The liberal case against the Ten Commandments

Ann Coulter summarizes the liberal case against Judge Roy Moore’s placing of the Ten Commandments in his court room:

An affirmative action, Carter-appointed judge (oh sorry, I forgot – we’re only allowed to say that about Clarence Thomas) found that the Ten Commandments plaque violated the First Amendment. Apparently, in a little-noticed development, Judge Moore had become “Congress,” his Ten Commandments plaque was a “law,” and the plaque established a national religion. The Taliban had better legal justification to blow up centuries-old Buddha statues in Afghanistan.

While Coulter’s description of the atrocities being committed on the First Amendment in this case is spot on, she unfortunately makes it appear as though they popped out of Zeus’s head yesterday. In fact, the decisions against Judge Moore are backed by a half-century of liberal judicial decisions that have largely re-written the First Amendment. The problem therefore is not the judges who ruled against Judge Moore. The problem is the entire body of modern constitutional jurisprudence.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 02, 2004 05:13 PM | Send