The NY Times has this write-up of the Ten Commandments decision (should we refer to this as the 11th Commandment?):
The Supreme Court ruled today that displaying the Ten Commandments on government property does not necessarily violate the constitutional principle that there must be a separation between church and state.
In a pair of 5-to-4 rulings, the court said the display of the Ten Commandments in a 22-acre park at the Texas State Capitol was proper, but that the displays of the Commandments in two county courthouses in Kentucky were so overtly religious as to be impermissible.
The rulings, the first by the court in a quarter-century on the emotional issue of the proper place of the Commandments in American life, conveyed the message that disputes over such religious displays must be decided case by case, and that the specific facts are all important.
Seems to me they split the baby. I mostly have no problem with public displays of the Ten Commandments, and my general opinion is that there are those who do want to remove any mention of God from the public square, something I don’t agree with. Dobson had this to say:
Today’s split ruling sends a mixed message to the American public. The court has failed to decide whether it will stand up for religious freedom of expression, or if it will allow liberal special interests to banish God from the public square. Those who care deeply about the religious heritage of this country have cause to be concerned by the apparent lack of commitment to the founders’ intent shown by our nation’s highest court.
“One point has been clearly made by these decisions: the infamous ‘Lemon Test,’ used by the court in deciding these cases, is too restrictive of freedom of speech, allows for inequitable rulings and should be replaced. Just as clear is the fact that there is a religious witch-hunt underway, one which has infected virtually every level of our government. It is nothing less than historical revisionism to try to use the First Amendment as an excuse to scrub away all governmental references to the Ten Commandments and our Judeo-Christian heritage.”
As I have stated, I really don’t care about this issue, so Iwill have to rely jaded and cynical Dobson test:
Dobson sounds pissed, so it can’t be that bad of a ruling.
In other Supreme Court news, it doesn’t seem like the Grokster ruling was that big of a deal. I don’t know why anyone uses peer-to-peer technology, what with all the dangerous privacy problems and security risks.
BTW- Did any of you watch the ‘religious witch-hunt’ this weekend as the Billy Graham Crusade was simulcast on every cable news channel?
Mark Daniels (via Instapundit):
These rulings, it should be noted, allow for government entities to acknowledge the significance of the Ten Commandments as part of the common heritage of America, as the court apparently felt was true of the display in Texas in favor of which they ruled.
But they disallow the use of public monies and public properties to uphold a specific religious perspective (for example, Jewish or Christian) out of deference to the establishment clause, the provisions of which they deemed violated by the Kentucky displays.
In fact, I feel that these rulings should be welcomed by Christians. The government entity which today can give preferential treatment to Christians can, quite conceivably, give preference to other religions in the future. Better a society in which all are given equal opportunity for expression than one which sides with a specific religion or sect.
The sweet and savory taste of sanity.
mr stupid head
“The Dobson Test.” I like it.
Also, this makes me laff – “Just as clear is the fact that there is a religious witch-hunt underway, one which has infected virtually every level of our government.”
Yeah, if by “infected,” you mean, “Put conservative Christians into.” 43 out 43 presidents, a majority in Congress. Oh, those poor persecuted, under-represented Christians. Gimme a break.
Stormy70
The rulings seemed fine to me. The Kentucky case concerned putting them up in a religious context, and the Texas case involved putting them up in a historical context. Just not that freaked out about the split decision. The Supremes knew better than to mess with our display anyway. :) Our judges ignore the Supreme Court anyway on Capital cases, according to some.
SeesThroughIt
Ha! The Dobson Test is brilliant. Probably pretty reliable, too.
As for this quote:
Well, I think Jon Stewart pretty much hit the nail on the head when he mockingly stated, “Yes, I too long for the day when Christians are finally free to practice their faith and worship their God. And I dare to dream of a day when a Christian will be elected president–maybe even 43 Christians in a row!”
Dave Ruddell
This could lead to all sorts of tests; the Moore Test, the Coulter Test, the (Juan) Cole Test…
SeesThroughIt
I believe the Coulter Test is already in place: If Ann Coulter says it, then the opposite is true.
iocaste
The significance of the Grokster ruling is that it opens the possibility for people who create or sell technologies to be found guilty of copyright infringement based on the actions of people who use the technology.
