June 27, 2005
STILL SANDY'S CONSTITUTION:
Court: No Ten Commandments in Courthouses (THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, 6/27/05)
In a narrowly drawn ruling, the Supreme Court struck down Ten Commandments displays in courthouses Monday, holding that two exhibits in Kentucky crossed the line between separation of church and state because they promoted a religious message.The 5-4 decision, first of two seeking to mediate the bitter culture war over religion's place in public life, took a case-by-case approach to this vexing issue. In the decision, the court declined to prohibit all displays in court buildings or on government property.
The justices left themselves legal wiggle room on this issue, however, 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. [...]
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.
Nothing quite so helpful as making it clear that your decision is unprincipled. Posted by Orrin Judd at June 27, 2005 10:47 AM
An AP-Ipsos poll taken in late February found 76 percent supportive of and 23 percent opposed to Ten Commandments displays (source MSNBC).
Posted by: Gideon at June 27, 2005 10:57 AMWhenever OJ feels a need to crow about the virtues of New Hampshire, we should keep in mind that David Souter is its contribution to American jurisprudence.
Posted by: bart at June 27, 2005 11:32 AMNever advertise the fact that we duped you.
Posted by: oj at June 27, 2005 11:42 AMWhen I saw the pictures of Souter's house in the paper, and read about his lifestyle, I thought of Thoreau. But I didn't want him on the bench.
Posted by: jim hamlen at June 27, 2005 1:21 PMincoherent is the word you were looking for.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at June 27, 2005 3:01 PMThat majority opinion is some bafflegab. Certainly more and more of our Supreme Court decisions of late are of the "Maybe" rather than "Yes" or "No" variety. It guarantees both legal uncertainty and oodles of work for lawyers, and it is almost impossible to get laymen and even most lawyers to understand how effective a tactic it is in increasing judicial powers. As we live in an era when most legislators, right and left, are completely uninterested in defending their perogatives on tough issues and are happy to duck the limelight, it is very hard to see what will check it.
Posted by: Peter B at June 27, 2005 3:42 PMO'Connor and Stevens retiring.
Posted by: oj at June 27, 2005 3:47 PMYes, I know, Orrin. The more Scalias and Thomas the better. But there is a long-term problem here. Surely the theory of checks and balances can't be defended forever on the theory that democracy and the will of the people is in the hands of appointed, tenured, conservative judges who can be counted on to defend the pergatives of timid and feckless legislators.
Posted by: Peter B at June 27, 2005 6:38 PMWas for a hundred and sixty years.
Posted by: oj at June 27, 2005 9:00 PM