over there and quite confused on where W. stands

on the eminent domain case. They are clueless as to his desire to have privately held property taken by corporations that he and his buddies own.

Hey Mari, it's nice to see you posting. How are you? And Michael? I haven't seen or heard anything.

Hugs.

[Mari333]

47. Michael is fine, I am starting to feel like living again

takes time..thanks for asking ((hug))

[The Straight Story]

20. Supreme Court Rules Against Courthouse Ten Commandments Displays

Supreme Court Rules Against Courthouse Ten Commandments Displays

SUPREME COURT -- A split Supreme Court struck down Ten Commandments displays in courthouses Monday, ruling that two exhibits in Kentucky cross the line between separation of church and state because they promote a religious message.

The 5-4 decision was the first of two seeking to mediate the bitter culture war over religion's place in public life. In it, the court declined to prohibit all displays in court buildings or on government property. Justices left legal wiggle room, saying that some displays -- like their own courtroom frieze -- would be permissible if they're portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation's legal history.

http://www.local6.com/news/4655125/detail.html

[Politicub]

21. Good decision

This is a balm for the bad decision about private party use of emminent domain last week.

[brooklynite]

23. Okay, I'm taking 10:34 AM in the pool...

for the first RW complaint about "Judicial Activism".

[jokerman93]

41. I'm happy with the decision but unfortunately...

I feel the eminent domain decision last week may have far more insidious and damaging outcomes for the average citizen than any fundie marketing art displays in a courthouse.

First, they declared corporations were persons with all the rights and privileges thereof.

Second, money was established as a form of free speech so that wealthy corporations would have more to say and have the resources to say it louder than other persons.

Third, last week, they gave local governments the power to confiscate your privately owned property and give it to developers for the purposes of increasing tax revenue...

Sounds like old concept of people as "citizens" has been fully replaced by the new entity of "corporate persons". We are now nothing more than consumers - not citizens. We are merely part of the cannibalistic system of rapacious corporate fascism that is the Neocon model for the entire planet.

Creepy.

Well at least we've beaten the zombies back for another night...

[Double T]

22. Separation Of Church And State Is An Absolute.....

Term Limits For All Judiciary Posts Needs To Be Implemented

[Pirate Smile]

24. Get ready for RW hysteria and more attacks on Judges.

[DS1]

26. Why do you hate America? Why do you hate God?

:D

:bounce:

[Toots]

27. Hmmm do you think the 10 commandments will now be removed from

the Supreme Court??????? I somehow doubt it.. They are not subject to the same laws as the common folk.

[Ilsa]

30. They say "no" because it is part of a frieze that illlustrates

legal history versus promoting religion. I think you can do it if it isn't so obnoxious that it endorses or promotes religion or appears to proselytize.

Frankly, I don't want my tax dollars paying for stuff like that, but I don't mind the "decorative, illustrative" stuff so much. But monuments are big lumps of stone in the way.

[Roland99]

31. The South Courtroom Frieze:

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg8a.htm

The Courtroom friezes were designed by sculptor Adolph Weinman. These friezes are located well above the courtroom bench, on all four walls. The South and North wall friezes form a group that depicts a procession of 18 important lawgivers: Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius, Augustus, Justinian, Mohammed, Charlemagne, King John, St. Louis, Hugo Grotius, William Blackstone, John Marshall, and Napoleon. Moses is holding blank tablets. The Moses figure is no larger or more important than any other lawgiver. Again, there is nothing here to suggest and special connection between the 10 Commandments and American law.

The Curator's office makes the following comments on Weinman's North and South frieze sculptures:

Weinman's training emphasized a correlation between the sculptural subject and the function of the building and, because of this, Gilbert relied on him to choose the subjects and figures that best reflected the function of the Supreme Court building. Faithful to classical sources, Weinman designed for the Courtroom friezes a procession of "great lawgivers of history," from many civilizations, to portray the development of secular law (p. 2, emphasis ours).

Plus, this from Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

[Bridget Burke]

39. The frieze is an example of Beaux Arts decoration.

Many famous (and/or legendary) lawgivers are depicted. Hammurabi, etc.

The controversial "monuments" are butt-ugly chunks of concrete, placed where eveybody must see them as they go into the building.

[gauguin57]

33. YIKES! Court just ruled commandments OK at state capitols! See new thread!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1585002

[Roland99]

36. Now, what about witnesses having to swear on a BIBLE in court?

When can we get THAT process eliminated?

[DelawareValleyDem]

38. I believe it is not required.

A witness has to affirm to tell the truth, but does not have to swear and does not have to place hand on the Bible.

[Mabus]

42. Yes, oath or affirmation is acceptable but...

I still disagree with it. Let's say someone is on trial in a RW fundie area. The jury pool will also be filled with RW fundies. The defendant or his/her key witnesses opt for affirmation instead of using the Bible. Isn't a witness or a defendant's refusal to take the oath on a Bible more likely to prejudice a fundie jury than not? I'm sorry, I'm just one of those people who don't like any intrusion of religion in the government or governmental offices.

BTW, I'm just expressing my thoughts, not trying to challenge you in any way.

[St. Jarvitude]

51. It's never been required

Since Quakers are forbidden from swearing an oath, the Constitution guarantees the option of "affirming" which does not require a Bible.

In fact, I don't think the Bible is even mentioned in the Constitution.

[Blue-Jay]

40. Don't pray in my courtroom.

And I won't think in your church.

[shirlden]

43. Thanks, Blue-Jay

I have seen your Bush/Squirrel a couple of hundred times and it cracks me up everytime.
It is SO Bush !!!! Says it all.


:woohoo:

[Moderator]

44. Kick

[hnsez]

45. Ten Commandments Display Allowed by U.S. High Court (Update3)

June 27 (Bloomberg) -- Governments can post the Ten Commandments on public property as part of a broader display of historical symbols, as long as officials aren't aiming to promote religion, the U.S. Supreme Court said.

The court, voting 5-4, today approved a Ten Commandments monument on the Texas State Capitol grounds, rejecting arguments that the state was unconstitutionally favoring religion. In a second case, the court ruled 5-4 that two Kentucky counties were too focused on promoting religion when they posted framed copies of the commandments in courthouses.

~snip~

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a86J4_AEkSKg&refer=us

[BlueStateModerate]

46. If it makes both sides mad, it's a good ruling.

[Zhade]

49. Somewhere, that freeper AliciaKeyedUp is sobbing.

I still remember her most infamous line: "I don't believe in separation of church and state".