This was inevitable.
This was an unsurprising response.
Tip for Rep. Earl Sears (R-Bartlesville): if you don’t want to pretty much ensure that your opponent has ground for a big lawsuit, don’t say this: “This is a faith-based nation and a faith-based state”.
Yes completely predictable. I’ll get the popcorn.Report
Oh Oklahoma. Your Santanists will never hold a candle to Anton LaVeyReport
They’re New York satanists, apparently. They just chose Oklahoma because the Ten Commandments monument is relatively new, and they could count on Oklahoma politicians saying things like the Oklahoma politicians are saying.Report
They chose Oklahoma because that was the softest, most sensitive, most liquid part of the eye into which they could insert their thumbs.
Of course, the fact that they are publicity whores does not mean that they don’t have a point.Report
the exhibitionists in Toronto gave a whole new meaning to “publicity whore”
//off-topicReport
Ah but that’s the rub you see, the politicians put up those monuments to pander to the fundies. If they can’t make it clear the extent of their pandering they would have no reason to put them up in the first place.Report
Plenty of pols, especially hard core religious ones, are True Believers. They aren’t pandering.Report
I think it’s a win for both sides, really.
The Satanists get PR and get to annoy people (which is, by and large, a win for them) and fundamentalist Christians get to point to it to explain how they are under attack and persecuted for their faith, which is admittedly very hard to do in a nation where your religion is by far the majority one.Report
That is how fundamentalist Christians and certain Evangelicals will use it, but “which is admittedly very hard to do in a nation where your religion is by far the majority one” is obviously false. I mean hell, they’re going to be able to use a case that involves them having their religious monument posted on the grounds of a State Capitol to argue that they are persecuted in this country. Clearly it’s very easy to do that and get away with it in a country in which your religion is by far the majority one. In fact, I think it helps that their religion is by far the majority one, because that means their cries of persecution are much more likely to gain traction.Report
It may be false, but that doesn’t mean it will be accepted as such.
I am not speaking for (or OF) all Christians, but I am painfully familiar with a..sub-sect, perhaps — of fundamentalists who take it as an article of faith that they are persecuted. The whys and wherefores and Biblical justifications of this aren’t really relevant.
But if you remove a 10 Commandments statue? Persecuting them. Say “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”? Persecuting them. The War on Christmas is just the most visible front of it (and most easily mocked, I suppose).
“Persecution” means anything that hints, implies, or shows any sort of neutrality towards religion is ‘persecution’. To them, the default is “100% Christianity” (specifically, but rarely thought through, their particular flavor) and any deviation is persecution by secular authorities.
Whether it’s not starting football games with an invocation to Jesus or not teaching Creationism or simply stating “No, you can’t but a giant statue of Jesus on the front lawn of city hall” it’s persecution.Report
It will be accepted as such by precisely the people who they want to accept it as such. It’s not like they’re trying to convince anyone.Report
This is where I want to say the P-word but am too fearful to.Report
Indeed. The world would be a very different place if it was hard for people to believe false things.Report
This isn’t a unique situation. I recall something recently from Louisiana where some pols are in a tizzy because a law they passed to subsidize Christian schools is being.used by a Muslim group.
Too late, they realize they’re hoist upon their own petard. It is to laugh.Report
Oh dear jeebus. First it was the catholics, then women voting, then letting dem colored folk vote, letting those jews and muslims in the country and now, NOW NOW it’s the damn satanists!!!
Won’t someone PLEASE think of children.
Petard hoist, etc. me thinks.Report
FWIW, technically black men had the right to vote about 50 years earlier than white women did. Obviously there were (are) still many ways in which black men were disenfranchised, but technically they were offered a constitutionally guaranteed right to vote with the 15th amendment while women weren’t offered the same until the 19th.
If you give people a multiple choice question of when women were given the right to vote and their options are 1820, 1870, and 1920, the vast majority of them will say, “It can’t have been the 20th century!”Report
Nor would many believe that Wyoming was the first state in which women had the right to vote.Report
Yep, I wasn’t really trying to something in chronological order and the “jews and muslim” bit was a bit tacked on but I think my sarchasm was clear enough 🙂Report
@jm3z-aitch :
Wasn’t Wyoming a territory at that time?
Utah also gave women the right to vote, and this was rescinded by Congress on their becoming a state, iirc.Report
Will,
Yes, you’re correct. But from what I’ve read, Wyoming insisted on keeping women’s suffrage upon becoming a state, hence it became the first state where women had the right to vote.Report
I’m reminded of a Tea Party candidate for New York governor a few years ago who simultaneously argued that there is too much damn government involvement in people’s lives AND that he would not hesitate to use the power of government to stop the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque”. The absurdity of this was completely unseeable to both him and his supporters.
Fortunately, he lost.Report
Stuff like that is why I stopped using labels like: Liberal/Conservative/Democrat/Republican as it clearly falls into the catagory of “statist”. 🙂Report
I am enormously tickled by this.Report
My thoughts precisely.Report
Although I find patently unbelievable the claim that the Decalogue statue was placed in front of the Oklahoma legislature for “historical reasons,” the legal potency of that claim will be put to the test later this Term, when SCOTUS announces its decision in Town of Greece v. Galloway. The oral arguments in that case suggest a high degree of skepticism on the part of Justice Kennedy, and therefore on the part of a majority of the Justices, in the notion that history alone can provide a justification for the government engaging in an act of expression of one particular religious faith.Report
the notion that history alone can provide a justification for the government engaging in an act of expression of one particular religious faith
Isn’t continuing to do the wrong thing even though the Constitution says otherwise usually called “stare decisis”?Report
Sadly, yes. Worse, deciding to start doing the right thing is usually described as “judicial activism.”Report
@burt-likko
Is there any mechanism for removing SCOTUS justices? Because, I mean, it seems obvious to me that any sitting judge who defends the right for the ten commandments to be on government property while denying access to other religious displays is derelict in whatever oath I assume must take before assuming the position.
