The "Don't Give Me That Crap" Theory of Jurisprudence

I have a comprehensive theory of recent United States Supreme Court church and state jurisprudence.

You have to be a First Amendment geek to know how ballsy that statement is. Really, it’s pretty confusing – why is one ten commandments display judged kosher while another is condemned as meshugana? I hope I used that right… go easy on the gentile, I’m a shegetz.

Very recently the Supremes--of the John Roberts variety, not the Diana Ross kind--heard a case about a memorial to our WWI dead that stands in the Mojave desert… because when the Death Valley VFW post wants people to ignore a monument, they go all out.

Why does anyone care? It’s in the shape of a cross. There’s been a cross-shaped memorial there since 1934, but it's only now that someone has gotten upset about it. So now there’s a memorial to our WWI dead that stands in the Mojave desert in a plywood box.

What will the Gang of Nine do? I’ve got some ideas about these sorts of cases. I call them the “Don’t Give Me That Crap” view of jurisprudence. Somehow, this theory didn’t fly in the church/state course I took in law school. I think I used to much reality and not enough Latin.

Here’s the way it works – say you’ve got two ten commandment displays at two different courthouses. One of them is erected by conservative Christians intentionally trying to stick a fork in Chief Justice Roberts’ eye because they think that the United States isn’t Christian enough. They try this case in the US Supreme Court building, which has a frieze of Moses and the ten commandments over the entrance.

Go figure.

The second display has been around forever and nobody’s really cared, but now somebody, hungry to be oppressed (I imagine them at home, desperately sanding “In God We Trust” from all their coinage and being deliberately unthankful on Thanksgiving) is intentionally trying to stick a fork in Chief Justice Roberts’ eye because...they think the United States is too Christian.

Why, on the same day, does the Court declare commandments one through ten out of bounds and eleven thru twenty fair play? Well, the Supremes don’t like getting jabbed by some little tattletale troublemaker. Under my theory, the Court has adopted a “Don’t Give Me That Crap” approach: don’t go around looking for a fight and then come crying to the Court because you want a nation of theocracy/Godless heathenism – don’t give me that crap.

What Justice Breyer, the swing vote in these cases, really wants to do when some Bible-thumper-who-can’t-stand-the-existence-of-atheists-and-Episcopalians or zealot-atheist-(or Episcopalian like me)-who-won’t-deal-with-conservative-Christians tries to give him an earful is to come down from the bench and jam the fork up the offending party’s...well, you know. But he can’t, so he just votes against them. And after Breyer is done with the utensil, Scalia wants to take it and stick it in their throat.

Under my theory, if you’ve got a legitimate beef, the Supremes will do you right. The desert war memorial cross case has some interesting issues in play, and I’m curious to see which ones the Court latch onto. Regardless of which way they swing, I’m sure I’ll find a way to spin their decision to say they’re enforcing my theory – I’m a lawyer.

But if you go to the Court just to gripe and moan, they’ll send you packing with a fork up your….