Religious Displays Not INHERENTLY Unconstitutional

It looks like any celebrating by the anti-God crowd was premature.

The Supremes demand freedom FROM religion only in certain cases, when there seems to be an attempt to promote a religion in government spaces.

From AP:

Sending dual signals in closely-watched cases, the high court said displays of the Ten Commandments _ like their own courtroom frieze _ are not inherently unconstitutional. But each exhibit demands scrutiny to determine whether it goes too far in amounting to a governmental promotin of religion, the court said in a case involving Kentucky courthouse exhibits.

...In a stinging dissent to the ruling involving Kentucky's courthouse exhibits, Justice Antonin Scalia declared: "What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle."

Imagine that. Scalia points out that the role of the courts is to interpret law, not create it. (The libs find that scary.)

According to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, "Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment clause."

Perhaps the biggest news of the day--

The Supreme Court ended its term with no retirement announcements. However, this doesn't mean that a retirement couldn't come later, by way of a letter to the president or press release. It does mean that, at least for now, the battle to fill a Supreme Court vacancy will be waged another day.