HOW SERIOUSLY CAN YOU TAKE THE COURT...:

Desert cross may lead to landmark ruling: The Supreme Court soon will decide whether to take up the case of the monument to fallen service members in Mojave National Preserve. At stake is a new definition of the church-state separation. (David G. Savage, October 22, 2008, LA Times)

The appeal may be well timed. For two decades, the court has been closely divided over the presence of religious displays -- such as a Christmas tree, the Ten Commandments or a cross -- on public property.

Three years ago, the justices were evenly split in a pair of cases involving the Ten Commandments. They upheld, 5 to 4, a granite monument on the grounds of the Texas state capitol, but struck down a similar display inside a courthouse in Kentucky in another 5-4 ruling.

Soon afterward, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who said both displays were unconstitutional, retired. She was replaced by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

"I think the court is poised for a major change as to the Establishment Clause," said UC Irvine Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, referring to the 1st Amendment's ban on "an establishment of religion."

"Under Chief Justice [William H.] Rehnquist, there were four votes to say the Establishment Clause is violated only if the government literally establishes a church or coerces religious participation," said Chemerinsky, who argued one of the Ten Commandments cases before the high court. "Now, I think there are five."

...when one vote completely "changes" the Constituton?

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 22, 2008 7:11 AM