Supreme Split Decision

Interesting how they split closely on both decisions and found differently on the same topic in both cases.

Sending dual signals in ruling on this issue for the first time in a quarter-century, the high court said that displays of the Ten Commandments - like their own courtroom frieze - are not inherently unconstitutional. But each exhibit demands scrutiny to determine whether it goes too far in amounting to a governmental promotion of religion, the court said in a case involving Kentucky courthouse exhibits.

I think that the rulings were quite reasonable from what I read in the MSM. Rehnquist has a very clear and reasonable statement on the topic.

"Of course, the Ten Commandments are religious - they were so viewed at their inception and so remain. The monument therefore has religious significance," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the majority in the case involving the display outside the state capitol of Texas.

"Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment clause," he said.

I think the case by case judgment is a bit awkward though. Scalia's statement strikes me as a bit unreasonable, if I'm reading him correctly, in that the court's decisions were inconsistent because they didn't apply the exact black and white findings to rulings.

Justice Antonin Scalia released a stinging dissent in the courthouse case, declaring, "What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle."

I'd say grey is sometimes more reasonable.