Supreme Court Refuses to Decide Whether Ten Commandments Monument is Constitutional

November 3, 2003

Mathew D. Staver

Washington, D.C. - Today, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal in the Ten Commandments case involving Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who was suspended after he refused to obey a federal judge's order to remove the monument from the Alabama Judicial Building.

It is not surprising that the Court would decline the case, because of the 8,000 to 10,000 cases that are petitioned to the Court each year, only about 1% are accepted for review.

The Supreme Court's rejection of a case does not mean that the Court disagrees with the petitioner who is requesting review. For example, a few years ago the Court declined to hear an appeal by the Bronx Household of Faith church from a negative decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. But soon after, the Court reversed the Second Circuit in the Good News Club case, accepting the same constitutional arguments advanced in the Bronx case. Subsequently, the church filed another case and used the Good News Club decision to win back its constitutional rights. This scenario illustrates the fact that denial of review by the Court says nothing about the merits of a case.

Mathew Staver, President and General Counsel for Liberty Counsel concluded: "The Supreme Court's denial of the Alabama case says nothing about the constitutionality of the Ten Commandments. I anticipate that sometime within the next two years, the Supreme Court will hear a case involving the Ten Commandments."

Currently Liberty Counsel attorneys are defending ten separate Ten Commandments cases throughout the country. Some of our cases include stand-alone Ten Commandments, and others include the Ten Commandments in the context of other historical and legal documents. Click here for more information on these cases.

Supreme Court Justice Urges Court Reliance on Foreign Laws

In remarks at a recent dinner sponsored by the Southern Center for International Studies, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor observed that it is important that the United States make a good impression on other countries.

She spoke approving about the Court's trend toward citing the cases and practices of other nations, pointing to cases such as Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned a state sodomy law. "I suspect," O'Connor said in her speech, "that over time we will rely increasingly (or take notice at least increasingly) on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues."

Former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Robert Bork recently warned of this alarming trend which leads to bad legal decisions and threatens our national sovereignty. It is not difficult for activist judges to locate foreign cases that support a specific agenda.

Has this nation forgotten one of the indictments against King George III of Great Britain, contained in our Declaration of Independence and used as the basis for the American Revolution? "He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation." We should rely on our own federal and state constitutions and statutes and resist the urge to give our legal system over to the whims of foreign law.

Mathew D. Staver, Esq.
Liberty Counsel
http://www.lc.org.

An Ally of the Alliance Defense Fund