No Rehnquist announcement; Commandments split
The Supreme Court recessed for the summer Monday morning, with no announcement from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist of his plans to retire or to remain on the Court. The day’s session ended after the announcement of six final rulings. Final orders of the Term, to be prepared after a final Conference today, will be issued at 10 a.m. Tuesday.
Splitting 5-4 in the first of two rulings on government displays of the Ten Commandments, the Supreme Court upheld a federal court order against a display of the religious document on the wall of courthouses in two Kentucky counties.
The Court, in an opinion by Justice David H. Souter, said the ruling does not mean that a sacred text can never be integrated into a governmental display on law and history. It found, however, that the displays in Kentucky were motivated by a religious purpose, which did not change as the display was modified twice during court challenges.
Justice Antonin Scalia announced portions of his dissenting opinion. The case was McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (03-1693).
Chief Justice Rehnquist announced the second decision on a religious display, finding no constitutional violation in the placement of a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the state capitol building in Austin, Texas. That decision was widely splintered. Announcing the votes of the various Justices, Rehnquist quipped — to widespread laughter in the courtroom — that he did not know there were so many Justices on the Court. The case was Van Orden v. Perry (03-1500).
In a 6-3 ruling, the Court decided that cable operators offering high-speed Internet access have no legal duty to open their service to customers of all Internet service providers.
In two consolidated cases, the Court upheld the decision of the Federal Communications Commission that broadband cable modem companies are exempt from mandatory common-carrier regulation. That, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, is a lawful interpretation of the Communications Act, and thus is due the Court’s deference. The decisions came in National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X (04-277) and FCC v. Bfand X (04-281).
In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled that local governments have no constitutional duty to protect from private violence an individual who is shielded by a court’s restraining order. Such individuals do not gain an enforceable interest in that protection, the Court declared in an opinion by Justice Scalia. The case was Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (04-278).
The Court ruled 5-4 that the Sixth Circuit abused its discretion in withdrawing an opinion in a habeas case months after the ruling should have been made final by issuance of a mandate. The Court said it was resolving only the particular case, and was not deciding the scope of an appeals court’s authority to withold a mandate in order to resolve a case. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy spoke for the majority.
The decision came in the highly controversial case of a Tennessee death row inmate who is mentally impaired, Gregory Thompson (Bell v. Thompson, 04-514).
What about the 10 commendeements?
Comment by Dan — June 27, 2005 @ 10:09 am
Thanks for helping us rabid refreshers an easy way to see what’s coming down today.
also, i find it amusing that “broadband cable moden companires arfe exempt from mandatory common-carfrier regulation.” I’d say someone has an itchy ‘f’ finger.
Thanks for taking this major bandwidth hit so that the supreme court junkies can get our fix, much like vampires stooping upon the villagers.
Comment by Eh Nonymous — June 27, 2005 @ 10:16 am
As a layperson, I feel that the courthouse posting is the most egregious to fundamentalists. Reasoning is, if the monument outside passes constitutional muster, it means, you can have your religion outside, but not inside. This will infuriate most bible-thumpers, and there will be a cacophony for judicial impeachment, listen closely to Tom DeLay.
Comment by Rick Turnbow — June 27, 2005 @ 10:18 am
All Eyes on SCOTUS (Blog) for 10 Cs and Grokster
Today is the big final day of this term for the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), and with such huge decisions coming down today there’s no better page to refresh in your browser than the SCOTUS Blog.
Comment by ambivalent imbroglio — June 27, 2005 @ 10:21 am
Supreme Court: Open Thread
Update: Ruling in Ten Comandments Case, via Scotus Blog: Splitting 5-4 in the first of two rulings on government displays of the Ten Commandments, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld a federal court order against a display of the religious…
Comment by TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime — June 27, 2005 @ 10:26 am
Open Access Denied
SCOTUS Blog reports on the Brand X case: “In a 6-3 ruling, the Court decided that cable operators offering high-speed Internet access have no legal duty to open their service to customers of all Internet service providers. In the cable…
Comment by Copyfight — June 27, 2005 @ 10:34 am
Court Overturns Ninth Cir., Upholds FCC Ruling in Brand X Case
via SCOTUS Blog:In a 6-3 ruling, the Court decided that cable operators offering high-speed Internet access have no legal duty to open their service to customers of all Internet service providers. In the cable case, the Court upheld the decision…
Comment by The Importance of... — June 27, 2005 @ 10:38 am
Anyone know where the opinion is for the Ten Commandments ruling?
http://objectivejustice.blogspot.com/2005/06/ten-commandments-unconstitutional.html
Comment by Sean Sirrine — June 27, 2005 @ 10:58 am
Supreme Court: Ten Commandments Yes and No
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Ten Commandments can and cannot be displayed. Interesting, huh?
