Selective "Activist Judges"

So the Supreme Court has ruled that The Ten Commandments don't belong in courthouses.

Well, I have to say, I'm pretty shocked by this. Good for them, first of all. It was a close vote... and they did leave themselves a "don't shoot us" clause:

The justices left themselves legal wiggle room on this issue, however, 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.

I can live with that.

But framed copies in two Kentucky courthouses went too far in endorsing religion, the court held.

"The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the majority.

"When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality," he said.

Damn right.

So, here's the prediction by Swami Spud:

News coverage on this will far outweigh the coverage on another recent Supreme Court ruling.This will be treated more seriously, and there will be more activism over the ten commandments than Wal-Mart taking away someone's home. The judges will be labeled "activist judges" for this, and not the eminent domain story.

I'm feeling pretty confident on this one.

(Bow down before the one you cross-post, you're gonna get what you deserve)

Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.

blog comments powered by Disqus