Thursday, December 29, 2005

Commandments display is upheld!!!!!!

Proof that not all judges are crazy and some have even read the Constitution.
Commandments display is upheld: "A federal appeals court has upheld a display of the Ten Commandments alongside other historical documents in the Mercer County, Ky., courthouse.

The judge who wrote the opinion blasted the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the display, in language that echoed the type of criticism often directed at the organization.

Judge Richard Suhrheinrich's ruling said the ACLU brought 'tiresome' arguments about the 'wall of separation' between church and state, and it said the organization does not represent a 'reasonable person.'

The decision was issued by a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Cincinnati. It upheld a lower-court decision that allowed Mercer County to continue displaying the Ten Commandments along with the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the words to 'The Star-Spangled Banner' and other documents."
This is wonderful news. The so called "wall of separation of church and state" is one of the most miscontstrued ideas that exists today. Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ notes how the court slammed the ACLU on promoting an agenda:
n fact, in writing for the court, the circuit justice specifically rejected the ACLU’s claims, noting that the ACLU’s “repeated reference to the separation of church and state has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.” The court went on to say that a reasonable person viewing Mercer County’s display would appreciate “the role religion has played in our governmental institutions and finds it historically appropriate and traditionally acceptable for a state to include religious reference influences, even in the form of sacred text, in honoring American traditions.”
The Captain says that we'll probably be fighting this same battle in the Supreme Court, sometime after Sam Alito gets confirmed:
This makes for an interesting showdown in the new Supreme Court, especially with Sandra Day O'Connor retiring and her "know it when I see it" approach to religion disappearing soon. Nowhere is her case law more muddy than on this point, and the 6th Circuit has now provided an excellent test case for the new SC to elucidate a clear and resounding standard. Does the Establishment Clause guarantee a public square scrubbed of any religious mention whatsoever, or will the newly constituted court actually rule from the text itself and discover that it just prohibits the government establishment of a single official religion?
I can't wait to hear the wailing and nashing of teeth when the court doesn't deny the inlfluence of Christianity in the shaping of our nation.

And did you hear about this anywhere else? In the New York Times perhaps? Nope they were probably off looking for some soldier to smear. Scrappleface notes that they were busy with another court ruling:
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today ruled that the First Amendment allows, but does not require, major news organizations like to The New York Times to report on newsworthy events.


An unnamed spokesman for The New York Times said, “Clearly the 6th Circuit’s decision to uphold a 10 Commandment display is out of step with the mainstream of our readers, and therefore, does not constitute ‘news’ to us. Today’s ruling affirming our right to withhold information would ordinarily be news, but we could not report it without referring to the 10 Commandments public-display victory, so we’re going to exercise our right to squelch that one as well.”