Dr Guy Dr Guy

Split Decision on the 10 Commandments

▼

Split Decision on the 10 Commandments

And a little hypocrisy for the court itself

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160781,00.html
from JoeUser Forums

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.

politics
7,388 views 29 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top

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.

Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top

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.

Star Control: Origins
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
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'.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

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.