Supreme Court Decision on Ten Commandments

ShamMol · 06-27-05, 01:29 PM

Quote:

In its ruling concerning the Kentucky case, the majority determined that display violated the separation of church and state established in the First Amendment.

Justice Stephen Breyer, considered a moderate liberal, voted against the displays in Kentucky but in favor of the one in Texas.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a moderate conservative, voted against the displays in both states and cast the swing vote in the Kentucky decision, which stopped short of forbidding such exhibits on all court or government property.

The decision allows the court some leeway to determine the appropriateness of displays on a case-by-case basis.

The Kentucky case involved a dispute over two framed copies of the Mosaic law displayed in a courthouse. The majority determined that particular exhibit went too far in promoting a religious message.

"The divisiveness of religion in current public life is inescapable," Justice David Souter wrote in the majority ruling, read from the bench. "This is not time to deny the prudence of understanding the Establishment Clause to require the government to stay neutral on religious belief, which is reserved for the conscience of the individual."

Justices customarily read majority rulings from the bench, but Justice Antonin Scalia took the unusual step of reading a dissent from the bench. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas joined Scalia in the minority opinion.

Scalia cited "the interest of the overwhelming majority of religious believers in being able to give God thanks and supplication as a people, and with respect to our national endeavors."

Rehnquist read the ruling in the Texas case, and cited the complexity of deciding when and where Ten Commandments displays are permissible.

"No exact formula can dictate a resolution in fact-intensive cases such as this," he read. "... The determinative factor here, however, is that 40 years passed in which the monument's presence, legally speaking, went unchallenged. And the public visiting the capitol grounds is more likely to have considered the religious aspect of the tablets' message as part of what is a broader moral and historical message reflective of a cultural heritage."

This was the first time the high court dealt with the issue of public displays of the Ten Commandments since 1980, when it ruled against them at schools.

The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The Supreme Court has traditionally interpreted that to mean government actions must have a "secular purpose."

Case background
In March, lawyers representing the federal, state and county governments argued the 4,000 Ten Commandments displays in public courthouses and parks nationwide simply acknowledge the role belief in a higher authority has had in the development of the United States.

"The Ten Commandments are a historically recognized system of law," Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said as he argued the case several months ago.

In 1961, private funds financed the granite monument which stands on the grounds of the Texas state capitol in Austin. Thomas Van Orden, who had described himself as a "religious pluralist," opposed the display and filed suit.

Van Orden's attorney, Erwin Chemerinsky, drew intense questioning from the justices over the limits of religious expression in government as he argued the case.

"Are you saying Thanksgiving proclamations are inappropriate?" asked Justice Antonin Scalia, comparing that to the Ten Commandments. "I don't see why the one is good and the other is bad."

O'Connor asked, "If legislatures open their sessions, that the public can attend, with a prayer, why can't it allow monuments?"

In the Kentucky cases, two Kentucky counties tried to justify separately posting copies of the King James version of the Ten Commandments on the walls of their courthouses.

These were privately donated displays of 11 frames of historical documents and symbols that they said helped form the basis of American law and government, including the Declaration of Independence. All but the Ten Commandments were secular in nature.

Mathew Staver, representing McCreary and Pulaski counties, argued in March that the "documents reflect American law and government."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said then that "these are not simple messages, like 'In God We Trust,' " on U.S. currency, she said. "The Ten Commandments are a powerful statement of the covenant God made with his people."

Source

What are people's thoughts?

Shamgar · 06-27-05, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShamMol

Source

What are people's thoughts?

One more example of a kangaroo court making an unrighteous ruling . . .

MikeyC · 06-27-05, 02:42 PM

I think it's the right decision. Not all the commandments are laws because there are commandments specific to Judaism/Christianity which do not foster this country's principals that we are a secular society and should respect the existance of all religions. We have the right not to honor our parents and we have the right to have other Gods before Him.

shuamort · 06-27-05, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shamgar

One more example of a kangaroo court making an unrighteous ruling . . .

It must only be a kangaroo court because you disagree personally with the ruling since it doesn't fit in your cartoon definition.

Shamgar · 06-27-05, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuamort

It must only be a kangaroo court because you disagree personally with the ruling since it doesn't fit in your cartoon definition.

Wow cartoon = dictionary. . . I learned a new babble word today. The Christians who founded this country had no authority to establish a form of government whose laws were not exclusively God's laws.

Since America use pagan laws then were have unjust decisions.

shuamort · 06-27-05, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shamgar

Wow cartoon = dictionary. . . I learned a new babble word today.

You're still not proving how the definition applies to the SCOTUS, now are you? Come on, do it. Prove that the SCOTUS acted in Kangaroo Court fashion.
Were they a mock court set up in violation of legal procedure?
NO.
A court characterized by dishonesty or incompetency?
NO.
Unfair trial with outcomes predetermined?
NO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shamgar

The Christians who founded this country had no authority to establish a form of government whose laws were not exclusively God's laws.

Since America use pagan laws then were have unjust decisions.

Sure they do. Do you try this with everything you disagree with? Just say it's against god and then you can wipe your hands clean of having to think about it or defend your position?

Kelzie · 06-27-05, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shamgar

Wow cartoon = dictionary. . . I learned a new babble word today. The Christians who founded this country had no authority to establish a form of government whose laws were not exclusively God's laws.

Since America use pagan laws then were have unjust decisions.

Oh my God! You've mean we've gotten it all wrong? All these hundreds of years we've actually been living under an illegal government?

The word shocked does not even begin to cover the horror that I am feeling right now. I guess the only correct thing to do is to mob the White House, kill all the evil, un-religious members of government, and form the United States of Shamgar. Population: 1

MikeyC · 06-27-05, 05:35 PM

Last I checked we were still the United States of America not the Theocratic States of America. Our laws are not meant to favor any single relgion. Your beliefs of God's laws are, are not shared by everybody. Our nation has Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. And our nation is meant to allow them all to exist equally. You have the right to follow whatever laws you wish, just hope they don't cross the secular laws of our nation otherwise you will be punished. BTW, I'm all in favor of "unjust" decisions that go against your God's laws. Stop making yourself about to be better than everyone else Shamgar just because you are a Christian and follow what you believe to be the truth of the Bible.

Shamgar · 06-27-05, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelzie

Oh my God! You've mean we've gotten it all wrong? All these hundreds of years we've actually been living under an illegal government?

Yup. that is correct. . . that is why women and homosexuals are in the pulpits . . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuamort

You're still not proving how the definition applies to the SCOTUS, now are you? Come on, do it. Prove that the SCOTUS acted in Kangaroo Court fashion.
Were they a mock court set up in violation of legal procedure?

Yes as evidenced by failure to judge with righteous judgment

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuamort

A court characterized by dishonesty or incompetency?

Yes as evidenced by failure to judge with righteous judgment

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuamort

Unfair trial with outcomes predetermined?

Yes as evidenced by failure to judge with righteous judgment so the judgment was obviously going to be unrighteous.

Obviously you never read my post, since I clearly indicated anything other than righteous judgment is a kangaroo court since God commands righteous judgment. The US court do not provide as evidenced by their ruling.

Shamgar · 06-27-05, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeyC

Last I checked we were still the United States of America not the Theocratic States of America. Our laws are not meant to favor any single relgion.

Who said man's laws overruled God's laws . . . obviously a man . . . Christians have no obligation to obey any laws which think to "overrule" Gods laws . . . .