Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Ten Commandments case

ABC News reports: "In a narrowly drawn ruling, the Supreme Court struck down Ten Commandments displays in courthouses Monday, holding that two exhibits in Kentucky crossed the line between separation of church and state because they promoted a religious message." Scalia wasn’t amused, nor am I. Stay tuned for details at How Appealing.

Discussions - 8 Comments

What do we expect for 1) four Statists (the liberal bloc), 2) two rudderless dimwits (Kennedy and O’Connor), and 3) three beleaguered stalwarts who understand the purpose of this nation (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas). When every decision hinges on the arbitrary feelings of the dimwit bloc, well...what do you expect? We desperately need O’Connor to retire and to be replaced by a real conservative...sorry to state the obvious.

What I have trouble understanding is how the Court can be this liberal after having Republican Presidents for 23 of the last 35 years! The GOP has to have the guts to push through true conservatives...flying under the radar (Souter, for instance) just doesn’t cut it.

Government officals were made increasingly uncomfortable by the eighth commandment, this particular bit of archaic legislation having been superceded by last week’s Kelo decision.

The Justices should be embarassed, although I am sure they are not, by the ridiculous split on these cases. A piece of paper with the Ten Commandments is unconstitutional, but a 3-ton monument of the same text is okay? This is what you get when no 3 of the Justices have no jurisprudence whatsoever, but instead pick and choose whatever the hell makes them feel good that particular day.

OV, if you are referring to Scalia, Thomas and Rhenquist, then you are dead wrong. They are the only ones who even begin to follow the Constitution. What a horribly inaccurate thing to say!

You must have me confused with one of the other Ohio Voters (I think there are three of us). I was referring to Kennedy, Breyer, and particularly O’Connor. The three that you mentioned are generally consistent, as are the three remaining Justices (even though I think those three are consistently wrong). Kennedy and O’Connor, however, have demonstrated time and again that they have no consistent jurisprudence, no respect whatsoever for stare decisis (for an extreme example, see Roper from earlier this term, where Kennedy even overruled himself), and have undue influence because they swing whatever way they feel like. And take a look at Breyer’s concurrence in Van Orden this week. He flat out stated that he does not follow rules, or tests, but rather his own opinions. That is expressly what a judge should not do. He supplants the law with his opinion, and replaces the Constitution with the whims of five elitists.

Whew, you had me worried.

Dain, do you have a job? I notice that you seem to find time to respond to just about every post, and in great detail, too. Seriously, I think you should put me in touch with your supervisor so that I can make them aware of the great amount of time you spend vomiting up right-wing drivel. Although I guess if you work for the AEI or something like that, they’d probably be pleased to hear it.

Let’s just say that I’m one of those people who was smart enough to pick a career that gave me some leisure time :)

In all seriousness, keeping up with all you Leftists is getting wearisome. I really could be doing things that are more productive (and lucrative)...it’s too bad that Peter and Co. are so damned "hand’s off" when it comes to replies. Fung is right about posting, if nothing else...it’s kind of addicting.

Fear not, I’ll wear out soon, and then I’ll drop out for a month or two. Then there will be few left to gainsay you.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/6828