I recognize that many cases can be looked at through a variety of lenses and what not. But this is the sort of thing which, if not unanimously agreed to by the court, makes me want to just start shaking people. “YOU DO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE 1ST AMENDMENT SAYS, RIGHT?!?!?!?!”Report
Frustrating, isn’t it, @kazzy? Welcome to my world.Report
Kazzy,
Yes, they can be impeached. But I don’t think we want to go down the path of impeaching justices for bad rulings. There were calls to impeach Chief Justice Earl Warren for the Brown v. Board ruling. It’s a bad, bad precedent, imo. All we can really do is trust that the political process of selecting federal judges, particularly those of the Supreme Court (who can overrule all the other ones) will normally ensure we don’t get majorities of nincompoops, and if we do that their replacements will be, on average, less nincompoopish.Report
@jm3z-aitch
I agree that the precedent is a dicey one, one that ought not be taken lightly. But if a justice is to derelict in his duty as to make obvious that he is disregarding all Constitutional matters and simply pursuing his preferred line of reasoning, the shoe might fit. I doubt that will be the case here — or, likely, anywhere in our lifetime — since they can usually find some manipulation or prior bad ruling on which to stake their claim. But it does increasingly concern me that there seems to be basically zero accountability for SCOTUS justices (and perhaps lower-level ones as well).Report
if a justice is to derelict in his duty as to make obvious that he is disregarding all Constitutional matters and simply pursuing his preferred line of reasoning,
To whom shall we entrust the judgement of such matters, with whom the risk of political motivations will be less than they are with a judge?
it does increasingly concern me that there seems to be basically zero accountability for SCOTUS justices
Accountability means being beholden to political will. Not that the law avoids being political, but that way lies the destruction of the concept of law as being capable of rising above the political.
The key to their lack of accountability being not too worriment is that they have little to personally gain from being overly politicized, at least in comparison to the political branches. And if the incentive to bias their decisions does come in the form of financial remuneration from third parties, impeachment is a proper and likely course. A handful of federal judges have been impeached for corruption, and while no Supreme Court justices ever have, Abe Fortas did resign in 1969 rather than face likely impeachment over a suspicious retainer from a businessman who was under investigation for securities fraud.Report
The only SCOTUS Justice to ever be impeached was Samuel Chase. And we have, of all people, Aaron Burr to thank for the political precedent that the substance of a Justice’s rulings are not a valid grounds for removal from the bench.Report
“To whom shall we entrust the judgement of such matters, with whom the risk of political motivations will be less than they are with a judge?”
How about @burt-likko and @mark-thompson?Report
I’m honored. You may be stacking your tribunal with too many like minds, @kazzy : I find that @burt-likko and @mark-thompson typically think very much alike on these matters.
Might be good to have a variety of different perspectives, as well as an odd number of votes, in the event of a tie. @tim-kowal is thoughtful, intellectually honest, and approaches the law from a very different perspective. So too does @michelle-togut, from her own perspective, and frequent guest author @newdealer also has his own POV worthy of consideration.
If the criteria are to be both admitted to the Guild and a front pager, I’d be pleased indeed to share a bench with these esteemed colleagues.Report
Now I’m imagining OT’s own Shadow Supreme Court.Report
Oh, lord, I forgot Chase. Thanks for the correction, counselor.Report
Indeed, Mr. Likko. You were the first two who sprung to mind but, indeed, there are others amongst us who would qualify.Report
I want only members of the Federalist Society to have that authority. If a person won’t swear fealty to the original meaning of the Constitution, they have no business ruling on whether a jurist is derelict in their oath.Report
When the Federalist society says “original”, does that mean without the amendments? They seem quite happy about ignoring the 15th.Report
Not to make any claim about who is more right, but given their training and yours, I’ll wager they can make a stronger legal argument for why Shelby County is more true to originalism than you can that it isn’t.
Which isn’t a criticism of your position, but to emphasize the problematic nature of Kazzy’s proposal.Report
Three thoughts here:
1) Roe v. Wade seems to be an entirely contrived decision; and from what I can see in later jurisprudence, is typically construed narrowly.
2) I seem to remember that one of the footnotes from Kentucky v. Graham speaks of an award of fees against the Virginia Supreme Court on successful petition for an injunction.
3) I am always amazed at how peoples’ attention is so focused on the SCOTUS, when the Supreme Court of their respective states of residence likely has far more implications for their daily lives.Report
If I’m not mistaken, the Decalogue is venerated by at least three great Ibrahamic faiths.
And I believe this issue (or a quite similar one) was already decided. I seem to remember reading about the SCOTUS talking about the inscriptions on their own building as being more of a monument to previous forms of law than any manner of establishment of religion.
What it came down to was intent.
That said, I’m thinking such a monument in front of the building where the legislative body meets is something much different than the same in front of, say, city hall.Report
Religion… Government.
It’s not a Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup, you morons!
sigh…Report
Two bad tastes that taste worse together.Report
The concept of a perpetual motion machine springs to mind…Report