June 27, 2005

They Are At It Again

In what is sure to signal the need to abolish lifetime appointments for the Supremes, they have come down with yet another incoherent, preachy, outside the bounds of precedent opinion that leaves people on both sides of the aisle shaking their heads!

That's right, you cannot display the Ten Commandments in a Court House (unless of course you are the Supreme Court) but you can display it on public property. Now, let me get this straight, God's law has no business in a Court of Law, but is more than welcome in the Post Office hallway? What am I missing? Oh yes, I have scruples but several of the Supremes do not, now, why am I not a Supreme Court Justice??? Oh Yes, because I have scruples.

Now, let's get to the meat of what was surely a deliberate attempt to slap Ole' Roy (the Ten Commandments Judge) in the face (fer gitten all uppity and righteous). Apparently, the Commandments are only "religious" when framed as they were in the Kentucky Courthouse cause they "highlight" the religious content. Ok, back up, what are they when in the artwork on the Supreme Court walls and ceilings? hmmm? But they are okey dokey when displayed on a Texas municipal lawn because they are just part of some historical display.

Rehnquist, though one foot in the grave, recognizes that they are "always" religious, but that religious content doesn't always violate the Establishment Clause (which doesn't regulate "religion" cause *pregnant pause* because that would be unConstitutional).

So, what have our wonderful Supremes given us today? Well, what they have given us is an "I told you to git back in yer place, boy!" dig at Ole' Roy and a coherent finding that a display simply doesn't equal sanction or establishment of religion. Of course both are totally inconsistent with earlier precedent!!! What good are judges if they can't read and follow the law!!!

I'm tired. Tired of wondering what freedom my government under the guise of guys in black robes is going to steal from me next. My land, my religion, my right to chose (cable companies that is). It sickens me that we have no mechanism to force the robes to take heed of the laws, and not to make them up as they go along!

Send in your resignations already and make room for me! I'm coming, just get out of my way.

Posted by Oddybobo at June 27, 2005 01:23 PM

Oh yea, all we need is another right-wing nutcase with a gun on the SCOTUS. Wait, scratch that. I'll nominate you as soon as I'm President.

Isn't there some kind of way that Congress can slap the justices down? I seem to remember that there is something about Congress making laws and the courts interpreting them.

Posted by: Two Dogs at June 27, 2005 02:19 PM

Ha, ha, ha. Very funny. Have you seen the same interpreting I've been seeing lately???

Posted by: Oddybobo at June 27, 2005 03:29 PM

I love inconsistance with rulings (end sarcasim)

Posted by: Contagion at June 27, 2005 04:06 PM

All I can say is that when one branch fails, you have to start poking at one of the others.

Contact your congresscritter.

Posted by: Harvey at June 28, 2005 09:05 AM

Hell, I say we give you a whirl, BOBO. Absolutely NOBODY can possibly screw up the SCOTUS anymore than they already are now. Adding ANY new blood to the SCOTUS would have to be an improvement. Un-freaking BELIEVABLE!

Posted by: Gun-Toting Liberal at June 28, 2005 01:06 PM