The Court said this can only happen if the seller intends such uses, but whether there has been such intent is a factual question that typically won’t be decided until you get to a jury — and that’s something many businesses won’t want to risk.
Instead, sellers of technologies may choose to police their users in order to avoid liability. But that not only threatens personal privacy, but also carries a real potential for suppression of speech that is not infringing, but instead is protected by fair use and the First Amendment, out of the seller’s fear of litigation.
iocaste
The significance of the Grokster ruling is that it opens the possibility for people who create or sell technologies to be found guilty of copyright infringement based on the actions of people who use the technology.
The Court said this can only happen if the seller intends such uses, but whether there has been such intent is a factual question that typically won’t be decided until you get to a jury — and that’s something many businesses won’t want to risk.
Instead, sellers of technologies may choose to police their users in order to avoid liability. But that not only threatens personal privacy, but also carries a real potential for suppression of speech that is not infringing, but instead is protected by fair use and the First Amendment, out of the seller’s fear of litigation.
demimondian
The significance of the Grokster case lies in what it doesn’t say. The majority opinion (there were two concurring opinions) basically said “There are other reasons to go after Grokster that don’t require us limiting the scope of the Betamax decision, and so we don’t see any reason to touch Betamax. Oh, and by the way, district court? You should grant MGM’s request for summary judgement in this case.”
What they didn’t say? There’s no discussion of limiting the Betamax decision, per se. They didn’t talk about “substantial non-infringing uses of a technology” or the like, and, in fact, they explicitly said that they weren’t going to set a percentage guideline for when a technology did not have significant non-infringing uses. They left the door open to doing thta sometime in the future, if there’s a need, but made it pretty clear that they didn’t want to.
Seems to me that’s the best possible decision: Betamax is good case law, and the Supes aren’t going to tinker with it direclty if they can avoid it. That said, it’s not a blanket behind which anyone can hide; it’s finite.
ppgaz
I agree with Stormy. Seems to me they did a careful job and made a careful distinction. As a rabid anti-Dobsonite and even more rabid proponent of church-state separation, I’m fine with the decisions.
Stormy, as you said yesterday …. feel the love.
Koombaya ……
johnjb
I mostly have no problem with public displays of the Ten Commandments, …
Well, but, which ten commandments?
When government erects such a display it must choose between, at least, the roman catholic, protestant, and jewish versions.
It is this establishment clause violation, in my opinion, that should be fatal to most of these displays.
Rick
No, this is the Coulter test, from her current column:
If you still have any doubts about whether closing Guantanamo is the right thing to do, Jimmy Carter recently cleared that up by demanding that it be closed….Here’s a foolproof method for keeping America safe: Always do the exact 180-degree opposite of whatever Jimmy Carter says as quickly as possible.
It’s not torture if:
Kimmitt
There’s nothing to discuss. Coulter is a barbaric thug, and you appear to share her views.
brenda
The difference between rape and making love, or torture and “You can pay someone in New York to do it to you” i.e. BDSM, is consent. A concept that Rick seems to have trouble comprehending. God help any woman unlucky enough to get saddled with this loser.
Geoff
Agreed, nothing to discuss there. Coulter’s batshit crazy and filled with rage as always, and your perception is, as usual, deeply flawed by your own apparent inner demons, manifesting in the usual passive-agressive ‘Cordial’ spew.
Stormy70
Rick – I drink to your passive-aggression! Coulter must be silenced, the shrill harpy! How dare she employ the tactics of the Left against them.
How do I get my own inner demon? Can mine look like Angel?or Spike?
Sojourner
I don’t want to silence Coulter. She’s a leggy billboard for the idiocies of the conservative movement.
Rock on, Annie!
p.lukasiak
personally, I think that the 10 Commandments decisions were disasterous, because it means
1) the religious nutcases are encouraged to try and get their little tablets just about everywhere….
2) Each instance will have to be litigated ad nauseum, with lower courts issuing contradictory rulings that can only be resolved by the US Supreme Court.
oh, and props to JohnJB for noting that the text of the 10 Commandments vary between the various judeo-christian sects (and lets not forget that they also are the foundation of Islam…)