Those crazy Louisianians are at it again! Apparently, a US District Court Judge has upheld the placement of a picture of Jesus in a Louisianian courthouse. The picture is placed within the broader context of a display featuring prominent lawmakers in history including Mohammed (with Koran), Charlemagne, Napoleon, and King Louis IX.

The decision in this case bares a striking similarity to the Supreme Court’s decision in the 2005 case Van Orden v. Perry. In that case the Court held that a Ten Commandments monument outside of the Texas State Capital was legitimately placed because it was part of a historical, non-religions display featuring other, non-religious monuments.

One of my favorite quotes from the article:

The former judge who bought the picture said in a sworn statement that he had no idea that it had any religious significance. “To me at the time it appeared to be a depiction of a lawgiver,” retired Judge James R. Strain Jr. said.

Thats funny, because this particularly lawmaker had a halo around his head. Even though I always picture Antonin Scalia with one, if I ever saw one in a painting, I would consider that a pretty good indication that the subject of said painting was more than just an above-average lawmaker.

We also mustn’t forget that the relevant portion of the US Constitution reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It certainly sounds to me like ‘Congress’ has made no law respecting an establishment of religion. Even though limitations that were originally placed exclusively on Congress have permeated down to the states, I’m not sure that expansion is a legitimate extension of the First Amendment by way of the Fourteenth.

Ultimately, this seems like a rather silly debate for both sides of the issue. Sure, more conventional lawmakers may have the right to honor some of their more eternal colleagues, but do they really have to pick Jesus? On the other hand, does the ACLU (or their client) really feel that offended by the painting of an incredibly commercialized, rather mainstream diety? Who cares! Thank God for Louisianians!


2 Responses to “Thank God For Louisiana”

  1. 1 AJ

    Luckily, the Louisiana state constitution has the exact same provision with the exact same wording ( link ). It was written in 1974, so it can only be assumed to hold a modern interpretation of literally the exact same words as appear in the federal constitution.

    I also think that if the court were to follow the Van Orden precedent, they won’t take the picture down.

  2. 2 Kedar

    I agree. Van Orden means that the pictures stay.


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Categories

Random Posts

  • Traitors to the Cause: 6-3 decisions are, statistically speaking, the least common vote split. Frequently, those cases split along the ideological lines that are s...
  • Justice Ginsburg and the Future of the Court: One can only hope that Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) horded the tasteless Intrade contract for "Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Be Next Justice to Depar...
  • Supreme Court Releases Four Opinions; Ten Remain: The Supreme Court released four divided opinions today including a very interesting case rejecting an inmate's right to test the DNA used to...
  • A Deeper Look at Reversal Rates: An article in today's Cincinati Enquirer highlights the Sixth Circuit's current 15-case losing streak in the Supreme Court. Circuits regular...
  • Belated Decade Advocate Scorecard: For one reason or another, it looks like I forgot to post my updated advocate scorecard for the decade at the end of the last term. Origin...