You're So Wishy-Washy, Supreme Court Brown!
Or, How Breyer Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the 10 Commandments
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
Link
Most of you probably heard about the recent Supreme Court decision. You know, the one where they let the 10 Commandments stand after previously forcing them to be taken down. That one. Well, this issue hasn't been gone over until I point and laugh at everyone involved while somehow making a point through it all. Anyway, let's first go to the ruling where it was taken down. Five of the Justices, Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, O'Connor, and Breyer, voted in favor of taking them down. In the dissent were Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, Kennedy, and Thomas.
Yes, because the government can't be neutral on religion. No, we must clearly favor one religion over another! Erect large statues of Biblical figures all over government property! In fact, why do we even allow people to be different religions anyway? I mean, with all those references to God are in public life, we surely can't let people worship anything else. That would just be hypocritical.
Unless it's Texans trying to do it, of course, because Texans are cool! Yes, I'm referring to the other decision on this, the one where the 10 Commandments stayed up. In another recent decision, Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, Kennedy, Thomas, and Breyer voted against having the 10 Commandments taken down, while Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, and O'Connor voted for it.
Do you listen to how many religious references this guy puts in? You almost think he's siding with the dissent. Imagine how much religious connotation he would say it has if he was against it. They have an undeniable historical meaning and have legal connotations? Yeah, so does the Communist Manifesto, to some extent, but I don't see that hanging up in government buildings.
Yes, God's law is the law of Texas! Hordes of people have been brought to trial for not worshipping God! People who say the Lord's name in vain have been sentenced to jail! And I don't even want to start on how many have been brought there for not honoring their mother and father. I wasn't the only one to notice the inconsistency of the Supreme Court, of course.
Dude, you're stealing my jokes! Now what am I supposed to say?
Anyway, Breyer, I believe, has effectively made this debate even more bitter than it already was. In causing that inconsistency, he has given new talking points for supporters and opponents, and set us back from a decision either way. I'm a bit fuzzy on why he thought it was bad in the first one and good in the second, but I can't think of any good reason. Ah well. I should have known better than to think that we could move closer towards resolving an issue.
Most of you probably heard about the recent Supreme Court decision. You know, the one where they let the 10 Commandments stand after previously forcing them to be taken down. That one. Well, this issue hasn't been gone over until I point and laugh at everyone involved while somehow making a point through it all. Anyway, let's first go to the ruling where it was taken down. Five of the Justices, Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, O'Connor, and Breyer, voted in favor of taking them down. In the dissent were Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, Kennedy, and Thomas.
Listing the various ways in which higher beings are invoked in public life — from "so help me God" in inaugural oaths to the prayer that opens the Supreme Court's sessions — Scalia asked, "With all of this reality (and much more) staring it in the face, how can the court possibly assert that 'the First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality' [on religion]?"
End of quote
Yes, because the government can't be neutral on religion. No, we must clearly favor one religion over another! Erect large statues of Biblical figures all over government property! In fact, why do we even allow people to be different religions anyway? I mean, with all those references to God are in public life, we surely can't let people worship anything else. That would just be hypocritical.
"The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the 'First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion,'" Justice David H. Souter wrote in the majority opinion, citing previous court rulings.
End of quote
Unless it's Texans trying to do it, of course, because Texans are cool! Yes, I'm referring to the other decision on this, the one where the 10 Commandments stayed up. In another recent decision, Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, Kennedy, Thomas, and Breyer voted against having the 10 Commandments taken down, while Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, and O'Connor voted for it.
"According to Judeo-Christian belief, the Ten Commandments were given to Moses by God on Mt. Sinai. But Moses was a lawgiver as well as a religious leader. And the Ten Commandments have an undeniable historical meaning," Rehnquist said.
End of quote
Do you listen to how many religious references this guy puts in? You almost think he's siding with the dissent. Imagine how much religious connotation he would say it has if he was against it. They have an undeniable historical meaning and have legal connotations? Yeah, so does the Communist Manifesto, to some extent, but I don't see that hanging up in government buildings.
Having noted that the first commandment — "I am the Lord thy God" — is more boldly displayed than the other nine, Stevens wrote, "The message transmitted by Texas' chosen display is quite plain: This state endorses the divine code of the 'Judeo-Christian' God."
End of quote
Yes, God's law is the law of Texas! Hordes of people have been brought to trial for not worshipping God! People who say the Lord's name in vain have been sentenced to jail! And I don't even want to start on how many have been brought there for not honoring their mother and father. I wasn't the only one to notice the inconsistency of the Supreme Court, of course.
"There's a sort of road map for how to get away with putting these things up," he said. "On new displays, the lesson to politicians is to keep your mouth shut, don’t talk about what you're really doing, pretend you're putting this up for secular reasons, put some secular stuff around it and swear to the judge it's all for secular purposes."
And referring to Justice Breyer's observation that the monument had been up for 40 years before Van Orden complained, Laycock said: "The lesson for the opponents is if anything new goes up, find your plaintiff and sue right away before it becomes historically grandfathered."
And referring to Justice Breyer's observation that the monument had been up for 40 years before Van Orden complained, Laycock said: "The lesson for the opponents is if anything new goes up, find your plaintiff and sue right away before it becomes historically grandfathered."
End of quote
Dude, you're stealing my jokes! Now what am I supposed to say?
Anyway, Breyer, I believe, has effectively made this debate even more bitter than it already was. In causing that inconsistency, he has given new talking points for supporters and opponents, and set us back from a decision either way. I'm a bit fuzzy on why he thought it was bad in the first one and good in the second, but I can't think of any good reason. Ah well. I should have known better than to think that we could move closer towards resolving an issue.
