The Mighty Constitutional Experts of Boise Are Thwarted

I’ve been kind of busy, but I just had to comment on the Supreme Court’s 9-0 ruling on the Ten Commandments:

Governments that receive donations of Ten Commandments displays and other monuments for public parks are not compelled to take everything they are offered, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

Boise’s Keep the Commandments Coalition was hoping the case would clear the way for the group to seek the return of a Ten Commandments monument to Julia Davis Park, but city officials say the monument will stay where it is, at St. Michael’s Cathedral in Boise.

The court said that a small religious group, the Summum, cannot force Pleasant Grove City, Utah, to place its granite marker in a park that has been home to a Ten Commandments monument for 38 years.

The liberal spin on this has been interesting. Remember the City of Boise removed the monument out of fear that they’d be forced to include a monument from Fred Phelps stating Matthew Shepherd was in Hell. The Supreme Court ruling made clear that no such requirement could ever be imposed.

The award for most bizarre spin on ruling that the City’s view of the constitution potentially requiring them to include a Fred Phelps hate monument if they put the Ten Commandments in the park

Chris says: “Supremes agree with Utah, validate Boise City’s decision to remove the 10 Commandments from the park.”

Really? The type of the post was Thursday Morning Coffee, but perhaps Whiskey and Coffee are easier to confuse than I thought…

Then Binky Boy alleges that Ruth Bader-Ginsburg has joined the grand conspiracy to turn America into a theocracy.
The bottom line is the Constitutional reasoning of the City of Boise was always specious and 9 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices agree.  They removed this because many (not all) members of the City Council are hostile against the idea of religious symbols in the public square.

Given that the city’s case to the public for removing the monument was a sham, I think there’s a case to be made for reconsidering the monument. I don’t believe the city can (after a vote of the citizens) decide to just put the monument back. But another vote on the Monument would be appropriate, in my personal opinion.

This is similar to a trial in which there were facts that were not known or there was false information that had a material impact on the outcome.

If the Ten Commandments is to make a comeback, there would needs be a large grassroots movement, and any such effort would need to be undertaken with much thought, planning, and prayer.