Here’s the scoop from the AP:
A split Supreme Court struck down Ten Commandments displays in courthouses Monday, ruling that two exhi…
Comment by The MUSC Tiger — June 27, 2005 @ 11:42 am
I think that as long as you place secular symbols such as a Reindeer or a Frosty the SnoMan along side the Ten Commandments then the display is OK.
Comment by NanoPundit — June 27, 2005 @ 12:04 pm
This is a very sad day and we must remember how blessed we a are to live in this county(USA)that allows for change. Even the changes that are not easy to swallow. I do beleive that this is uncharted territory and who knows how long before “In God we trust” is obliterated as well. We must remember that Jesus is our savior and respect our government. As a parent my child will be raised to know and love Christ because he is our living God.
Comment by Katherine — June 27, 2005 @ 12:28 pm
Jesus Christ, Shit is going motherfucking down
Well fuck, it looks like it’s now legal to intimidate, harass and assault one’s ex wife. ARE YOU READY TO RUMBLLLLEEE!!!!!!! In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled that local governments have no constitutional duty to protect from private violence…
Comment by This Space For Rent — June 27, 2005 @ 1:34 pm
Remember one thing, this country was founded on the principle of freedom of religion. Anyone be it in government or elsewhere who professes one faith over another does a disservice to our country. We cannot have it seen that the christians run the courthouses or schools or any other governmental body. All religions are equal under the law just as all people are equal under the law. If we allow statues or memorials to one religion in a governmental building then we must allow all religions equal access or time if you will. The muslims, buhddists, and other religions who make up our country deserve the same respect as any other.
Comment by Just Me — June 27, 2005 @ 1:45 pm
Not well versed on trackbacking yet, but I wanted to let you know I linked to your SCOTUS ruling today from my blog, pelicanpost.blogspot.com
Great writeup. I’m sure my readers will appreciate it. I’ve added you to my favorites and will likely add a permanent link.
-Jacqueline
Comment by Jacqueline — June 27, 2005 @ 2:16 pm
Supreme Court Roundup
Lots of decisions by SCOTUS today, and great roundup over at SCOTUSblog. Some highlights: the Supreme Court upheld a federal court order against a display of the religious document on the wall of courthouses in two Kentucky counties. The Court,…
Comment by camedwards.com — June 27, 2005 @ 2:36 pm
It’s a truly sad day when the only thing people care about is the Ten commandments in the courthouse…
Who cares about ex-wives and -husbands who want legal protection from loonies?
Comment by Doug — June 27, 2005 @ 2:45 pm
Exactly Doug!
(Katherine) Let’s use this public forum to flog that equine a few more times. Your personal/family beliefs are irrevelant to the matter of seperation of Church and State. Whether or not the Dead Sea Scrolls are displayed at the local DMV doesn’t conflict with your beliefs, but may be an insult to ancient Mesopotamians living in your community. Get over it…
(Nanopundit) The display has nothing to do with which TV program character you slap next to your sculpture. Well established displays, that have stood without contest, for a undetermined (but I would imagine greater than 5-10yr) period of time are grandfathered into the ruling. New displays are ruled illegal. And, before all the NeoCons come out of the wordwork squawking, the opinion that the law is derived from Judeo-Christian beliefs became moot the day the framers wrote about “seperation of church and state”.
Comment by Michael — June 27, 2005 @ 3:46 pm
Michael–Before you go off half-cocked, you might want to actually read up on “seperation of church and state.” The phrase is no where in the Constitution, nor in the Bill of Rights, nor in the Federalist Papers. It is a phrase that Thomas Jefferson used in passing in a private letter. At the time of the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights many states had official state religions. The Establishment Clause (before it was incorporated in the 14th Amendment) was meant to keep the federal government from interfering with the state’s right to develop the morality of its citizens. The phrase “seperation of church and state” has no legitimate place in the Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence. At least (most) neo-cons know what they’re talking about before they open their mouth (or in this case, set their fingers on the keyboard).
Comment by Fern R — June 27, 2005 @ 4:34 pm
(Fern R) And I guess actually reading posts before going off full-cocked is right out of the question.
Notice the word “about”, as in “wrote about”. And the fact that Jefferson wrote that statement to a Baptist congregation in Connecticut means that it should be held in lesser value than the one penned in Philadelphia? In that letter, he stated (paraphrasing) that the government would not impose religion on the state, or it’s residents.
