Supreme Court rejects Ten Commandments appeal - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mojo_PeiPei · 08-27-2003, 11:19 AM

You don't have to realize anything, its your choice.

marcopolo · 08-27-2003, 11:27 AM

Yes , the Supreme Court has ruled that there should be no big slab of granite in any state building unless ...
it's Arnold Schwarzenegger

archer2371 · 08-27-2003, 12:36 PM

So what you're saying is that George Washington is just the same as a guy who sent young men to die and kill 3,000 innocent civilians. Right, that makes a whole lot of sense. If bin Laden were targeting military people within his country, it would be so much more different. But attacking innocent people who have done nothing to him is inexcusable. Name me one incident where the American Revolutionaries specifically targeted civilians to wrest from the grasp of an oppressive British rule, there are none. Yeah, you're right, in the eyes of the British they were traitors, but you cannot define the Minutemen as terrorists because they did not specifically target civilians. But believe me when I say that a majority of the FF were indeed Christian, check it out, I encourage you.

Mael · 08-27-2003, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by archer2371
But believe me when I say that a majority of the FF were indeed Christian, check it out, I encourage you.

fine. show me evidence that they were christian. i've seen many sources that say that many of them, especially ben franklin, washington, and jefferson were deists. and even if most of the FF's were christian, so what? that doesn't make us a christian nation. during the revolution, i think it's safe to say that most of the country was agricultural in some form, that doesn't make us an agricultural nation.

Mojo_PeiPei · 08-27-2003, 02:05 PM

Isn't that statement a little unrelated? The whole world was agricultural because the industrial revolution hadn't really picked up yet.

Mael · 08-27-2003, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Isn't that statement a little unrelated? The whole world was agricultural because the industrial revolution hadn't really picked up yet.

no. it's not unrelated. basically, just because "A" is a part of everyone's life doesn't define everyone and all of their motives as being related to "A."

smooth · 08-27-2003, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by archer2371
So what you're saying is that George Washington is just the same as a guy who sent young men to die and kill 3,000 innocent civilians. Right, that makes a whole lot of sense. If bin Laden were targeting military people within his country, it would be so much more different. But attacking innocent people who have done nothing to him is inexcusable. Name me one incident where the American Revolutionaries specifically targeted civilians to wrest from the grasp of an oppressive British rule, there are none. Yeah, you're right, in the eyes of the British they were traitors, but you cannot define the Minutemen as terrorists because they did not specifically target civilians. But believe me when I say that a majority of the FF were indeed Christian, check it out, I encourage you.

Terrorism is defined as non-state sponsered military action--not killing innocent people.

But since you bring it up, killing civilians is "collateral damage." Sometimes, according to some people on this board, people have to "break some eggs to make an omelate."

If you read my posts rather than reading into them I stated that their ideologies were similar--not that the people or that their actions were the same.

We'll save the issue of the innocent, indigenous population already living here who were deliberately targeted for another thread...

Midnight_Son · 08-28-2003, 11:21 AM

My opinion is this---> "separation of church and state", period. It’s pretty simple but it’s always Getting bent and misconstrued into whatever certain groups desire.
I’m sick of it, if the religions of this country want to get involved with the judicial system or the way the country’s run then they need to start paying taxes. Taxes on their land holdings and taxes on their income, yes I said income. Until that time, they need to shut the hell up and deal with life as it is. If you want to play in this game, you gotta pay the entrance fee just like everybody else……………………………whew! I feel better now, guess I just needed to vent a little.

Nizzle · 11-13-2003, 10:01 AM

This made my day.

Quote:

Court Orders Alabama's Chief Justice Removed from Bench
By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN

Published: November 13, 2003

ONTGOMERY, Ala., Nov. 12 - A special court today ordered the removal of Alabama's chief justice, Roy S. Moore, after unanimously finding that he had committed ethical breaches in a dispute over church, state and the Ten Commandments that gained national attention.

