SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston thinks that two of today’s Ten Commandment-related Supreme Court rulings, in his words, “could serve as an implied endorsement of such displays – in the right context.”
In some ways, the outcome Monday for other government sites resembles the Court’s approach to the Christian nativity scene on government property: the religious nature of the manger scene can be neutralized, and thus made constitutionally accepted, if it is surrounded by other objects that are non-religious in character. (See the Pawtucket, R.I.,case, Lynch v. Donnelly, in 1984).
If government officials are careful not to say publicly that the reason they are displaying the Ten Commandments is to promote religion, and not to say publicly that they are commemorating Jesus as “the Prince of Ethics,†and if they put up this sacred text amid a “display on law or history,†they probably can satisfy the two new decisions.
John Podheretz, writing at The Corner, is not as sanguine.
Michelle Malkin rounds up other reaction. And scroll her site for coverage of the rest of today’s decisions, as well.
Hmm, this is a tough one.
Podhoretz completely disregards the context distinction made within the decision, which actually specifically addresses a SC frieze:
As I read over the opinion, it seemed to make sense to me: Considering context favors common sense over a binary assessment where any religious imagery on public land is equivalent to establishment.
Then I read Scalia’s dissent and it was pretty convincing.
I can’t figure out what to be OUTRAGED about on this one, if anything. Outrage delayed is outrage denied, dammit.
Yeah. I got momentarily outraged, then had a Diet Dr. Pepper, opened my new John Waters DVD box set, and went right back to being outraged over Kelo.
For what it’s worth, I think Denniston has it about right—though I disagree with the majority that the Commandments being displayed in and of themselves violates the Establishment Clause. I think they essentially punted.
This fight has always amused the Hell out of me. I don’t think it violates the Constitution, but most of these displays seem to be “graven images” to me, which would be a violation of the second Commandment.
Only if they’re being worshipped, B Moe. And one would think a stronger case in that regard could be made against Jerusalem’s Wailing Wall than against a display most people barely glance at in passing.
Oh look! It’s the annual SCOTUS punt on 4th and Separation of Church and State!
And this year they were only 13 days behind last year.
Like fireworks and the Fourth of July, SCOTUS punting when it matters is the American Way.
But look at the hang time!!
And of course, the pie. Let’s not forget the pie.
How long until football is back? Please, someone tell me it won’t be that long. Please?……