The conclusion of the court-- that the circumstances surrounding the approval and erection of the monument do not demonstrate that the primary purpose or effect of the monument is religious-- is hardly unusual. What is unusual is the literate and amusing opinion written by federal district Judge Ronald A. White. The opinion, whose subheadings are inspired by Dante's Inferno, accomplishes the nearly impossible task of keeping the reader enthralled for 43 pages.Normally I do not use blog posts for rejoinders to those who have responded to something I have earlier let loose into cyberspace. So when Dr. Bruce Prescott-- whose views I often agree with-- posted an entry on Mainstream Baptist misconstruing my evaluation of Judge White's opinion, I let it pass, assuming that his failure to appreciate the humor in the opinion could be written off to his having been a witness for the losing side in the case. However today, Dr. Prescott's blog post was the text of much of his half-hour commentary on his radio show Religious Talk which was broadcast over Oklahoma City's KREF, streamed over the Internet and archived as an MP3 file on the show's website. So I thought that I should clarify my position.
Dr. Prescott said in his posting and on his radio show:
Friedman might be excused for finding White's decision so entertaining. Reading some legal decisions could easily be prescribed as a cure for acute insomnia. There is a reason, however, why many legal opinions make such dull reading. Justice is far better served by methodical adherence to the rules of logical thought and by impartial application of sound reasoning to legal precedent than it is by the rapturous lyricism and judicial blandishments of misplaced poets.My point was that Judge White was constrained by Supreme Court precedent which requires the examination of the circumstances surrounding the erection of a 10 Commandments monument to see if those circumstances indicate that the government's primary purpose was a religious one. So, while there was evidence on both sides, it was, in my words, "hardly unusual" that Judge White came out where he did. He was trying to follow somewhat murky Supreme Court precedent. What made the case worthy of note, however, was Judge White's flair in writing the decision.
In other words, a lawyer can admire elegant opinion writing even if he would not necessarily decide the case in the same way. I don't know how I would have decided the case within the confines of Supreme Court precedent since I did not hear all of the evidence. However, I believe that Dr. Prescott's quarrel is with the U.S. Supreme Court. It created the framework in which Judge White had to work. My posting-- perhaps not explicitly enough-- acknowledged that, and went on to examine what an interesting jurist did with the materials he had to work with. To borrow a tack from Judge White: The fault, dear Brutus is not in this decision, but in the precedents.
And, by the way, an editorial in today's Tulsa World, I think, agrees.
