That Whacky Supreme Court

I'm getting a kick out of such headlines and stories like this one:

Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK

It makes it seem like the SCOTUS is being a bit vague as to whether or not displays of the Ten Commandments by a government entity are okay or not.

On the one hand, in the Kentucky case, where the display was inside the courthouse and didn't really make any bones about the fact that it was a religious thing, the "court" ruled that such a display was not okay.

On the other hand, the "court" ruled in the Texas case that since the display was outside of the governmental building (the capitol in this case), and since other items of a non-religious nature were also on display, such a monument was okie-dokie.

I've even heard reports (on NPR just a minute ago) that "Chief Justice Rehnquist ruled that the Texas case involved a much lesser degree of a government putting forth a religious point of view" in opposition to the Establishment Clause.

Of course, Rehnquist ruled that in the Kentucky case(s) the Ten Commandment display was perfectly legal, too. And O'Connor ruled that both the Kentucky displays and the Texas displays were not okay, that they did violate the establishment Clause.

In fact, every single justice either ruled that both were legal or that both were illegal. Every justice but one, I should add: Stephen Breyer.

Both opinions really represent the differing points of view of Justice Breyer. Breyer believes that the Texas 10 Commandment monument is okay, whereas the Kentucky monuments are not okay.

It's really that simple. No one else was conflicted, and no one else saw a difference. Let's remember that when we see headlines like "Supreme Court Sends Mixed Message", etc. In this case, just Breyer is sending the mixed messages.