Editorials

U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Texas' 10 Commandments Case
07/01/05

Dear Friends:

The United States Supreme Court handed down three rulings in the past few days that should get the attention
of every conservative in the country. First the Court handed down its eminent domain decision in the New London, Conn. case,
significantly limiting the property rights of individuals. Specifically the Court ruled that private property could be taken from individuals to generate tax revenue. i.e. taken from people who pay less taxes and sold to people who pay more. (or to private corporations for development). Even if tax abatements are given to the private corporations?????

Then, Monday's rulings on the two Decalogue cases did not bode well for people of faith or for those who are Constitutional strict constructionists. The Court allowed the Texas monument to stay on the Capitol grounds, but ordered the removal of the ones in the Kentucky courthouses. The swing vote between the two cases was CLINTON appointee Justice Breyer. The difference between the two cases was the intent behind the display. Was the intent purely historical or partly religious?
If partly religious, then the display had to be removed. (Or was it because the 10 Commandments being visible would create a hostile work environment for all the politicians, lawyers, and criminals in the courthouse?)

The danger in the KY case is that it continues our highest Court's hostility towards religion. Equally obvious, is that each of the three cases was decided by a 5-4 split majority. If the conservatives on the Court lost ONE member, then even the Texas case would have been decided against us. (And I've having to include a Clinton appointee in that "conservative" designation). This is why Judicial Confirmations in the U.S. Senate are so critical. We must not allow the Democrats to dictate (or even impact) who we nominate and confirm for our Federal judiciary. Especially for the U.S. Supreme Court.

President Ronald Reagan, one of my personal heroes, was "forced" to nominate Justice John Paul Stevens because he was one of the few nominees who would be approved by the Democrats. Today, Stevens is one of the most outspoken of the liberals, and leads the anti-religious wing of the Court. We simply cannot afford another Republican appointed "Stevens" on the Court. The Democrats, one the other hand, know that their majority is razor thin and will fight us with every breath to maintain or expand it. That's why they fought us to a compromise on the previous nominations and why they are showing us their strength on opposing Bolton. They are telling us that we don't have the WILL to fight them when it comes to a Supreme Court confirmation fight. And only time will tell if they are right.

For those of you who would like to read the actual Court opinions handed down on Monday, you can do so by clicking on www.becketfund.org then clicking on the 10 Commandment cases, and then clicking on the decisions. Fair warning, the opinions are 75 pages each.

Be Good!

Judge Paul Enlow


Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement a few minutes ago.
The battle begins!

Home • Life and Family • Judicial Philosophy • Professional • Editorials • Endorsements • Photo Gallery • Links