Some bare-knuckle brawls are too intimidating for even the most powerful of potential participants, those who know that once the dust settles, everyone involved could be bruised and bloodied. Like a prizefighter shying away from a challenger who unceasingly demands a rematch, the Supreme Court has decided – again – to avoid a high-profile church-state case, delaying definitive judgment on the issue of public displays of religion on government grounds.
Yesterday, the Court refused to hear the appeals of suspended Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, whose much-publicized crusade to display the Ten Commandments in his courtroom rotunda has been met with hostility by lower federal courts. Although Moore certainly will return to the public eye beginning November 12, when he stands trial before the Alabama Court of the Judiciary on charges of judicial ethics violations, this decision by the Supreme Court effectively ends his current, federal appeals – and any chance Moore had of being vindicated by a new, sweeping judicial precedent.
Despite his nauseatingly ignorant theology, inappropriate judicial activism and otherwise questionable tactics, Moore’s response to the Court’s refusal to hear his case was right on the money. According to the Associated Press, he accused the Supreme Court of avoiding its judicial responsibility to clarify what many see as increasingly murky definitions about what is permissible in the domain of church-state interactions.
Astonishingly, this is not the first time the high court has declined an opportunity to definitively spell out for government officials where they can stick their religious idols. A similar case, involving a display of the Ten Commandments outside of a government building in Elkhart, Ind., was passed over by the Court only two years ago.
Despite their refusal, four justices made it be known how they would have ruled, if presented with a Ten Commandments case. The Three Dittoheads of the Court, Chief Justice Renquist and Justices Thomas and Scalia, issued a joint statement that a monument to the Commandments “simply reflects the role of the Commandments in the development of our legal system.”
Justice Stevens, on the other hand, took off his blindfold and actually read the Commandments before declaring their public display to be Constitutionally Kosher. He wrote that the monument’s inscription of “I am the Lord thy God” was “rather hard to square with the proposition that the monument expresses no particular religious preference.”
However, none of these judicial musings carried any weight, and simply hinted at what would transpire IF the court ever chose to hear such a case. Why they have chosen not to, thus far, is anyone’s guess.
Perhaps the Court is even more leery of the issue because its emergence roughly coincided with the now-famous “One Nation Under God” case, which the Court will hear this session. No matter what it rules on that pulsating and throbbing hornet’s nest of controversy, the Court will certainly hear from its fair share of detractors. Having two cases of such religious magnitude in the same session was apparently too much for the court to bear.
Nonetheless, with no Supreme Court votes, and no opinions spelling out guidelines for constitutional compliance, all attempts to bring Judeo-Christianity into our government will have to abide by the inconsistent opinions of our district and circuit courts. Some have refused to allow such monuments and displays, while others have allowed them under some conditions.
Until a gutsy, legitimate and well-articulated precedent is established, the business of Church-state interaction will be a muddled one. Step up, court, and lead your flock – your long-delayed pronouncement is eagerly awaited.