The Supreme Court muddled things today, with a pair of late-session rulings on the display of the Ten Commandments that left even Justice Scalia scratching his head. In a case from Kentucky, a 5-4 court ruled that displaying the Ten Commandments inside a courthouse is an unconstitutional establishment of religion. Unless it isn't. In this case, it was unconstitutionial, but every instance is going to have to be judged on a case-by-case basis. The copy of the Ten Commandments posted inside the Supreme Court, for example, passes constitutional muster. I'm a member of Mensa, and I don't quite get the distinction.
Evidently neither did Scalia, who complained bitterly about a lack of guiding principle in today's decisions. He noted that the absence of a clear principle was a sign of tyrrany.
What set him off was the second decision, on a case in Texas, in which the justices ruled 5-4 that a display of the Ten Commandments outside the building, on the courthouse lawn, is OK. The logic - or principle - applied vaguely in the first decision seems to contradict the second decision.
I'm having trouble at the moment finding any pundits who have reconciled these two decisions.
Comments