Also, I don’t believe I stated the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Federalist Papers in my post. Regardless of any state’s official religions in the 1700’s, that is not currently the case now. The 10 Commandments are not found in the al-Qur’an, the Talmud, the Tao-te-ching, or many other international religious texts. Notice the word “international”, as your state, I am sure, does not currently dictate one religion over another. All of the above texts exist in the world, along with the many versions of the Judeo-Christian Bible, thus necessitating a need to co-exist. A judge who has the crucifixtion sitting on his bench next to his gavel does not “imply” impartiality, regardless of intent.
Serving: 30 – love.
Comment by Michael — June 27, 2005 @ 5:07 pm
“Also, I don’t believe I stated the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Federalist Papers in my post.”
I know. Which is my point. If the phrase was found in one of those documents, it would be a legitimate source of Constitutional Law (or in the case of the Federalist Papers, a well respected source of information about the founder’s intentions). Last time I checked, the people of the United States never ratified any of Jefferson’s letters. As such, the fact that one founder used the phrase in one private letter is meaningless and certainly doesn’t make anything a moot point.
If it were the case that one letter from one founder could form a legitimate source of constitutional law, the overwhelming number of documents written at the time Jefferson wrote that letter would negate any legitimacy of Jefferson’s letter.
Comment by Fern R — June 27, 2005 @ 6:13 pm
Fern R, so do ya really want your kids in school in Utah to be subject to a Mormon education while my kids in Maryland are taught to support Catholicism, the state sponsored religion there? If you are really serious about religion, the LAST thing you should want is state involvement or promotion. Once that starts, don’t get the deluded idea that Karl Rove and the Republicans can limit it to Westerized Protestantism. Soon the Reverend Moon will buy a few elections and being a Moonie will be the official religion of Rhode Island or something.
Comment by kim — June 27, 2005 @ 6:22 pm
Michael,
Jefferson said (and did) many things in his private, personal life that I (and you, I suspect) would disagree with. Read up on him. And then tell me that I should give as much (or any, for that matter) precedential value to a private letter he wrote, compared with the Constitution.
And while you’re at it, please explain why it took until the first half of the 20th century for the wall of separation argument to find its way from Jefferson’s personal letter to the Supreme Court? That’s about 150 years! Was it because the early Americans were just not that enlightened? If that’s the case, why are we trying to abide by a 215 year old document drafted by them? If we’re so much smarter than them we should just change and add a bunch of stuff to the Constitution that was never contemplated by the founding fathers and which has no basis in the original text of the document.
And then next we can update those old-fashioned tennis rules that just don’t make any sense and were probably made up by folks as unenlightened as our founding fathers. After all, tennis regulations should be living, breathing rules too…just like the Constitution! First change: Make tennis more like golf…lowest score wins! Hey man, I noticed you have 30 and all the people you’re yelling at have “love.” Sorry, buddy.
P.S. Spellchecker is our friend!
Comment by Not Michael — June 27, 2005 @ 6:29 pm
Kim–Well, since I am Jewish, I think I’ll choose neither. Which doesn’t change the original meaning of the Establishment Clause. There is a difference between personal preference and what the Constitution permits. Policy decisions (like the amount of religion permitted in a public school, or even if we should have public schools at all) should be left up to the elected branches of government, which is what our Consitution demands.
Comment by Fern R — June 27, 2005 @ 8:59 pm
More importantly to me, local cable monopolies stay in place. That sucks.
Comment by James Schend — June 28, 2005 @ 12:50 am
Judge Judy gets a star; Judge Hatchett ruling overturned
The Hollywood Reporter notes: The Hollywood Chamber of Commerce has selected Judge Judy Scheindlin to receive a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame for 2006. Judge Mills Lane can’t be far behind. In other news, The Onion reported recently…
Comment by Transatlantic Zeppelin — June 28, 2005 @ 1:15 am
So, Fern, if a public school decides to show the Passion of the Christ and spend a whole week disucssing the murder of Jesus by the Jews, you don’t think that offends the Constitution? I don’t think your child, if subjected to such a discussion, would agree that the courts should not step in.
Comment by kim — June 29, 2005 @ 10:47 am
Kim–You’re missing my point. Let me explain it again. The Constitution is not some catch all to right every “wrong” decision public officials make. On the contrary, the Constitution allows elected officials broad discretion in how they go about the people’s business and only restricts their activities in relatively few situations. Just because a school (or any other government agency) does something I personally don’t think is wise does not mean they have violated the Constitution. You can try and make this personal for me by including references to my religion and how I want my children to be educated, but that still doesn’t change what the Constitution says nor what it requires.
Comment by Fern R — June 29, 2005 @ 2:02 pm
free rape stories
rape rape pics breast torture domestic violence torture brutal sex tortu…
Comment by Anonymous — August 25, 2005 @ 2:44 am