Friday, March 04, 2005
My Prediction on the Ten Commandments Case
Justice O'Connor upholds five, strikes down five.
Yeah, but you're getting off too easy there, Jack. The truly difficult question -- the one that's dividing the Court-watching community (if you can call 17 people a "community") -- is: *Which* five? In particular, what will she decide about the prohibition on coveting thy neighbor's ox?
To be precise, Justice Scalia, joined by three other justices, writes an opinion upholding the display of the Ten Commandments, while Justice Ginsburg, joined by three other justices, writes an opinion banning their display. Justice O'Connor, writing seperately, joins Justice Ginsburg as to Parts I, III, V, VII and IX, and Justice Scalia as to Parts II, IV, VI, VIII and X.
Unfortunately, as Justices Scalia and Ginsburg use different versions of the Ten Commandments, no one knows which commandments are kosher.
I've had a long day, so I must confess it took at least 8 seconds before I caught on, which made it all the more hilarious when I did. Thanks
That's the future of our country, all right.
At least the first 4 are toast.
The last 6 depend on Justice O'Connor's efforts to discern their "legislative history."
Justice Kennedy will vote to strike them all down because the world is becoming more secular, especially Western Europe. He'll pretend that he agonized about it and that he respects the other side.
Kennedy will say that they are unconstitutional because young people might see them and it would stunt their "potential to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity."
What Kennedy, Breyer and the rest of their one-world Socilaist should just say is this, if they were beign honest.
We rule the display of the 10 Commandments unconstitutional because we want to be more accepted at our summer junkets in Europe and our desire that the law professors at Yale, Harvard, and NYU speak of us in more reverent terms. After all, the posting of them will eventually incite the religious hatred that permeates most of the world. Their provactive nature would cause more hatred of the United States in the Muslim world for our insensitivity. If they are on display on Kentucky, the people of Yemen may feel unwelcome to visit or illegally immigrate one day, denying their rights under the hate crime laws of Sweden and Canada. The Constitution obviously is offended when Yemenis are, and accordingly we order they be taken down immediately.
BREYER, J. Concurring in the judgment.
I write seperately to emphasise for law professors everywhere that it is me, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Stevens, and Souter who made up the majority, not those zealots Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist. Please praise us and criticize them accordingly. I also remind my European friends of my own enlightenment.
That is funny. Thanks for inspiring me...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/02/politics/02cnd-scotus.html?ex=1267506000&en=a68d45feea6b90d0&ei=5090&partner=rssuserlandPost a Comment
Not as strange/out there as it may seem. From the NYT's summary of oral argument:
Justice David H. Souter asked whether a tablet containing only the last five commandments, the injunctions against killing, stealing and so on, might be constitutional because, unlike the first five, they did not necessarily imply religious belief.
That would be a harder case, Mr. Chemerinsky replied, but such a tablet would still be unconstitutional because it would still convey the Ten Commandments' message.