[link|http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050627/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_ten_commandments;_ylt=AsNYog0bWkvLDv8iK_2QUh.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--|Yahoo News]

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that displaying the Ten Commandments on government property is constitutionally permissible in some cases but not in others. A pair of 5-4 decisions left future disputes on the contentious church-state issue to be settled case-by-case.

"The court has found no single mechanical formula that can accurately draw the constitutional line in every case," wrote Justice Stephen G. Breyer.

Breyer was the only justice to vote with the majority in both cases: One that struck down Ten Commandments displays inside two Kentucky courthouses and a second that allowed a 6-foot granite monument to remain on the grounds of the Texas Capitol.

Another interesting split here, as the two 5-4 rulings saw the judges flip flop on what superficially seems to be a straight forward situation.

But if you look at the details it makes more sense. The Kentucky case was struck down because the formula they where using was Christianity + just enough other stuff to pass muster. The Texas monument is more blatent then the Kentucky one, but it isn't in a court house, it sits in a park.

In any case, expect to see more cases on this over the years. The court has centered on intent as being critical in judging legality on this matter, and that will result in more people trying the Kentucky formula and more people offended by the trivial.

Jay