Reply
Mon 27 Jun, 2005 04:06 pm
Edit (Moderator): Starting new threads to continue discussions from locked threads is against the TOS; these threads will be pulled. However, as only the former thread title and a few posts indicated this purpose, we have split out the acceptable content here. The thread author may edit the title to better reflect the current content. (As always, direct any questions or comments to the Help Desk.)
US justices issue mixed rulings on Ten Commandments By James Vicini
43 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that putting framed copies of the Ten Commandments in county courthouses violated church-state separation, but it allowed a commandments monument in a larger display on a state Capitol grounds.
The two 5-4 rulings on the politically charged issue of displaying the Ten Commandments on government property came in a pair of cases regarded as the most important of the court term concerning constitutional separation of church and state.
In one decision, the high court ruled that Kentucky officials acted with a "predominantly religious purpose" when they posted framed copies of the Ten Commandments on the walls of courthouses in McCreary and Pulaski counties.
In the other decision, the high court upheld the large granite monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on the Texas Capitol grounds as part of a display that included numerous other monuments and statutes.
Part of the distinction between the two rulings turned on the intent of government officials concerning the displays and whether they conveyed a mainly religious message.
A number of legal battles have taken place around the country in recent years over displays of the Ten Commandments on government property, dividing the public and producing conflicting rulings by U.S. appeals courts.
The Republican administration of President Bush supported each of the latest displays. The Supreme Court last ruled on the issue in 1980 when it banned the posting of copies of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms.
Justice Stephen Breyer, normally one of the court's more liberal members, provided a key swing vote in the two cases, joining the majority to strike down the Kentucky displays and then joining four of the court's conservatives to uphold the Texas monument.
RELIGIOUS OBJECTIVES
Breyer said the Texas case differed from the Kentucky one where the history of the courthouse displays demonstrated "the substantially religious objectives" of those who put them up and that it had this effect on those who viewed them.
The two rulings produced 10 separate opinions that totaled about 140 pages. Justice Clarence Thomas, who strongly supported the displays, said the inconsistency between the two decisions would only compound the confusion over what was permissible.
In the Kentucky ruling, Justice David Souter said for the majority that state officials were not following the neutrality and church-state separation demanded by the framers of the Constitution.
"This is no time to turn our back on a principle of neutrality that has served freedom and liberty," he said from the bench in summarizing the ruling for the court majority.
He said the Kentucky displays were different from the marble frieze by the ceiling of the Supreme Court courtroom that depicts Moses with a tablet representing the Ten Commandments. That one included 17 other lawgivers, he said.
Justice Antonin Scalia issued a blistering dissent that was joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Thomas and Anthony Kennedy.
Scalia cited the role of religion in U.S. history. He said presidents still conclude the presidential oath with the words "so help me God" and that U.S. coins bear the motto, "In God we trust."
In the Texas case, Rehnquist said for the majority that the state has treated the monuments on the capitol grounds as representing several strands in the state's political and legal history.
Including the Ten Commandments monument has a dual significance, partaking of both religion and government, he said, adding that it stood among 21 historical markers and 17 monuments surrounding the Texas State Capitol.
Reaction to the ruling was split.
"This is a mixed verdict, but on balance it's a win for separation of religion and government," said the Rev. Barry Lynn of the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Supporters of the displays emphasized the Texas ruling.
"It is very encouraging that the Supreme Court ... moved to protect thousands of monuments now in place across America," said Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice. (additional reporting by Deborah Zabarenko)
--------------
And, while you're at it, I couldn't believe the ruling on property rights. I'm looking for a way to protest in a meaninglful way. How do you protest the SC?
What opinion did you have about seizure of private property?
I am perplexed as well as dismayed by this particular Supreme Court decision. So far nobody on A2K or on any talk shows I have watched or listened to or on any other threads are in favor of or support this in any way. So how did five SC judges come to vote for it?
Nobody? well ok perhaps I didn't specifically post on the subject but I lean towards support of the supremes ruling in that it is not a Fed issue, it is a state/community issue and I applaud the Supremes for staying out of state/commuity issues. If we the people elect the asswipes that approve taking private property for "the uncommon good" then we the people' need to be held responsible for electing them in the first place and not seek solice from the feds for what in fact is our own doing.
Another Supreme Court Decision. Comment?
Disorder in the court
Quote:Battered women across America have one more reason to cringe. A decision handed down by the Supreme Court yesterday will make it harder for them to fight back against the deadly scourge of domestic violence.
The sad, infuriating details of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales illustrate the desperate need for new laws to set right what the court got wrong. Our story starts in 1999, when a woman named Jessica Gonzales of Castle Rock, Colo., won a court order instructing her abusive estranged husband, Simon Gonzales, to stay 100 yards away from the family's home at all times.
But the husband had limited rights to visit the couple's three children, Rebecca, Kathryn and Leslie, ages 10, 8 and 7. And barely a month after the restraining order was issued, he violated it by unexpectedly showing up and secretly taking the three girls away without permission.
