Comments on: Wednesday’s Arguments in Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wednesdays-arguments-in-van-orden-v-perry-and-mccreary-county-v-aclu-of-kentucky/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:56:34 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Anonymous http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wednesdays-arguments-in-van-orden-v-perry-and-mccreary-county-v-aclu-of-kentucky/comment-page-1/#comment-6294 Anonymous Wed, 03 Aug 2005 09:08:42 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/wednesdays-arguments-in-van-orden-v-perry-and-mccreary-county-v-aclu-of-kentucky/#comment-6294 <strong>buy viagra online</strong> <a href="http://zooland.dnip.net" rel="nofollow">generic viagra</a> viagra online <a href="http://zooland.dnip.net/viagra.html" rel="nofollow">viagra side effects</a> viagra <a href="http://zooland.dnip.net/generic-viagra.html" rel="nofollow">female viagra</a> alternatives to viagra alternatives to viagra <a href="http... buy viagra online

generic viagra viagra online viagra side effects viagra female viagra alternatives to viagra alternatives to viagra ]]> By: Arthur http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wednesdays-arguments-in-van-orden-v-perry-and-mccreary-county-v-aclu-of-kentucky/comment-page-1/#comment-6291 Arthur Sun, 20 Mar 2005 06:31:49 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/wednesdays-arguments-in-van-orden-v-perry-and-mccreary-county-v-aclu-of-kentucky/#comment-6291 Greg, It's tenable. Wallace v. Jaffree held that Courts could disregard "sham" secular purposes. But I don't think saying there's some evidence McCreary County is wrong necessarily suffices to demonstrate it's a sham. What if this is an honest disagreement? Even if we think they've got the worse end of it, if they believe it, it's not a sham. The purpose is secular even if the historical analysis is weak - and it's unclear which way the Court would go. Greg,

It’s tenable. Wallace v. Jaffree held that Courts could disregard “sham” secular purposes. But I don’t think saying there’s some evidence McCreary County is wrong necessarily suffices to demonstrate it’s a sham. What if this is an honest disagreement? Even if we think they’ve got the worse end of it, if they believe it, it’s not a sham. The purpose is secular even if the historical analysis is weak – and it’s unclear which way the Court would go.

]]> By: Greg Morrow http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wednesdays-arguments-in-van-orden-v-perry-and-mccreary-county-v-aclu-of-kentucky/comment-page-1/#comment-6290 Greg Morrow Wed, 02 Mar 2005 18:48:55 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/wednesdays-arguments-in-van-orden-v-perry-and-mccreary-county-v-aclu-of-kentucky/#comment-6290 What evidence is there that the Ten Commandments actually are part of the "Foundations of American Law"? State police-power laws enact the murder, theft, and lying provisions, and historically, the Sabbath and adultery provisions, I suppose, but only the latter two are in any sense derived from the law of Moses; the others are universal across society. Furthermore, simple state laws don't seem terribly foundational to me; I would tend to limit that to actual fundamental documents, like the various state and federal Constitutions and similar documents relating to the founding of our system of government, such as the Federalist Papers. In fact, Blackstone seems to be far more directly a "Foundation of American Law" than the Ten Commandments, except that, dispositively for this discussion, the parts of Blackstone dealing with religious parts of English Law were decisively rejected by the Founders, with the Establishment Clause being the most clear rebuke of that. In short, the argument that the Ten Commandments can be mounted in a display of legal heritage seems transparently pretextual. Is this a tenable argument to make with respect to these cases? What evidence is there that the Ten Commandments actually are part of the “Foundations of American Law”? State police-power laws enact the murder, theft, and lying provisions, and historically, the Sabbath and adultery provisions, I suppose, but only the latter two are in any sense derived from the law of Moses; the others are universal across society.

Furthermore, simple state laws don’t seem terribly foundational to me; I would tend to limit that to actual fundamental documents, like the various state and federal Constitutions and similar documents relating to the founding of our system of government, such as the Federalist Papers.

In fact, Blackstone seems to be far more directly a “Foundation of American Law” than the Ten Commandments, except that, dispositively for this discussion, the parts of Blackstone dealing with religious parts of English Law were decisively rejected by the Founders, with the Establishment Clause being the most clear rebuke of that.

