“On, but not in” seems to be the phrase of the moment on the Court’s split rulings related to the presence of the 10 Commandments on government property.

Background at How Appealing–links to oral arguments transcripts in both the Texas and Kentucky cases.

Alliance Defense Fund’s assessment is that the status quo has been maintained. (ADF provided funding for both cases and wrote an amicus brief for the Supreme Court in the Van Orden case.)

There’s a Ten Commandments group blog here.

Another Rovian Conspiracy asks: “So, now that they’ve booted the 10 Commandments from the courthouse, will they start sandblasting it from all of the federal buildings (including the Supreme Court building)?”

Ankle Biting Pundits: “My question is, why can’t we have the Ten Commandments in courthouses, but terrorists can have hot-off-the-press Korans in prison?”

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line: “One suspects absurd hair-splitting, but that judgment must await a reading of the (many) opinions.”

John Podhoretz:

Why didn’t the Supremes just say you could display the 10 Cs on Monday, Wed, and alternate Fridays, but not on Tuesdays and Thursdays? Or that they could be viewed inside government buildings, but only on the walls of bathrooms and in janitors’ closets? Has anybody ever advanced this radical opinion — that the five justices in question may be intelligent and thoughtful people individually, but that together they form one blithering idiot?

Instant spoof: Top ten signs SCOTUS ruled the wrong way in the 10C cases

Captain’s Quarters: Decalogue For We But Not For Thee

More spoof:

9 Favorite snack foods enjoyed by recent Supreme Court ruling majorities

High Court Uses Line Item Veto On Ten Commandments

comments (0)   trackbacks (33)