Jessica Gonzales called the police at 7:30 p.m. and reported that her husband had abducted the children, and again at 8:30 when a cell phone conversation with Simon revealed they were at a Denver amusement park. All this time, the cops in Castle Rock refused to chase down the husband, telling Jessica Gonzales to call back if the kids weren't home by 10 p.m.
The frantic mother called again just after 10; the cops did nothing. She called again at midnight, and filed a report in person at a police station at 1 a.m. Still, the cops stayed put.
Finally, Simon arrived at the police station around 3:30 in the morning and opened fire on the cops, who returned fire and killed him. A search of the dead man's pickup truck revealed the bodies of all three daughters, whom Simon had murdered.
Jessica Gonzales sued the town for failing to enforce her legally valid order of protection - an order that, under Colorado law, directly instructs cops that "you shall use every reasonable means to enforce this restraining order. You shall arrest ... the restrained person" if there is probable cause to believe the order has been violated.
That tough, unmistakably clear language was the Colorado Legislature's deliberate attempt to prevent exactly what the cops did to Jessica Gonzales. A state court and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the cops' lax performance violated Gonzales' due process rights and gave her grounds to sue. The Supreme Court could easily have let those lower-court rulings stand.
But Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for a majority of the Supreme Court, overruled Colorado and found Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to sue the police. Despite the court order's clear instructions to the cops ("You shall arrest the restrained person"), Scalia decided that the police possessed discretion over how, when and whether to enforce the order.
The decision leaves women vulnerable in a nation where 2 million to 4 million women a year are severely injured by their husbands or intimate partners. New York City's domestic abuse hotline (800) 621-HOPE averages more than 400 calls a day, and more than 6,800 complaints of violations of orders of protection were filed in the city last year.
The Republicans who control Congress - many of whom miss no opportunity to complain about "activist judges" allegedly overruling local laws - should waste no time undoing Scalia's damage. We need a federal law giving states like Colorado the power to order police to protect women and children from domestic violence.
Women have the right not to be pooh-poohed by their local police when a maniac is threatening their lives and the lives of their children.
The responses will be interesting to read.
Do you have a source for that article Au?
As tragic as that case was, Au, the court decision was 7 to 2 on that one. Here's the town's side of the story:
A statement from The Town of Castle Rock on
Castle Rock vs. Gonzales
Well I'm not going to wade through all that. Perhaps you could isolate the one or few that would dispute the position of the town of Castlerock
To me, the biggest issue is the restraining order.
The article says he violated it.
That should have been enough to arrest him. Unless restraining orders are meaningless.
Of course, he could've easily murdered those poor girls during his allotted visitation.
I will also say anyone contemplating a private thread such as we have mutually agreed to have before-- can forget it.
But is the police department of one place obligated to enforce a restraining order issued by another? Especially when in this particular case the mother twice stated she did not believe her children were in danger?
Had the party involved been within the jurisdiction of the CRPD, and they failed to enforce their own restraining order, she would nevertheless have had a case. That they did not require the Denver PD to do so was the issue, and apparently the court ruled that they were not required to do so; thus they cannot be sued.
It remains to be seen if this case will be used to support protection for the police in cases where they more clearly are in deriliction of their duty, however. That part is scary.
Almost always, in questionable cases, I come down on the side of law enforcement. They have an incredibly dangerous, thankless, low wage job.
I didn't know if you were the estranged wife of a dangerous man, you had to seek legal protection in each jurisdiction. I'm floored. A restraining order to me should be universal...like the Amber Alerts and child molesters' identification.
I do understand your point, Fox. I just don't see the value of 'city limit jurisdiction' restraining orders.
And, (picky, I know), but it has no bearing to me that she said he wasn't dangrous that night. If you need a restraining order, it should have been established that he's dangerous in relation to the person who took out the order.
He broke the restraining order.
(Though, if she's had him picked up for that and he HADN'T hurt the girls, it would likely have ratcheted things up considerably. A woman in that situation can't win.
My argument is primarily with the courts. And, the system.
Well one reason I keep a gun in the house is I can't count on the police getting here in time should I really really need them to get here in time. However, having a nephew on the Albuquerque Police force, I hear about the stuff they have to put up with that would be best handled by other than the police.
I tend to agree that a restraining order should be universal, but I'm not sure the courts can be blamed for the system. And I'm torn between turning over still something else for the feds to make a universal law and keeping matters for the states to decide for their own.
In other words, I'm not 100% sure what I think about this one. I'm still thinking it through. I hope others will chime in.
I haven't yet read the findings and dissents, but have heard good analyses of them.
The property case is troubling. Local economic interests can be powerful and influential and the room for naughtiness seems too great.
The 10 commandment cases fell out in a manner which I find agreeable. That is, I see no need to remove or prohibit references to faith where it would be ahistorical to omit them. On the other hand, I very much agree with the understanding that where such displays are put up with the intention to forward faith (or a faith) they are in direct contention with the constitutional design - to forward freedom of any/all/no faiths (freedom of religion) through disallowing state preference.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace