Commandments Barred at Courthouse, but Not On Government Land. Huh?

The vote was 5-4, with Sandra Day O'Connor the swing vote on this one, too!

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Scotus-Ten-Commandments.html?ei=5094&en=b1dc0f49600b86df&hp=&ex=1119931200&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

June 27, 2005

Commandments Barred at Courts but Not on Government Land

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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.

Justices left legal wiggle room, 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.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm

http://www.indybay.org/print.php?id=1719333

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/052805A.shtml

Fascism is actually based on a state religion to control the masses

"Of course, the Ten Commandments are religious -- they were so viewed at their inception and so remain. The monument therefore has religious significance," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the majority in the case involving the display outside the state capitol of Texas.

Did Rehnquist vote against the 10 Commandments in these two instances?

So, who were the five? Scalia and, I imagine, Thomas.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Scotus-Ten-Commandments.html?ei=5094&en=b1dc0f49600b86df&hp=&ex=1119931200&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

June 27, 2005

Commandments Barred at Courts but Not on Government Land

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


WASHINGTON -- A sharply divided Supreme Court on Monday upheld the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments on government land, but drew the line on displays inside courthouses, saying they violated the doctrine of separation of church and state.

In that 5-4 ruling and another ruling, involving the positioning of a 6-foot granite monument of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas capitol, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the swing vote. The second ruling, likewise, was 5-4.

<>The justices voting on the prevailing side in the Kentucky case left themselves legal wiggle room, saying that some displays inside courthouses -- like their own courtroom frieze -- would be permissible if they're portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation's legal history.

<>In contrast, a 6-foot-granite monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol -- one of 17 historical displays on the 22-acre lot -- was determined to be a legitimate tribute to the nation's legal and religious history.

more...

he will have a perpetual woody now :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

The second paragraph of your link:
"But each exhibit demands scrutiny to determine whether it goes too far in amounting to a governmental promotion of religion, the court said in a case involving Kentucky courthouse exhibits."

This ought to be fun... NOT!

n/t