Supreme Court Comments

Well I originally planned to talk about some stuff in my life, however this is my blog, and it has a strong legal focus, so I am going to talk about the Supreme Court rulings that were handed down today instead. Before I do so, I want you to remember I am a voting Republican, so my comments (though not all orientated to that side) come from that slant.

Let’s start with the most controversial decision, the rulings regarding the 10 commandments in public places. This ruling is pretty close to what I thought should happen. Let’s look at the two extremes first. Allowing the 10 commandments in public places in any context is wrong. With all due respect to Justice Scalia who feels anything monotheistic is ok, it is fairly easy to understand that there is no separation of Church and State if any symbol can be used at any time. ONLY posting the ten commandments is promoting a religion. Don’t believe me? Ask a conservative Christian what they would think if the Koran was enshrined in every courthouse. They would have several objections. The only difference is the religion it promotes.

Similarly, outlawing them completely would be wrong. Like it or not Judeo-Christian morality (as well and many other influences) has an effect on our legal system and our concepts of right and wrong. In that light, to say “this important symbol cannot EVER be shown in a government owned building” would be to pretend a major influence on our legal system does not exist.

Furthermore, the goal of separation is to prevent the government from influencing people about religion in any way. Certainly it can not be claimed that the presence of the ten commandments among several other symbols cannot be construed to promote religion any more than a city having a Christmas Tree or giving people the day off or work for Christmas.

This leaves us with some middle ground. Instead of inventing a new standard the justices applied an existing standard (strict scrutiny) in a new area. If the document is clearly not intended for its religious purpose, but rather to show some history, cultural importance, or legal importance, it is allowed. Otherwise, it is not legal. While the line may be blurry in some cases, this standard is the correct place to start from.

I don’t really have much to say about the share-ware case. I think that decision was obvious.
I am VERY glad the courts found that corporations have a right to benefit from proper planning. I think the FCC regulation on telephone companies is ridiculous (you invested huge amounts of money to become very successful, now that you know people want telephones you have to sell to anybody that wants to compete against you.) Let’s think about this from an economic standpoint. You are a cable company. You spend money to develop and implement something not knowing if it will succeed. It becomes VERY popular. You make money. Now, another company that did not have to take any risk until they knew there was a market can come along and say “hey you are making more than economic profits, I am going to compete and you have to sell to me so I do not need to invest as much as you did to start.” This would discourage innovation and risk taking and as a result progress. The FCC dropped the ball when they regulated telephone companies, it is good to see the courts are not making the same mistake about cable internet. Hopefully now they will continue on the correct track and find the same thing when DSL questions come before them.

The only other major case deals with journalists, confidential sources, and grand jury investigations. I think the court should have simply said “Brazenburg v. Hayes stands.”
That’s all I have about the court cases. Tomorrow I will post more about my life and things going on.