Split Decision on the 10 Commandments

And a little hypocrisy for the court itself

Published on June 27, 2005 By Dr Guy In Politics

The Supreme court ruled on 2 displays of the 10 commandments. In one, they ruled that they could not be displayed in courthouses, except their own (as there is one on the Supreme Court). In the other, they ruled the 10 commandments can be displayed on Government property.

For most rational thinking people, this clearly is a set of decisions that cannot easily be explained. And it goes to show how some just cant make up their mind on the legality of religious symbols in government. The only reason that one was upheld and the other was struck down was due to Breyer as he was the swing vote on both apparently.

But more so than giving a partial victory to the advocates of the 10 commandments, this split decision just opens a can or worms that I am sure will be tested over the coming years. And where the new rulings will fall is anyone's guess.

Personally, I wish they had been consistent so we could say goodbye to the issue once and for all. But in switching his Vote, Justice Breyer has guaranteed that nuances are going to percolate up through the courts for the foreseeable future.

If congress had any Cahones, they would pass a Constitutional Amendment either supporting the display, or outright banning it so that lawyers would not be feasting for years to come on the carcass of this days rulings.

Comments (Page 2)

kingbee

on Jun 29, 2005

They are the basis. That does not mean they should be displayed, but where the hell do you think they came from? The ether?

the code of hammurabi predates the 10 commandments. us law--like british law--is based on roman law.

kingbee

on Jun 29, 2005

I dont see him taking cheap shots at you and the other liberals, even tho you smear him as a sex fiend and uncle tom

i've never said he was an uncle tom. i read an interview with one of his law clerks before he was nominated in which he was portrayed as a regular guy for having a great sense of humor and joking with his clerks about porno films he'd seen. he perjured himself during his nomination.

kingbee

on Jun 29, 2005

You do define the liberals very well. No one ever accused them of having principals or backbone.

yall have the mandate.

Dr Guy

on Jun 29, 2005

the code of hammurabi predates the 10 commandments. us law--like british law--is based on roman law.

And roman law is based on the 10 commandments since the 4th century.

Dr Guy

on Jun 29, 2005

I saw Souter playing footsies with his law clerk, so he must have perjured himself as well.

My tale is about as useful as yours. I can say anything I want and suffer no consequences since I am not under oath and do not have to produce any evidence.

Cheap shot is what that is called.

Dr Guy

on Jun 29, 2005

yall have the mandate.

Not many liberals admit that. Guess you have seen the light.

kingbee

on Jun 29, 2005

I can say anything I want and suffer no consequences since I am not under oath and do not have to produce any evidence

if we were in court, you'd be right. i found the entirety of the interview in a magazine sometime later. i guess i need to hit the microfiche at the library. it'll definitely be worth the effort. even i couldnt have made it up.

kingbee

on Jun 30, 2005

And roman law is based on the 10 commandments since the 4th century.

do tell.

look up the history of roman law and/or the development of common law in wikipedia (here...i'll even provide you with links: Linkand Link) or any authoritative law history text.

if you're trying to suggest justinian merged classical imperial roman law with the 10 commandments, you gotta stop reading 'i used to cudnt spel loyyer and now i are wun' by roy moore.

here's a hint: mosaic law and shariah (as well as other legal systems that arise from a religious tradition) attempt to codify man's responsibilities to both the divine and other men; english common law and roman law (as well as other legal systems that are essentially secular) deal only with things of this earth.

like i said, moore and scalia (if he truly believes that crap he's spouting...which seems doubtful) never shoulda made it thru first year law suffering under the misapprehension that our legal system is based primarily or even in large part on the 10 commandments.

Chakgogka

on Jun 30, 2005

us law--like british law--is based on roman law

Interestingly enough, there is no system of British law, although there are laws governing the whole of the United Kingdom. Great Britain came into existence when the Kingdoms of England and Scotland united in 1707. The Scots lost their parliament (which they got back in 1999), but have kept to this day their separate legal system.

Whereas English law is based on common law and looks to custom and precedence to settle disputes, Scottish law is based more closely on Roman law and is guided more by reason than precedence.

Another peculiarity of Scottish law is that juries are able to return one of three verdicts: guilty, not-guilty and not proven ("probably did it, but not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, so the accused is free to go")

Dr Guy

on Jun 30, 2005

I was not inferring you had made it up, but that the originator had made it up. Sorry for the Confusion.

Dr Guy

on Jun 30, 2005

like i said, moore and scalia (if he truly believes that crap he's spouting...which seems doubtful) never shoulda made it thru first year law suffering under the misapprehension that our legal system is based primarily or even in large part on the 10 commandments.

First, I dont think either said primarily. But I could be wrong. But it played a heavy influence on the laws of the romans, and then the Anglo Saxons and Americans as, as much as today's liberals would like to hide the fact, society back in those days was very heavily religious in nature, with the Clergy holding almost equal power with the ruling class.

Dr Guy

on Jun 30, 2005

Another peculiarity of Scottish law is that juries are able to return one of three verdicts: guilty, not-guilty and not proven ("probably did it, but not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, so the accused is free to go")

YOu mentioned this once before and I asked you if the third choice made any difference in actual results. If you answered, I missed it. I am curious if the difference is just cosmetic, or substantial.

Chakgogka

on Jun 30, 2005

YOu mentioned this once before and I asked you if the third choice made any difference in actual results

As I understand it, in terms of walking free, there is no difference between 'not proven' and 'not guilty'. However, there is a common assumption that this is a jury's way of saying "we think you did it, but the prosecution didn't make the case 'beyond a reasonable doubt'". And because the assumption is so common it is likely that juries sometimes use it accordingly.

The 'not proven' verdict is apparently a hang over from a previous age in which juries would rule on individual factual issues in a case as 'proven' or 'not proven' whereupon the judge would rule, on the basis of the facts found 'proven' by the jury, whether or not these were sufficient to establish guilt of the crime. Nowadays, this is usually the job of the jury.

So I guess, in terms of the effect on the defendant's liberty the difference is 'cosmetic', but in terms of the defendant's reputation fairly 'substantial'.

Dr Guy

on Jul 01, 2005

So I guess, in terms of the effect on the defendant's liberty the difference is 'cosmetic', but in terms of the defendant's reputation fairly 'substantial'.

Thanks for the explanation. I think that the US could really use that extra option, as all so often when someone is found not guilty, everyone credits their lawyer as being so good as to get them off. We recently had 2 such cases. MJ and Robert Blake. I honestly beleive that Robert is innocent, but since he was tried so many people naturally assume he must be guilty. Same with MJ, excpet in his case, I think he is guilty, altho I knew the case against him was very weak.

That is why I think we really should pick that option up from the Scottish. Thanks again for the explanation.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!