Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 12 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Ultimate court sits higher than bench
Published Saturday, October 10, 2009
When the U.S. Supreme Court’s term began the first Monday in October, new Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor took her seat on the high court.
Several years ago, I had the opportunity to take a tour of the U.S. Supreme Court’s majestic, judicial building. Outside, above the tall columns on the east side of the building, there’s a triangular stone carving. At its center, Moses and the Ten Commandments are portrayed.
Walking into the Supreme Court’s chambers where the cases are heard, the twin tablets with Roman numerals are engraved on the double wooden doors. The same tablets are engraved on the bronze gates of the side exits.
As I sat in the ornate chambers listening to our guide’s lecture, I learned some interesting facts. She pointed out that the nine justices are seated according to the length of time they’ve served on the bench. The Chief Justice sits in the center with four chairs to his left and four to his right.
Just below the 44-foot ceiling, encircling the walls, famous lawgivers are depicted. These historical figures effected the development of our law today, among them Moses holding the Ten Commandments.
Our guide asked us a question that surprised me, “Did you know there’s a court higher than the Supreme Court?” My first thought was, “Is she about to publicly acknowledge God and His supreme authority?”
She went on to describe an unused storage area above the beautiful, ornate ceiling where a regulation basketball court was constructed for court employees to exercise. “Maybe you’d like to know if the justices play,” our guide continued, “No, they just sit on the bench.”
Everyone chuckled at her pun. But her question about the Court above the court reminded me of their ruling in 1973 permitting abortion on demand during the entire nine months of pregnancy, though all human life is created in the image of God.
During a term that usually runs through the end of June, the Court will hear oral arguments typically on just 100 cases and issue opinions on 80 to 90. Fox News reports that one of those upcoming cases involves an ongoing, decade-long legal battle over the Mojave Desert Cross. For the past 75 years, the eight-foot tall cross has stood on a remote part of the Mojave National Preserve as a monument to World War I soldiers.
Another news report describes the old rugged Latin cross as standing on atop a 30-foot-high rock. In 2002, the ACLU filed suit in California, calling it a religious display on federal land, and the cross was ordered to be removed. The U.S. Congress in 2003 transferred one-acre of land surrounding the cross to private ownership. The same California court ruled in 2005 that the land transfer was an attempt to evade the injunction to remove the cross.
Though some people in our country would have us deny our Judeo-Christian heritage, the Bible promises, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord” (Psalm 33:12). The U.S. Supreme Court, whose building displays Christian symbols, will soon make another monumental decision.
Comments
Posted by Estragon (anonymous) on October 10, 2009 at 9:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Interesting article. Sounds like you found the Supreme Court building inspiring.
We live in a secular nation, Ms. White. The issue of religious displays on public property is a complicated one. While our government shouldn't be hostile to religion, it should not be seen as endorsing one religion over another. Drawing the line between those religious symbols that proselytize, and those that don't, is always a close call.
As for abortion, I don't think you understand the core principle in the Roe v. Wade or Casey v. Planned Parenthood decisions. Pregnancy is a highly sensitive and personal matter. When a woman is told by the State that she must carry every pregnancy to term, the State invades the personal autonomy of the woman. There are pregnancies that are the product of rape and incest, should a woman be forced to give birth in those situations? What about situations where the fetus's development is incapable with life and delivery endangers the woman's life? Shouldn't these decisions be left up to the individual and not the State? The Court has held that when the fetus is capable of life outside the fetus the State is allowed to restrict a woman's personal decision about pregnancy, except when the health or life is endangered. The Court's decisions on abortion seek to accommodate a woman's interest in privacy and determining for herself the most important matters in her life and the State's interest in protecting unborn life.
Abortions were being performed long before Roe v. Wade was decided. After Roe, the number of women dying from botched abortions greatly declined.
What everyone should be able to agree on however is that an unwanted pregnancy is a tragedy, no matter how it happened. Instead of condemning young women who become pregnant, we should as a society make it possible for the mother and child has the support to raise the child. Things like guaranteeing them adequate health care and child care.
Posted by WAtidefan (anonymous) on October 11, 2009 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Estragon: Should prostitution be legal? After all, aren't laws against prostitution just telling a woman or man what she/he can do with her/his body?
Posted by WAtidefan (anonymous) on October 11, 2009 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Estragon: I re-read your post. Are you advocating that the federal government support all mothers and children? As I have posted before, unless the woman has artificial insemination at a sperm bank, she knows who the father is or at least can generate a list. Do DNA testing and make the father support the child(ren). What about young women who are married but didn't plan the pregnancy? Why should couples be burdened with paying for a child? After all, car payments, cable bills, mortgage payments and recreation are expensive. Have you seen the price of a bass boat lately? It's about as ridiculous as the price of arugula at Whole Foods.