The announcement of the nine-member court's decision, which was televised nationally, followed a trial on Wednesday in which Chief Justice Moore remained as defiant as ever, even with his job on the line.

Advertisement

Chief Justice Moore said he had done nothing wrong by flouting a federal court order to remove a 5,280-pound granite monument of the Ten Commandments that he had installed in the lobby of the State Supreme Court.

``I'd do it all the same all over again,'' Chief Justice Moore said on Wednesday. ``I said it back then and I'll say it again now. God is the basis of our law and our government. I cannot and will not violate my conscience.''

Chief Justice Moore, who was suspended from office in August, was charged with six separate ethical breaches stemming from his adamant refusals to remove the monument despite a federal court order to do so.

The state's attorney general, William Pryor Jr., a conservative who has been nominated by President Bush for an appellate judgeship and was once a supporter of Chief Justice Moore, led the attack Wednesday, saying that ``the chief justice had put himself above the law.''

``This case presents an all or nothing proposition,'' Mr. Pryor said, who early in the dispute had backed Chief Justice Moore. ``Either the chief justice is wrong and must be removed. Or the chief justice is right and must be reinstated.''

``What does it mean to have the rule of laws and not of men?'' Mr. Pryor asked. ``That is the fundamental question.''

Once again, the Ten Commandments controversy drew a huge crowd, creating a spectacle in downtown Montgomery reminiscent of the revival-like protests that lasted two weeks this summer.

Shortly after sunrise Wednesday, several dozen of Chief Justice Moore's supporters bowed their heads and held a prayer circle on the courthouse steps. Young men blew curled rams' horns as a call to arms. Two women wore black veils ``to mourn the death of America,'' they said. One burly man named Matt strutted up the courthouse steps dressed in a green army helmet and flak jacket ``to wage war for God.''

Whether or not Chief Justice Moore emerges with his job, his popularity seems to be only growing.

On Wednesday, as the proceedings began inside the same courtroom where Chief Justice Moore used to bang the gavel, a long gold bus circled downtown Montgomery with a banner on the side: ``Alabama Save the Commandments Tour.''

Donations for his legal defense have been flowing in, enough to afford him three well-known lawyers, including one who was recently an Alabama Supreme Court justice.

On Aug. 22, Chief Justice Moore was suspended with pay pending the outcome of this trial, which was conducted by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary. He was accused of failing to comply with the law and bringing ``the judicial office into disrepute.'' Removal required a unanimous vote of the nine-member court.

The court is a mix of judges, lawyers and lay people, both Democrat and Republican, with more than half holding elected office. Many analysts said because of that, and Chief Justice Moore's popularity in Alabama, that it was unlikely that he would be removed.

``He strikes a chord with the masses and it would be a huge risk for someone to be remembered as the one who voted against the Ten Commandments judge,'' said William Stewart, a political science professor at the University of Alabama.

History seemed to be on the chief justice's side. In the judicial court's 30-year history, only three judges had been removed. The court does not have the power to keep a judge off the bench permanently. The last Alabama judge was ousted in 1999 after he was found guilty of financial fraud. The next year, he was re-elected to the same seat.

The thrust of Chief Justice Moore's defense was that the federal order ruling that the display of the monument violated the separation of church and state was unlawful. Chief Justice Moore has said the monument, inscribed with the biblical commandments and etched with wise words from the nation's founding fathers, all referring to God, is a way to honor the biblical underpinning of America's laws.

This month, the last of Chief Justice Moore's legal options ran out when the United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. In the end, Chief Justice Moore's colleagues decided to store the slab of granite in a storage room on the first floor of the courthouse.

The climax of Wednesday's proceedings came when Mr. Pryor stepped into the center of the courtroom to cross-examine Chief Justice Moore.

``Good afternoon, Mr. Chief Justice,'' Mr. Pryor began.

