Is it a coincidence, then, that the day before the election (which is today) he should have ordered that a display of the Ten Commandments be erected within the state capitol building? Seriously, isn't pandering for votes at this level insultingly obvious?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7d79d/7d79d4fc684dfe432e943f169f011770b7f35d18" alt=""
But I'd really prefer it if courts weren't asked to make those kinds of artistic judgments at all. Judges are no more art critics than they are engineers or doctors, and it seems silly indeed to have to rely upon experts to interpret art and weigh their competing -- and in the case of art, highly subjective -- evaluations of such things. It's also slightly disgraceful to see the kind of intellectual convolutions that backers of government-funded displays of religion will go to in order to dodge the obvious conclusion that they are using public money and public prestige to support a religion. I continue to be irritated that the Supreme Court felt it necessary to be led down that intellectual rabbit hole rather than commission a new frieze and give the old one to the Smithsonian.
Maybe I'm just upset because no one is pandering to me for my vote.
1 comment:
It would appear that his efforts went for naught.
Post a Comment