Supremes reject Kentucky appeal on Ten Commandments monument

The Supreme Court has rejected, without comment an appeal by the state of Kentucky of a lower court ruling barring them from placing a 4 foot by 6 foot granite monument of the Ten Commandments in front of the state capital building. Last year, the Supreme Court also rejected a similar appeal from Indiana.

Kentucky Attorney General Albert Chandler appealed to the Supreme Court. He said the 2000 law required an overall public display of historic documents that included the Ten Commandments, a religious symbol.

He said the display was proposed under the law, but it had not yet been designed or installed. He said the appeals court should not have made a constitutional decision based on "speculation and conjecture" over the display's appearance.

While the Supreme Court did not comment on their decision to reject the appeal, it appears that the Court agreed that, even as part of a larger display, the monument would contitute a violation of the separation of church and state. As I'd noted previously, I find the idea that the Ten Commandments are a "foundation" of American law to be rather specious, since only about 2 (and a half) of those commandments are found enshrined in our laws (stealing and killing are illegal, and "bearing false witness" - aka lying - is illegal in some cases).

In any event, even as conservative as this current court is, they've been fairly consistant in their rejection of the display of the Ten Commandments on public property, and for that, I'm grateful. I don't expect proponants of the idea to give up any time soon, but I'm glad that the courts aren't falling for their rather transparent attempts to try and justify their displays.