US Supreme Court rules on 10 Commandments

[Fly320s]

The ruling is in, the 10 Commandments have to go from the courtroom.

Since this isn't gun related, I'll leave it at that. See your favorite news source for more information.

 

[Beren]

Not so much that they have to go, but they have to go outside. They can be "on government property" but "not in a courthouse."

 

[CentralTexas]

Better reread the article my friend

they don't have to "go", they just can't be in a court room so that it appears it is a government sponsored endorsment or christian court.
I really wish a small town in Michigan with a heavy moslem population would take over city or state gov. and put the Koran up in the courtroom and force a moslem prayer on all the public school kids. That would clarify things I bet.
CT

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Personally, I'd like to see a mural of Ganesh in a US Courtroom. I believe he's the Hindu god that oversees the sphere of "justice"...

 

[longeyes]

Would someone please tell the Ten Commandments to use the servants' entrance from now on?

 

[Vernal45]

I really wish a small town in Michigan with a heavy moslem population would take over city or state gov. and put the Koran up in the courtroom and force a moslem prayer on all the public school kids. That would clarify things I bet.

NOPE, That would be acceptable in the name of tolerance and diversity. :banghead:

 

[Henry Bowman]

As of a few minutes ago, the decision was not up on the official SCOTUS site. Anyone have a link?

 

[MrTuffPaws]

NOPE, That would be acceptable in the name of tolerance and diversity.

Doubtful. As long as the 10 are represented with other historical law documents, it is fine to have it up.

This case was: Courtroom puts the 10 up, gets sued, puts up some other docs to try to cover their butts, gets called on it and found wrong.

 

[Blinocac200sx]

I'd like to know how displaying another countries original laws is itself a law regaurding the establishment of religion?

 

[dolanp]

Ruling: http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1693P.ZO.pdf

 

[MudPuppy]

An of course the 10 commandments are carved into the wall in the chambers of SCOTUS, yes?

Another example of our US royalty telling us to "do as I say, not as I do".

Since 1980, there have been two families with immediate family members in one of the two highest posts in the US government.

1980-88 GB Sr as VP
1988-92 GB Sr as Pres
1992-2000 BC as Pres
2000-08 GWB as Pres
2008-16 Hillary is being offered as a serious candidate.

Crown 'em and be done with it.

 

[dpesec]

Beren,

Well I guess we'll be building a new building for the SCOTUS. They have them inside the courtroom.
Hummmmmm.

 

[dpesec]

Blinocac200sx

simple, because the tyrants said so.

 

[bogie]

I don't see what the big deal is, unless you're a religious fanatic in search of a theocracy.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

An[d] of course the 10 commandments are carved into the wall in the chambers of SCOTUS, yes?

Along with examples from other great legals systems, including the Code of Hammerubi.

All such examples were presented as representations of LAW and legal systems, not as professions of religious tenets or having religious value. The purpose there was obviously SECULAR in nature and by the standards offered in previous rulings, and in this one, perfectly legal.

 

[CZ 75 BD]

Top Ten Signs That The Supreme Court Ruled The Wrong Way on the Ten Commandments Cases

10. Justice Breyer's first-born son suddenly feeling "under the weather".
9. God now saying that justices are allowed "on" heaven, but not "in" heaven.
8. When the bailiff cried "God Save this Honorable Court!" at the beginning of the session, he suddenly turned into a pillar of salt.
7. Every evening, it seems like it now takes Justice Souter 40 years to find his car in the Supreme Court parking lot.
6. Justice Scalia's Sunday golf game interrupted by plague of locusts.
5. Testimony from false witnesses now completely admissible.
4. Justice O'Connor suddenly the recipient of unwanted "coveting."
3. The Potomac turned blood red. Wait! -- that's just pollution.
2. Manna supply has suddenly run out.
1. The golden calf the justices had installed inside the court suddenly burst in twain.
http://www.colossusblog.com/mt/archives/000752.html

 

[dev_null]

> I don't see what the big deal is, unless you're a religious fanatic in search of a theocracy.

+1

 

[Pilot]

I don't see what the big deal is, unless you're a religious fanatic in search of a theocracy.

+1

The big deal is that the Supreme Court sole responsibility is to interpret Constitutional law. There is NOTHING in the Constitution about seperation of church and state. The Constitution prohibits a state sponsored religion and guarantess freedom of religion, not freedom FROM religion. By ruling like this the Supreme Court has once again ignored the Constitutional law and ruled how they felt. This along with the land grab precedent they just set is the new legal reality we have to deal with. The rulings are not based on law anymore, its just made up by the S.C. judges.

How about their previous ruling that law schools can use a quota system to insure diversity in applicants? This is actually against the Constitution which guarantees we're all treated equally no matter what race, creed, religion or color, yet the Supreme Court upheld quotas.