``Good afternoon, Mr. Attorney General,'' Chief Justice Moore replied.

Both cracked a smile. The two had once been allies. Mr. Pryor spoke at Ten Commandments rallies and supplied lawyers from his office to help in the chief's justice defense. But after federal courts ruled against the chief justice, Mr. Pryor, whose judicial nomination remains one of the most controversial in Washington, switched sides and demanded the monument be moved.

Mr. Pryor asked the chief justice, ``If you resume your job, will you continue to acknowledge God, no matter what the other judges say?''

``Yes,'' Chief Justice Moore replied.

Later in the day, the judicial court broke for deliberations and announced that it expected to reach a decision by this morning. Short of removal from office, the judicial court also had the power to censure or suspend him, actions that would have taken only six of the nine votes.

Elphaba · 05-30-2005, 04:09 PM

I have bumped this discussion because the Supreme Court has agreed to rule on two cases from a narrower perspective and will be making a decision next month. The question before the justices is:

Can government officials prominently display the Biblical Commandments at public buildings or in courthouses to demonstrate the nation's religious heritage?

It would appear that who owns the property has been taken out of the equation.

I tend to be a strict constitutionalist, but as has been well argued above, the written word and the intent of the founding fathers is open to some interpretation and debate.
This particular group of justices tend to end in a 5/4 split, particularly in precident setting issues such as this.

I would like to invite anyone interested to provide their arguments for or against this decision that you believe will be the most persuasive to the nine justices.

Elphaba · 06-27-2005, 01:17 PM

The Supremes have ruled...

Court Splits on Commandments Cases
USA Today

Monday 27 June 2005

Washington - The Supreme Court, struggling with a vexing social issue, held Monday it was constitutionally permissible to display the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas capitol but that it was a violation of separation of church and state to place them in Kentucky courthouses.

The 5-4 decision in the Kentucky case, 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.

But framed copies in two Kentucky courthouses went too far in endorsing religion, the court held.

"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.

"When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality," he said.

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.

In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that Ten Commandments displays are a legitimate tribute to the nation's religious and legal history.

Government officials may have had a religious purpose when they originally posted the Ten Commandments display by itself in 1999. But their efforts to dilute the religious message since then by hanging other historical documents in the courthouses made it constitutionally adequate, Scalia said.

He was joined in his opinion by Chief William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justice Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

"In the court's view, the impermissible motive was apparent from the initial displays of the Ten Commandments all by themselves: When that occurs: the Court says, a religious object is unmistakable," he wrote. "Surely that cannot be."

"The Commandments have a proper place in our civil history," Scalia wrote.

The case was one of two heard by the Supreme Court in March involving Ten Commandments displays in Kentucky and Texas. That case asks whether the Ten Commandments may be displayed on the grounds outside the state capitol.

The cases marked the first time since 1980 the high court tackled the emotional issue, in a courtroom boasting a wall carving of Moses holding the sacred tablets.

A broader ruling than the one rendered Monday could have determined the allowable role of religion in a wide range of public contexts, from the use of religious music in a school concert to students' recitation of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. It is a question that has sharply divided the lower courts in recent years.

But in their ruling Monday, justices chose to stick with a cautious case-by-case approach.

Two Kentucky counties originally hung the copies of the Ten Commandments in their courthouses. After the ACLU filed suit, the counties modified their displays to add other documents demonstrating "America's Christian heritage," including the national motto of "In God We Trust" and a version of the Congressional Record declaring 1983 the "Year of the Bible."

When a federal court ruled those displays had the effect of endorsing religion, the counties erected a third Ten Commandments display with surrounding documents such as the Bill of Rights and Star-Spangled Banner to highlight their role in "our system of law and government."

The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal subsequently struck down the third display as a "sham" for the religious intent behind it.

Ten Commandments displays are supported by a majority of Americans, according to an AP-Ipsos poll. The poll taken in late February found that 76% support it and 23% oppose it.

