Judge Suhrheinrich to ACLU: Suck My Stubby, Lily-White Crank

[Stephen Maturin]

Shortly before Christmas, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a decision upholding a Ten Commandments display located in a county courthouse in Kentucky. The case is ACLU v. Mercer County (pdf, 14 pages).

Most of the opinion, authored by Senior Judge Richard Suhrheinrich, centers on a straightforward analysis and application of the recent Supreme Court decision in ACLU v. McCreary County. Based on what so far is a pretty cursory reading on my part, it looks as though the 6th Circuit's application of McCreary was correct.

The outcome was good news for accomodationists all by itself, but Judge Suhrheinrich threw in a couple of other tidbits to enhance the joy. For instance:

[T]he ACLU makes repeated reference to “the separation of church and state.” This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state. Our Nation’s history is replete with governmental acknowledgment and in some cases, accommodation of religion. (Emphasis added, citations omitted.)

I can't help picturing Suhrheinrich sitting at the bench during oral argument dressed as the Dieter character from SNL and saying to the ACLU's counsel in a German accent, "Your story has grown tiresome." Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black would have been more than a little surprised to hear separation of church and state called an "extra-constitutional construct." So would James Madison, who wrote more than once about the desirability of a perfect separation between religion and government. But what the fuck did he know? After all, he was only the principal author of the First Amendment.

And then there's this little forearm shiver:

Thus, we find unavailing the ACLU’s own assertions that it finds the display offensive and that the display “diminishes [its] enjoyment of the courthouse.” Religion does not become relevant to standing in the political community simply because a particular viewer of a governmental display feels uncomfortable. Our concern is that of the reasonable person. And the ACLU, an organization whose mission is “to ensure that . . . the government [is kept] out of the religion business,” does not embody the reasonable person. (Citations and footnote omitted.)

That should warm the cockles of even the coldest accomodationist heart.

[Ari]

I agree, following rulings and laws that have been made since the constitution yet aren't actually in the constitution grows very tiresome. When will the ACLU learn that there is absolutely no law outside the literal reading of the constitution.

[xouper]

So, if I understand this correctly, the court has ruled that the Ten Commandments has no more historical significance than the Declaration of Independence? And Christians are fine with that?

[xouper]

Ari: When will the ACLU learn that there is absolutely no law outside the literal reading of the constitution.

Probably not until all the courts in the land have ruled that such is the case. So far the courts are not unanimous in that opinion.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by xouper

So, if I understand this correctly, the court has ruled that the Ten Commandments has no more historical significance than the Declaration of Independence?

I think it's even worse than that: the Ten Commandments have no more religious significance than the Declaration of Independence. It's reminiscent of an Ohio case, where a minister sought to have that state's official motto, "With God All Things Are Possible," invalidated because he was offended by the fact the Gospel of Matthew was placed on the same level of veneration as the state rock and the state insect.

In that instance the 6th Circuit determined that the injury claimed was de minimis, since there were far more pervasively offensive statements on government documents, in particular "AMOUNT YOU OWE" at the bottom of the Ohio income tax forms.

The Christians are going to have to take what they can get, and these days they're arguing that prayer is mere speech, bereft of any summoning of benevolent spirits and that "God" is just another word for "providence," or something you say when someone sneezes. Talk about politically correct.

[Clutch Munny]

Of course it's bait-and-switch. A theist can argue that prayer is mere speech, knowing that if it's made permissible for a teacher to lead a class in prayer, it will be prayer, dammit, and not mere speech.

[beyelzu]

yep, that is the great thing about the fundies, it makes them all hypocritical and shit, see ID.