This trend is scary folks. Wake up.

Watch the 2nd Amendment is next.

 

[dev_null]

I support ALL of the Bill of Rights

I'm not buying it.

There is plenty of clear precedent for 200+ years on the separation of church and state (which exists as much to protect churches as for the disestablishment clause). To argue otherwise is to emulate the famous ostrich.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

How about their previous ruling that law schools can use a quota system to insure diversity in applicants? This is actually against the Constitution which guarantees we're all treated equally no matter what race, creed, religion or color, yet the Supreme Court upheld quotas.

Yeah, and where were those activist judges when, for 100+ years, we had slaves, counted as 3/5ths of a person. And, even if they escaped slavery (by running away), they had to go back, if caught (ala Dred Scott).

And where were they when we sent American Citizens to Concentration Camps during WWII, causing them to lose their property, simply because they were of Japanese dissent. (The Supremes allowed that, too -- even though those folks were clearly not treated equally because of their race and creed...)

Oh, I see... they were just supporting time-honored precedent and supporting and protecting the Constitution.

Slavery was bad, but the treatment of Japanese Americans during WWII remains one of the low points our history -- with little real justification. (History created and sustained slavery far too long, but racism seems to be the only excuse for the Concentration Camps.)

With the cases in question, I suggest you read the court opinions -- available on line -- rather than the pre-digested pablum available to us on the news. If you do, you'll see that there was a lot of underlying law and history taken into consideration. While you may not agree with the decision, it was not not entirely an irrational decision -- and it didn't jump, fully formed, into existence as the decision was written.

I just finished reading the Scalia dissent in the McCreary County case. He's pretty brutal in his condemnation of the majority opinion, and personally attacks Justice Steven's opinion. In doing, so, however, he offers little real LEGAL justification for his viewpoint. Scalia just attacks a viewpoint he disagrees with and offers up warm and fuzzy points that seem to have even less basis in law and precedent than the majority opionion of the court.

Now its on to the Orden v. Perry decision..

 

[CentralTexas]

What does this mean then?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

or this?

"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800.

"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281

"As the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity of Messelmen, --and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever interupt the harmony existing betweenthe two countries"--Treaty of Tripoli in 1797, Article XI, written by Joel Barlow (USA diplomat) and Hassan Bashaw (of Algers), late during George Washington's second term and later ratified by President John Adams. Original and copies preserved in the national Archives in Washington, DC. under Treaty series no.358. Official Senate treaty found in the American State Papers, Foreign Relations, II p. 18-19. "Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America" vol.2, edited by Hunter Miller, US. Government printing office, 1931, p.349-385.

James Madison
Called the father of the Constitution, Madison had no conventional sense of Christianity. In 1785, Madison wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments:

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

CT

 

[Pilot]

Well I'm not buying it. I have read the opinions. All I see are quoted passages of books and treatises NOT the Constitution which is the law of our land. That their job, not quoting books, European law or anythign else. The fact that they can justify leaving the Ten Commandments up in the Supreme Court but forces other courts to remove it speaks volumes. There is more precedent for keeping religious symbols in public places than not. Look at your money, read the Constitution. Where do you think our laws came from? That's right the Ten Commandments.

When judges can blatantly invent law and act using personal feelings rather than actually looking at the law, we are in serious trouble. What the hell does slavery have to do with this? It only makes my point. Judges have perverted our laws and legal system for years. Its time to remind them we do have written laws which they must follow.

 

[RevDisk]

The big deal is that the Supreme Court sole responsibility is to interpret Constitutional law. There is NOTHING in the Constitution about seperation of church and state. The Constitution prohibits a state sponsored religion and guarantess freedom of religion, not freedom FROM religion. By ruling like this the Supreme Court has once again ignored the Constitutional law and ruled how they felt. This along with the land grab precedent they just set is the new legal reality we have to deal with. The rulings are not based on law anymore, its just made up by the S.C. judges.

Incorrect.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



My freedom from religious coercion is spelled out clearly in the First and Ninth amendments. If someone doesn't get the idea clearly enough, well, that's what the Second amendment is there for.

The ruling is in, the 10 Commandments have to go from the courtroom.

From what I gather, it's all or none. You can't stick just the 10 commandments on the wall and forbid all others. If the 10 commandments go up on the wall, the Wiccan Rede or Code of Hammerubi can also. To do otherwise violates the above meantioned Amendments, in addition to Amendment XIV. "Equal protection" and such.

America is not a theocracy. It is a Constitutional Republic.

 

[ojibweindian]

There's far more to freak out over than just this. The SCOTUS has really bent us over this session.

 

[TheEgg]

IBTL


Lights out soon, I hope.