TOLEDO, Ohio, May 14, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the American Civil Liberties Union request to rehear ACLU v. Grayson County, Kentucky, in which the Court upheld the right of a county government to have a display including the Ten Commandments. ...
This story raises more questions than it answers. The main questions I have after reading this are[LIST=1]
*]Why is the ACLU fighting this, considering the established precedents from 4 or 5 years ago?
*]Perhaps there’s more to the story not included in the LifeSiteNews article. If so, what are we missing?
*]Maybe the parties are simply carrying through litigation that began before the precedents were in place. If so, why did it take so long?
*]Finally, the OP is news bot Pro Life News. How is this a Pro Life story?
You mean Roy Moore in Alabama? The ACLU won that one. I guess here the display is more than just the Ten Commandments, I bet.
Its probably more than just the 10 Commandments. Why is this story even in LifeSite News?
My point exactly.
Check a less partisan report:
"Even if the Grayson County judge-executive called on people at a public ceremony to declare themselves “for” or “against the Ten Commandments,” that wasn’t a religious statement, a federal appeals court panel has ruled.
That means the display of the commandments, along with other historical documents, can remain in place in the Grayson County courthouse, the panel said in a 2-1 ruling that prompted the dissenting judge to “vehemently disagree.”
The same panel for the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals had in January overridden a district court injunction against displaying the commandments, along with other documents, in an exhibit entitled, “Foundations of American Law and Government.”
Courts have issued different opinions on identical displays in Kentucky courthouses depending on whether there’s a public record of county officials installing them for explicitly religious purposes.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky asked the appeals court to reconsider its decision, which was based solely on whether the plaintiffs had a case as a matter of law. The ACLU said the lower court should hear evidence about the facts in the case."
I had in mind Van Orden v. Perry, but I overlooked the apparently crucial role of the history of a display in judging its constitutionality.