The last time the Supreme Court weighed in on the issue was 1980, when it struck down a Kentucky law requiring Ten Commandments displays in public classrooms.

Ustwo · 06-27-2005, 03:53 PM

I wonder if they will rule you can put up the 10 commandments on your property before the government steals it from you to make a new golf course.

meepa · 06-27-2005, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I wonder if they will rule you can put up the 10 commandments on your property before the government steals it from you to make a new golf course.

Ustwo, I don't agree with everything you say, but I do like hearing them when you have the patience to say something without all the heavy-handed sarcasm and explosive comments. Please stop muting your intelligence that I know you've posted with before with this kind of pointless stuff that doesn't add anything except to irritate people. Maybe your dry sense of humor works better in person, but in this forum (politics), it gets lost in internet translation and just fuels all the negativity

Elphaba · 06-27-2005, 06:40 PM

Thank you, Meepa. I have been hoping for a more honest level of discussion as well.

pan6467 · 06-28-2005, 07:46 AM

Again, I don't understand all the hoo-ha over this. To me it's just the Right's excuse to keep condemning the SC until they load it with people that are of "christian" values and will decide everything along party lines. And that is bullshit. Because party should never enter into the interpretation of the Constitution, nor should religion.

The SC DID NOT say, "government buildings could not display the 10 Commandments"... they said in effect that the 10 Commandments should not be held as a religious symbol but as an historical symbol in GOVERNMENT buildings. NOWHERE DO I READ PRIVATE PROPERTY (I.E. BUSINESSES) IS TO BE HELD TO THIS STANDARD.

Quote:

The 5-4 decision in the Kentucky case, 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.

But framed copies in two Kentucky courthouses went too far in endorsing religion, the court held.

"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.

WTF is wrong with that statement???? Freedom of religion, no state endorsed religion.... obviously Ky. was endorsing a Judeo-Christian religious philosophy and using other items as such. It was wrong.

However, the SC states that as historical elemants they can be hung.

What is so wrong with that? Is the Right so far up Pat Robertson and company's arses that freedom of religion and freedom from religion are integral parts of our Constitution and cases like this should have rulings like this?

08-27-2003, 11:19 AM	#81 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	You don't have to realize anything, its your choice. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

08-27-2003, 11:27 AM	#82 (permalink)
marcopolo I am the anomaly. Location: Motown	Yes , the Supreme Court has ruled that there should be no big slab of granite in any state building unless ... it's Arnold Schwarzenegger __________________ Those who can't laugh at themselves leave the job to others.

08-27-2003, 12:36 PM	#83 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	So what you're saying is that George Washington is just the same as a guy who sent young men to die and kill 3,000 innocent civilians. Right, that makes a whole lot of sense. If bin Laden were targeting military people within his country, it would be so much more different. But attacking innocent people who have done nothing to him is inexcusable. Name me one incident where the American Revolutionaries specifically targeted civilians to wrest from the grasp of an oppressive British rule, there are none. Yeah, you're right, in the eyes of the British they were traitors, but you cannot define the Minutemen as terrorists because they did not specifically target civilians. But believe me when I say that a majority of the FF were indeed Christian, check it out, I encourage you. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

08-27-2003, 02:05 PM	#85 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Isn't that statement a little unrelated? The whole world was agricultural because the industrial revolution hadn't really picked up yet. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

08-28-2003, 11:21 AM	#88 (permalink)
Midnight_Son The Cover Doesn't Match The Book Location: in a van down by the river	10 comandments @ the courthouse My opinion is this---> "separation of church and state", period. It’s pretty simple but it’s always Getting bent and misconstrued into whatever certain groups desire. I’m sick of it, if the religions of this country want to get involved with the judicial system or the way the country’s run then they need to start paying taxes. Taxes on their land holdings and taxes on their income, yes I said income. Until that time, they need to shut the hell up and deal with life as it is. If you want to play in this game, you gotta pay the entrance fee just like everybody else……………………………whew! I feel better now, guess I just needed to vent a little. __________________ SWM, tattooed, seeks meaningful tits and beer. Enjoys biker mags, pornography, and Sunday morning walks to the liquor store. Winners of erotic hot dog eating contests given priority. Last edited by Midnight_Son; 08-28-2003 at 11:32 AM..

