Justices' Questions in Commandments Cases Indicate ... What?
by Allie Martin and Jody Brown
March 3, 2005
(AgapePress) - One of the attorneys whose group filed a brief in the Ten Commandments cases heard on Wednesday before the U.S. Supreme Court says he does not believe the high court will rule that it is unconstitutional for a government body to display God's laws in public.After hearing two hours of arguments yesterday (March 2), the Supreme Court must now decide whether the Ten Commandments can be displayed on government property and if so, in what context. The ruling in the two cases -- one out of Texas, the other from Kentucky -- may come in late June.
In their comments and questions from the bench, the justices were reluctant to adopt a blanket ban on such displays. According to an Associated Press report, the justices seemed to struggle to formulate a clear constitutional rule that could determine the fate of thousands of religious symbols on public property around the country, including one in their own courtroom featuring Moses holding the sacred tablets.
Rev. Rob Schenck, president of National Clergy Council, says he noticed the justices' reluctance. "For those of us who support the public display of the Ten Commandments, our prayers are being answered," he told reporters, "and a majority of the justices seem to be changing their minds and their hearts on this critical issue."
Schenck said it was "very apparent that several members of the court have deep and abiding questions about the growing hostility towards religion and the acknowledgment of religion in our national public life." Justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer, he said, seemed very "bothered" by the fact that there is a "growing antipathy towards religious speech [and] towards religious symbolism."
But David Friedman, the American Civil Liberties Union attorney who argued against Ten Commandments displays in Kentucky, said he is not worried that his position was challenged by some Supreme Court justices. "I think it's always difficult and dangerous to read too much into questions that are asked," Friedman stated. "Questions can be tough from either side, and don't necessarily reflect how a justice is going to vote."
"The Ten Commandments play an important part in the spiritual lives of many Americans -- and it is precisely for this reason that the government should not be in the business of endorsing or promoting religious beliefs," the ACLU attorney said.
And Erwin Chemerinsky, the attorney for the plaintiff seeking removal of the Texas Ten Commandments monument, seemed to have no problem that his position was challenged by some Supreme Court justices.
"Some of the justices asked a very understandable question: Would removing this symbol be hostility to religion? And I think the answer is, based on this court's precedence, to find a religious symbol impermissible on government property, because of the fact or it's purpose, is not hostility to religion," he said.
| | 
Steve Crampton |
No Renovations Expected
Steve Crampton is chief counsel with the American Family Association's Center for Law & Policy (CLP), which filed a brief in the cases. Crampton, who says he was encouraged by the court's questions, describes the high court as "highly splintered.""Going in, you know ... that you're not going to have the likes of Justice Breyer, Justice [John Paul] Stevens, Justice [David] Souter coming over on your side," Crampton acknowledges. "So it often boils down to the votes in the middle of the court, such as Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor."
According to the CLP spokesman, those are the kinds of comments that attorneys tend to focus on during oral arguments. "The comments from Justice O'Connor and Justice Kennedy, I think, were encouraging that they would uphold a benign display of the Ten Commandments, as you have in these two cases," Crampton adds. He notes that Kennedy said during oral arguments that to prevent government from acknowledging religion is "hypocritical" and "asking religious people to surrender their beliefs."
"These should not be difficult cases," Crampton concludes. "The high court should recognize that mere acknowledgment of religion does not equate to impermissible establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment. If it did, then every public symbol reflecting our religious heritage would have to go -- including the Supreme Court's own displays of Moses and the Ten Commandments."
The AFA attorney does not envision that happening. "I don't see the court sandblasting its own walls," he says.
Associated Press contributed to this story.
