Split Decision on the 10 Commandments

If congress had any Cahones

all yall's weeping, gnashing of teeth and angry rants about activist judges provides the distraction legislators count on to keep everyone from noticing their dereliction of duty. obviously they feel they have a better chance of keeping their jobs by not doin them.

not that this merits an amendment (jeez what happened to the conservatives who used to be opposed to amending the constitution unless the founders showed up to help...and then they woulda only done it as a personal favor to tom & the boys?)

btw, next time youre around back of the supreme court building, look closely at mcneil's 'justice the guardian of liberty' sculpture and you'll see solon and confucius are on either side of moses inin keeping with the concept that what's being celebrated there is (as mcneil put it):

"Law as an element of civilization was normally and naturally derived or inherited in this country from former civilizations. The "Eastern Pediment" of the Supreme Court Building suggests therefore the treatment of such fundamental laws and precepts as are derived from the East. Moses, Confucius and Solon are chosen as representing three great civilizations and form the central group of this Pediment. "

check out the tablets moses is holding. notta commandment on either of em.

all yall's weeping, gnashing of teeth and angry rants about activist judges provides the distraction legislators count on to keep everyone from noticing their dereliction of duty. obviously they feel they have a better chance of keeping their jobs by not doin them.

If they would truly not do their job, that would be one thing.  instead they just pass useless laws and raise taxes.  That seems to be their job now, and I forgot what article that is in the Constitution.

check out the tablets moses is holding. notta commandment on either of em.

Better get your glasses fixed.  Check again:

However, the Biblical laws could be displayed in an historical context, as they are in a frieze in the Supreme Court building. Notably, the first four commandments, which have to do with honoring God and the Sabbath, were obscured by the artist who designed the frieze.

I guess the coin toss just came out differently for each case.

Better get your glasses fixed. Check again

for some reason i thought they were referring to the exterior sculpture. the tablets carried by moses as he's portrayed on the south wall--in the company of menes, hammurabi, solomon, lycurgus, solon, draco, confucius and octavian--deliberately depict only commandments 6 thru 10. unlike the first 5 which demand worship and devotion to the god of the jews, christians and muslims, commandments 6 thru 10 prohibit amurder, adultery, perjury, theft and covetousness. combined with the matching frieze on the north wall, a total of 18 lawgivers are celebrated.

the curator of the office of the supreme court of the us explains adolph weinmann intended the two pieces, working in tandem, as a parade of the world's great lawmakers portraying the development of secular law.

If they would truly not do their job, that would be one thing

why should they take the risk of passing laws that could get em kicked outta office when they can sit back and hope the courts will do their work for them...especially when it provides them with a great target they can hold up to voters.

I guess the coin toss just came out differently for each case.

not really a coin toss (altho the 5-4 rulings give that impression i guess). i really gotta wonder how scalia (and roy moore) made it thru law school and passed the bar believing the 10 commandments are the basis for our system of laws.

I guess the coin toss just came out differently for each case.

I guess Breyer got a 2 headed coin this time!  Oops for the liberals!

It means it should stay where it belongs.. . Local community standards (except local community courthouses apparently)!

If the locals want the 10 Commandments, Dave's Top 10 Lists, or Anton LeVay's 10 Satanic Statements, so be it. The Constitution doesn't speak to religious symbols on government land, so neither should the US Supreme Court.

I guess Breyer got a 2 headed coin this time

he's been on the court long enuff to know when you ask clarence thomas if he can break a dollar on days when he's gone to the adult book store for lunch, you gotta make sure clarence don't try to pass off leftover peep show tokens as quarters.

the curator of the office of the supreme court of the us explains adolph weinmann intended the two pieces, working in tandem, as a parade of the world's great lawmakers portraying the development of secular law.

And by Cleaving that bugs bunny, they have left themselves the out.  Too bad they could not do that with the emminent domain ruling. Not.

why should they take the risk of passing laws that could get em kicked outta office when they can sit back and hope the courts will do their work for them...especially when it provides them with a great target they can hold up to voters.

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

not really a coin toss (altho the 5-4 rulings give that impression i guess). i really gotta wonder how scalia (and roy moore) made it thru law school and passed the bar believing the 10 commandments are the basis for our system of laws.

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

If the locals want the 10 Commandments, Dave's Top 10 Lists, or Anton LeVay's 10 Satanic Statements, so be it. The Constitution doesn't speak to religious symbols on government land, so neither should the US Supreme Court.

No, the supremes think they are the champions of the minority, and in that they are partially correct.  However, they have turned into the hounds from hell for the minority.

he's been on the court long enuff to know when you ask clarence thomas if he can break a dollar on days when he's gone to the adult book store for lunch, you gotta make sure clarence don't try to pass off leftover peep show tokens as quarters

Clarence has more integrity than you.  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.

And for those that think he is the dumbest member on the court, I think Breyer just proved them wrong.

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.

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.

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

yall have the mandate.

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.

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.

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.

yall have the mandate.

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

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.

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.

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")

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.

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