In short, the argument that the Ten Commandments can be mounted in a display of legal heritage seems transparently pretextual. Is this a tenable argument to make with respect to these cases?

]]> By: Truth. Quante-fied. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wednesdays-arguments-in-van-orden-v-perry-and-mccreary-county-v-aclu-of-kentucky/comment-page-1/#comment-6293 Truth. Quante-fied. Wed, 02 Mar 2005 16:59:34 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/wednesdays-arguments-in-van-orden-v-perry-and-mccreary-county-v-aclu-of-kentucky/#comment-6293 <strong>More on the Ten Commandments</strong> SCOTUSblog has a lot more to say on the subject, including some basic underlying legal theory, the arguments on both sides, and links to the briefs on both sides. More on the Ten Commandments

SCOTUSblog has a lot more to say on the subject, including some basic underlying legal theory, the arguments on both sides, and links to the briefs on both sides.

]]> By: David http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wednesdays-arguments-in-van-orden-v-perry-and-mccreary-county-v-aclu-of-kentucky/comment-page-1/#comment-6289 David Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:50:51 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/wednesdays-arguments-in-van-orden-v-perry-and-mccreary-county-v-aclu-of-kentucky/#comment-6289 I got to play Justice-for-a-day when this case was moot-courted at Harvard a couple of weeks ago (more, including my prediction, at http://tinyurl.com/3njw6). And having studied the briefs, I can't agree with you that the facts of the cases are similar (any more than the facts of Lynch v. Donnelly and Allegheny County v. ACLU, which both involve creches on public property but which came out differently, are similar). Actually, I think the facts are about as different as two Ten Commandments cases could be, which IMHO is why both cases are being heard (instead of arguing one and holding the other). By upholding the display in one (Van Orden) and striking it in the other (McCreary), which is what I think they'll do, the Court avoids the perception of a broad pronouncement on the Ten Commandments (either pro or con). Instead, they get to keep Establishment Clause cases on the painful case-by-case track that they're currently on. Someday the Court may figure out how to get away from the "creches are OK if they're surrounded by a couple of reindeer" methodology, but they won't do it in these cases. (I hope they prove me wrong!) Also, a note to the administrators: if you enable html, your commenters won't have to leave annoying urls in the comments! I got to play Justice-for-a-day when this case was moot-courted at Harvard a couple of weeks ago (more, including my prediction, at http://tinyurl.com/3njw6). And having studied the briefs, I can’t agree with you that the facts of the cases are similar (any more than the facts of Lynch v. Donnelly and Allegheny County v. ACLU, which both involve creches on public property but which came out differently, are similar). Actually, I think the facts are about as different as two Ten Commandments cases could be, which IMHO is why both cases are being heard (instead of arguing one and holding the other). By upholding the display in one (Van Orden) and striking it in the other (McCreary), which is what I think they’ll do, the Court avoids the perception of a broad pronouncement on the Ten Commandments (either pro or con). Instead, they get to keep Establishment Clause cases on the painful case-by-case track that they’re currently on. Someday the Court may figure out how to get away from the “creches are OK if they’re surrounded by a couple of reindeer” methodology, but they won’t do it in these cases. (I hope they prove me wrong!)

Also, a note to the administrators: if you enable html, your commenters won’t have to leave annoying urls in the comments!

]]> By: jewishbuddha dot org http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wednesdays-arguments-in-van-orden-v-perry-and-mccreary-county-v-aclu-of-kentucky/comment-page-1/#comment-6292 jewishbuddha dot org Wed, 02 Mar 2005 09:05:03 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/wednesdays-arguments-in-van-orden-v-perry-and-mccreary-county-v-aclu-of-kentucky/#comment-6292 <strong>11th Commandment</strong> Thou Shalt Not Pass Up Opportunities. It's 5 o'clock in the A.M. It's about 32 degrees, before wind. It's very... 11th Commandment

Thou Shalt Not Pass Up Opportunities. It’s 5 o’clock in the A.M. It’s about 32 degrees, before wind. It’s very…

]]>