05-30-2005, 04:09 PM	#90 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I have bumped this discussion because the Supreme Court has agreed to rule on two cases from a narrower perspective and will be making a decision next month. The question before the justices is: Can government officials prominently display the Biblical Commandments at public buildings or in courthouses to demonstrate the nation's religious heritage? It would appear that who owns the property has been taken out of the equation. I tend to be a strict constitutionalist, but as has been well argued above, the written word and the intent of the founding fathers is open to some interpretation and debate. This particular group of justices tend to end in a 5/4 split, particularly in precident setting issues such as this. I would like to invite anyone interested to provide their arguments for or against this decision that you believe will be the most persuasive to the nine justices.

06-27-2005, 01:17 PM	#91 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	The Supremes have ruled... Court Splits on Commandments Cases USA Today Monday 27 June 2005 Washington - The Supreme Court, struggling with a vexing social issue, held Monday it was constitutionally permissible to display the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas capitol but that it was a violation of separation of church and state to place them in Kentucky courthouses. The 5-4 decision in the Kentucky case, 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. But framed copies in two Kentucky courthouses went too far in endorsing religion, the court held. "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. "When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality," he said. 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. In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that Ten Commandments displays are a legitimate tribute to the nation's religious and legal history. Government officials may have had a religious purpose when they originally posted the Ten Commandments display by itself in 1999. But their efforts to dilute the religious message since then by hanging other historical documents in the courthouses made it constitutionally adequate, Scalia said. He was joined in his opinion by Chief William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justice Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. "In the court's view, the impermissible motive was apparent from the initial displays of the Ten Commandments all by themselves: When that occurs: the Court says, a religious object is unmistakable," he wrote. "Surely that cannot be." "The Commandments have a proper place in our civil history," Scalia wrote. The case was one of two heard by the Supreme Court in March involving Ten Commandments displays in Kentucky and Texas. That case asks whether the Ten Commandments may be displayed on the grounds outside the state capitol. The cases marked the first time since 1980 the high court tackled the emotional issue, in a courtroom boasting a wall carving of Moses holding the sacred tablets. A broader ruling than the one rendered Monday could have determined the allowable role of religion in a wide range of public contexts, from the use of religious music in a school concert to students' recitation of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. It is a question that has sharply divided the lower courts in recent years. But in their ruling Monday, justices chose to stick with a cautious case-by-case approach. Two Kentucky counties originally hung the copies of the Ten Commandments in their courthouses. After the ACLU filed suit, the counties modified their displays to add other documents demonstrating "America's Christian heritage," including the national motto of "In God We Trust" and a version of the Congressional Record declaring 1983 the "Year of the Bible." When a federal court ruled those displays had the effect of endorsing religion, the counties erected a third Ten Commandments display with surrounding documents such as the Bill of Rights and Star-Spangled Banner to highlight their role in "our system of law and government." The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal subsequently struck down the third display as a "sham" for the religious intent behind it. Ten Commandments displays are supported by a majority of Americans, according to an AP-Ipsos poll. The poll taken in late February found that 76% support it and 23% oppose it. The last time the Supreme Court weighed in on the issue was 1980, when it struck down a Kentucky law requiring Ten Commandments displays in public classrooms.

06-27-2005, 03:53 PM	#92 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I wonder if they will rule you can put up the 10 commandments on your property before the government steals it from you to make a new golf course. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

06-27-2005, 06:40 PM	#94 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Thank you, Meepa. I have been hoping for a more honest level of discussion as well.