I ran across this at
Wikipedia:
[Judge Suhrheinrich] made national news on December 22, 2005 as the opinion writer on ACLU v. Mercer County[1], where an appeals panel of the Sixth Circuit unanimously decided for the continued display of the Ten Commandments in a Kentucky courthouse. In his opinion, Judge Suhrheinrich stated that the United States Constitution does not demand "a wall of separation between church and state," denying a claim by the ACLU. Judge Alice Batchelder joined in the opinion, while District Judge Walter Rice merely concurred in the decision but not the opinion.
The full text of the ruling can be found here.
I haven't seen anything on this noteworthy decision here on Daily Kos. I am a diary virgin, but I think this decision deserves attention and analysis. read on...
I googled references to the decision, filed on the 20th, but was rewarded by just a barrage of hard-right blogs and periodicals championing the decision. Since I'm on break from school, I have no access to lexis-nexis, so don't know how much penetration this story has made into the mainstream press.
What's going on?! I think this is huge.
Suhrheinrich, appointed by Reagen and promoted by Bush I, argues that:
the ACLU's "repeated reference 'to the separation of church and state' ... has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."
Umm... that looks like judicial activism to me.
Even more disturbing, in the decision: he writes:
we conclude that the Mercer County display lacks a religious purpose and further conclude that it does not endorse religion."
Here are the first four commandments, exactly as considered in the decision
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water underneath the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy."
They were even thoughtful enough to capitilize LORD every time, just in case a naive passerby were to temporarily forget the religious nature of the ten commandments and consider the document all-inclusive.
I don't know what the significance of this ruling is in context, or why it has received so little coverage here and elsewhere. As a relative newcomer to this site, I must beg of the regulars and of all visitors: add your two cents. enlighten me. This ruling appears to me another crack in the magnificent secular foundation of the United States, now constantly under attack. I hope I'm wrong.