Chief Justice of the United States

[migrendel]

Roy Moore caused a Constitutional crisis by defying an order of a court superior to his. The rule of law cannot be sustained unless people like Roy Moore put aside their personal predilections and enforce judicial decisions. And he was on the wrong side of the Constitution anyway.

[migrendel]

Well, I have thought this issue out legalistically, and I still believe that the state is violating the Constitution by displaying that monument.

[migrendel]

Um, a pretty clear line of precedent, statute, and any reasonable understanding of the first amendment, which is primarily disfavored by the religious right and those who don't understand the law themselves.

In addition, NixonNow, the president appoints an associate justice to replace the vacancy caused by the new Chief Justice's elevation. That's how Antonin Scalia got on the Court.

[migrendel]

Let me remind you that what the founding fathers might have thought about religion in public life is irrelevant. Contemporary jurisprudence must recognize that the phrase "an establishment of religion" might have a distinctly different meaning. The role of our courts is to occasionally redefine the boundaries of Constitutional protections so that they may always encompass the freedoms of all Americans, even as our nation grows and changes. A Supreme Court that can do just that prevents the necessity of adopting a new Constitution every twenty-five years. I, for one, think that this new understanding of government and religion is fundamental to a modern society, and can only benison religious liberty by keeping the government neutral on questions of faith.

In addition, you are quite incorrect in your analysis of our contemporary law. Locke v. Davey recently prevented a state from subsidizing a religious institution of higher education. This was a 7-2 decision supported by that radical reprobate, the liberal William Rehnquist. While some financial support of religion has been allowed, such as in the cases of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris and Walz v. Tax Commissioner of the City of New York, it has always been indirect. In addition, a 1980 decision of the Supreme Court, Stone v. Graham, barred public school classrooms from displaying the Ten Commandments. Now, it's not much of a stretch to extend that precedent to reach the results of Glassroth v. Moore, which when appealled, even won the support of conservative Judge Ed Carnes of the 11th Circuit. So, you can say what you want, but you would be rejected by the standard views of all the judicature.

[migrendel]

No.

[migrendel]

I would simply say that the truly binding law, the Constitution, makes forbidding it illegal, and no Frankfurteresque obsequiousness to legislatures in the name of judicial restraint can change that.

[migrendel]

Well, the Equal Protection Clause and the right to privacy, whether found in the Due Process Clauses, the Ninth Amendment, or penumbrae of the Bill of Rights, depending upon your theory.