Wisconsin group opposes Ten Commandment display at Rogersville, TN

#76
#76
CSpindizzy said:
Van Orden v Perry

Go back and reread the findings on McCreary and what the problem was in that case. The connection with all of the items in the display was the problem.
Click to expand...

Van Orden v. Perry was about a Ten Commandments monument over a 22 acre government owned Capital Grounds in Texas. My recollection is that was the difference as the Court found it wasn't overtly religious in nature because there were a vast array of monuments.

Also, I'm quite sure that there is a balancing test that the SCOTUS uses that takes several things into consideration such as how long the display has been there, etc. In Van Orden v. Perry, the monument had been there for over 40 years with no controversy.

However, in McCreary, the display was challenged quickly and even when the officials added the historical documents with it, it was still ordered to be removed. And they added historical documents on two different occassions, and a District Court and ultimately the SCOTUS ruled that they must be removed.
 
#77
#77
If you look at what documents were added and the context of those, you would see why. It's not just adding historical documents, it is what they are and the context of the display. Their display of the actual commandments referenced the King James Bible. Souter even in his ruling says it comes down to wording and references previous cases where a simple changing of a few words can mean the difference. Souter even acknowledges that it is not the commandments that are the problem in themselves especially as he points out the frieze of Moses and the commandments actually within the building of SCOTUS. It is a matter of context and intent. The problem in McCreary was them trying to modify it during the process to cover up the intent already identified.
 
#78
#78
CSpindizzy said:
If you look at what documents were added and the context of those, you would see why. It's not just adding historical documents, it is what they are and the context of the display. Their display of the actual commandments referenced the King James Bible. Souter even in his ruling says it comes down to wording and references previous cases where a simple changing of a few words can mean the difference. Souter even acknowledges that it is not the commandments that are the problem in themselves especially as he points out the frieze of Moses and the commandments actually within the building of SCOTUS. It is a matter of context and intent. The problem in McCreary was them trying to modify it during the process to cover up the intent already identified.
Click to expand...

And this is what they do. They use a balancing test; it is simply incorrect to say that this is just another thing in the "long list of things the SCOTUS approves of" because it's not. In fact, the only case that has taken up the issue of the Ten Commandments with other historical documents posted in a Courthouse is McCreary and they ordered them removed.

My bet is if the balancing test is used in this Hawkins County case, the Ten Commandments will be removed there as well.
 
#79
#79
LawVol13 said:
And this is what they do. They use a balancing test; it is simply incorrect to say that this is just another thing in the "long list of things the SCOTUS approves of" because it's not. In fact, the only case that has taken up the issue of the Ten Commandments with other historical documents posted in a Courthouse is McCreary and they ordered them removed.

My bet is if the balancing test is used in this Hawkins County case, the Ten Commandments will be removed there as well.
Click to expand...

And you just did the same thing you said was wrong. You cannot say they balance but then turn around and make it sound as if only one other somewhat comparable example is it. And are you not paying attention? They were not removed because it was the Ten Commandments in a courthouse. They were removed because of intent and context. If this WI group wants to sue and prove it was the same, then let them. You cannot compare McCreary to this as some "only other example" mentality because they do not compare. McCreary may be part but it cannot be compared because both already started off under different circumstances that are/were being argued.
 
#81
#81
CSpindizzy said:
And you just did the same thing you said was wrong. You cannot say they balance but then turn around and make it sound as if only one other somewhat comparable example is it. And are you not paying attention? They were not removed because it was the Ten Commandments in a courthouse. They were removed because of intent and context. If this WI group wants to sue and prove it was the same, then let them. You cannot compare McCreary to this as some "only other example" mentality because they do not compare. McCreary may be part but it cannot be compared because both already started off under different circumstances that are/were being argued.
Click to expand...

I used that as evidence because that is the only time the SCOTUS has taken up the issue of the Ten Commandments posted in a Courthouse surrounded by other historical documents. That is definitely relevant.

The Court found that it did not meet the balancing test. You act as if I'm saying it's blackletter law that they can't be posted, and I'm absolutely not. However, I find it unlikely that a big posting of the Ten Commandments in a Courthouse is going to pass the balancing test.
 
#82
#82
See my above post as an example. ACLU cases on the subject since 2005 have all failed and the ACLU has yet to appeal to SCOTUS. Seeing how the case would no doubt fall in the same court as my above example, it may be an uphill battle for the cheeseheads.
 
#87
#87
LawVol13 said:
Van Orden v. Perry was about a Ten Commandments monument over a 22 acre government owned Capital Grounds in Texas. My recollection is that was the difference as the Court found it wasn't overtly religious in nature because there were a vast array of monuments.

Also, I'm quite sure that there is a balancing test that the SCOTUS uses that takes several things into consideration such as how long the display has been there, etc. In Van Orden v. Perry, the monument had been there for over 40 years with no controversy.

However, in McCreary, the display was challenged quickly and even when the officials added the historical documents with it, it was still ordered to be removed. And they added historical documents on two different occassions, and a District Court and ultimately the SCOTUS ruled that they must be removed.
Click to expand...

I lulzed. Perhaps it was just an unfortunate choice of words, but my guess is that your recollection is whatever results your google search provided. :)

Carry on.
 
#88
#88
IPorange said:
Here in America, we value free speech and opinion. If people in Wisconsin don't like something or think it is unfair, they can protest it no matter where it might be. It's possible that one day a person traveling from Wisconsin through Rogersville could get in trouble with the law, and might feel like they couldn't get a fair trial in a building with a religious monument outside of it.

Kind of like how the US has bases all over the world, and intervenes in other countries' politics all the time. I haven't seen too many threads protesting that around here.
Click to expand...

Wow.
 
#89
#89
IBlvNTmWrk said:
I lulzed. Perhaps it was just an unfortunate choice of words, but my guess is that your recollection is whatever results your google search provided. :)

Carry on.
Click to expand...

No, my recollection is from a Constitutional Law Class. So, keep guessing.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top