Palmetto Pundit questions court decision.

If you like bloggers who are civil, thoughtful, and literate, you'll like Palmetto Pundit.

Here's a sample of his work, part of his post on the recent U. S. Supreme Court decision on the Ten Commendments case from Kentucky.

Has a decision really been made here? Displaying the Ten Commandments on Government Property should either be constitutional or unconstitutional, not "it depends". It seems as if the decision whether they are permissible or not depends a great deal on whether the Supreme Court itself would have to be remodeled as a result of the decision.

Palmetto then quotes from the AP account of the decision:

The justices voting on the prevailing side in the Kentucky case left themselves legal wiggle room, saying that some displays inside courthouses - like their own courtroom frieze - would be permissible if they were portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation's legal history.

The Supreme Court's frieze depicts Moses as well as 17 other figures including Hammurabi, Confucius, Napoleon and Chief Justice John Marshall. Moses' tablets do not have any writing.

Palmetto really cut to the chase, didn't he?

Enjoy your visit with him.