Get ready...

[A Black Falcon]

No it isn't. The point of the clause is simple:

Congress cannot make a law establishing an official state religion (e.g. The Anglican Church). Conversely, Congress cannot make a law prohibiting anyone from practicing any religion.

How anyone can read this and assume it means anything but what is says boggles me. I also cannot see how placing the Ten Commandments in a courtroom implies that Congress made a law establishing Judaism or Christianity as an official national religion.

But it's so simple... when you support one religion above the others, you are saying that that religion has a special place in our society (and government) that the others do not. That clause of the Constitution specifically says that that is not okay. Yes, it's never been fully complied with, but that doesn't mean that we should stop trying to comply with it! Your statement is flawed because you fail to realize that the definition of where state sponsorship of religion begins isn't some clearcut line that begins and ends with laws banning other religions, or forcing everyone to attend the services of whatever the state-sponsored church is, or whatever.

No, what is really going on here is that modern-day (religious in thise case) conservatives want to subvert the Constitution and dismantle it, one piece at a time, starting with the Bill of Rights... this clause has been under attack for a long time, because our government now is almost certainly more religious in a lot of ways than most of the Founders were, and cases like this show that they're slowly making ground...

Yes, the early republic had church services in Congress, etc... I know. As I said, back then the main understanding of 'freedom of religion' was for the Protestant sects... but times change, and it doesn't mean that anymore (of course it never fully did, as other religions (Jews, Catholics, etc) weren't officially prosecuted or anything...). But even so, I'm sure that there are some of the founders who at least in part would have disagreed with this (what the Religious Right is doing to this country)... they weren't all exactly the most loyal Christians, you know.

On the matter of the Supreme Court... I find a big issue with the Judiciary branch. I find the whole process very faulty and undemocratic myself. Supreme Court judges are not elected by the people, and serve as long as they want to serve. They are appointed. They are practically royalty. I think the Judicial branch should be subject to public elections and limited terms as the other two branches are.

Absolutely not. Never. That's a horrible idea... because, think about it. The purpose of being a judge is to be ABOVE the party system -- to be impartial. And if judges had to be elected, guess what we'd get? Yeah, not just judges put onto the court because the administration thinks that they'd vote their way, but judges that actually have to HOLD to that or they'll get voted out of office! That would have the result of damaging perhaps beyond repair the judicial system of this country... the Constitution was set up to provide layers upon layers to insulate government policy from the current wind on the streets. Yes, it was done because of a suspicion of the common people, but that suspicion was, I think, well founded in too many ways for me to say that we should substantially change that beyond what we've already done (giving direct elections for senators, for instance, is okay -- the legislative branch is meant to be elected regularly...).

As for their power, the balancing act between interpreting the law and making the law through 'interpretation' is indeed a fine one sometimes, and the courts (or rather, the Supreme Court, which holds by far the most power for that) definitely over time have gone back and forth on the issue. It's a tough question which cannot be answered in absolutes... what is appropriate in some situations may not be in others.