Posted by Estragon (anonymous) on October 11, 2009 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
WATideFan, the problem with you is that you see everything in a one dimensional universe of black versus white. Every person has rights and unfortunately those rights intersect and conflict with other people's rights. In a society, we try to balance these conflicting interests to arrive at a decision that best serves the interests of all. The balancing tests used by the Supreme Court are situational and are contoured in a fact-specific manner. In the case of deciding the parameters of a woman's rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments' liberty clause, the Court found it necessary to strike a balance between the woman's right to personal autonomy and the right of the state to protect unborn life. At the point in time prior to viability, the woman's right prevails, but after viability the state's interest takes precedents, but not if the life or health of the woman is at stake.
Your analogies fall flat. The reason they do is that your thinking is influenced by the false precepts of religious fundamentalism - that there is always a black vs. white answer to every question regardless of the circumstances. Context, my fellow Roll Tide fan, is everything.
Posted by WAtidefan (anonymous) on October 11, 2009 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Estragon: My original question was a serious one. It is said time and time again, morality can't be legislated. Why can't an adult make a living by prostitution? I don't think it should be legal, but really, why not? By looking at the last paragraph in your original post, it does seem as if you think the government (my tax dollars and yours) should be used to support all unplanned pregnancies (baby and mother). Where is the personal responsibility? There is no longer any stigma to having a baby out of wedlock (how is that for an old fashioned term) in our society.
No, there is not always a black and white answer to everything. I am sicken by the fact that so many (98%) of the abortions are elective. Not due to rape, incest, health of the mother or condition of the baby but just because the pregnancy was not prevented. Believe it or not, there are many things I struggle with.
On a happier note, we have passed Texas. ROLL TIDE!!
Posted by Estragon (anonymous) on October 11, 2009 at 11:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
WATidefan: The State's prohibition of prostitution raises interests other than regulating what a person can or can not do with his or her body. There are the considerations of public health and social welfare, to name a couple.
Here is a question for you. If the State outlaws all abortion, should it not also criminalize male masturbation? The largest Christian denomination in the world believes that male sperm is also life and that it is a mortal sin to masturbate. Just how far do you want the State to get into a person's bedroom or underpants?
Posted by LoyalAmerican (anonymous) on October 13, 2009 at 8:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Estragon: Take it a step further, what about married couples who are not faithful and have numerous partners; would that not be a public health consideration? If you are going to police prostitution for health reasons, why not the odd ball married couples? What do you mean by "social welfare" as a concern? Heidi Fleiss surely did not need any social services. By the way, isn't it a long stretch from abortion to masturbation? No pun intended. That made no sense! Here is an idea for you to promote; if you do the latter, then the former will not be necessary.
You can criticize "one dimensional universe of black versus white", but in the long run life is smoother. If it is wrong for one, it is wrong for all. If it is right for one, it is right for all. I truly believe in equality!
Posted by biscuitsandhoovergravy (anonymous) on October 14, 2009 at 7:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm afraid this discussion of masturbation is going to get out of hand. As for prostitution it is not the worst career a girl could choose. I will never forget how nervous a friend of mine was the day she told her father that she had decided she was moving to Las Vegas to be a hooker. She expected him to be totally devestated but instead he got the most serene look on his face...wrapped his arms around her and said...honey I am sooo relieved! Your mother and I have been worried to death you were gonna wind up going to law school.
Posted by MsGRITS (anonymous) on October 15, 2009 at 7:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
HA HA HA HA HA HA
Posted by LoyalAmerican (anonymous) on October 16, 2009 at 5:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
biscuit: You and I must have a chat about what you post. My sides are just now recovering from the pain you caused last week. Now I read another post from you and the side pain is here again! Stop it before I throw my back out of alignment from laughter! :o)
Posted by biscuitsandhoovergravy (anonymous) on October 16, 2009 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
LoyalAmerican...thanks for the acknowledgement. I use humor to try to deal with the anger and disillusionment I feel every day with the left wing liberals that are trying to destroy this country. The mainstream media for the most part have become nothing more than a vessel for the garbage and lies that most of our politicians want to spread. We are on a steady march to socialism and the Christian conservatives had better find a leader capable of defeating the Demo's or we are destined to fail as a nation.
So...I hope you and others like you will continue to try and salvage the situation and I will continue to attempt to inject a little humor.
Posted by LoyalAmerican (anonymous) on October 16, 2009 at 9:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
biscuit: Thanks for your humor. I would rather laugh than cry! :o)
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)