Several weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases that involve the posting of the Ten Commandments in public places. They are scheduled to announce their ruling in these cases by the end of June, 2005: sometime in the next seven weeks.
I think we are all a little confused by the fact that the extremists in the U.S. Senate have not yet launched their "nucular" option yet. They have been discussing this for months; what exactly is the holdup?
I suspect that they are waiting for just the opportune moment to exploit popular opinion. A Supreme Court ruling that outlaws all displays of the Ten Commandments in public places might provoke just such a large outcry. Recall the dustup that began three summers ago when the Ninth Circuit Court stated that the Pledge of Allegiance should exclude "under God".
I believe that Frist and company are hoping, rather perversely, for a Supreme Court ruling now on the Ten Commandments that goes AGAINST their religious cohorts. This will whip up mass hysteria in many quarters that could go beyond the usual loonies. Even the MSM, which has been rather restrained and in some cases surprisingly critical of the nuclear option, may cave in rather than dare to publicly question the hallowed Ten Commandments!
Remember that NOT ONE senator that I can think of ever voted to SUPPORT the Pledge ruling of the Ninth Circuit; they ALL voted in a resolution to condemn it. A ruling to ban Ten Commandment displays might generate just such a sentiment, coyly exploited by Frist to justify ending the Senate filibuster. You can hear it now: "Anyone who votes for the filibuster hates the Ten Commandments!"
The last thing Frist wants is a Supreme Court decision that allows all Ten Commandment displays free rein in government buildings. That might take a good bit of the wind out of the radical right blowhards. But it is unlikely he will see that ruling, and I think he knows it. While it makes perfect sense to me that ALL Ten Commandment displays should be banned, I think that, with the composition of this court, and its tendencies to always split the difference on controversial issues when at all possible (think affirmative action and capital punishment), we will more likely see a "half-measure":
I think the Court will rule that Ten Commandment displays are allowable provided they do not appear to be exclusive or proselytizing, that is, if the commandments are shown as part of an overall historical display or with other religious symbols, then they are okay. It would be nice if Justice Kennedy, having seen what the religious right can do if given too much rope, proceeds to rule for a complete ban as sort of a smackdown to those who threatened him, but I sincerely doubt he has it in him.
Like I said, it makes no sense to me, but that's the ruling I expect. It will be difficult for the zealots to paint that as an apocalyptic loss, but I am sure they will find a way. In the meantime, Frist may be hoping for something more severe, and is timing his nuclear option for it.