As part of my quiet jubilation, I would like to quote from an individual on the morons.org message board explaining exactly why this was necessary (and backing it up with points of law). "spatula" wrote:
Nobody's claimed that the Constitution says people can't express their religion on state property. This is a red herring.
What we are saying is that it is not permitted for the state to endorse a particular religion to the exclusion of others or of non-religion. Once again, the facts:
1. Roy Moore is an agent of the state and is therefore accountable to uphold the Constitution while acting in the capacity of his office (Everson v Board of Ed; US Constitution Article 6, Amendment 14).
2. The Constitution forbids actions respecting the establishment of a religion by the government. (Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Educ; Amendment 1).
3. Roy Moore had a specific religious intent in placing his monument in the rotunda of the state judicial building. (Lemon v Kurtzman)
4. Roy Moore was in the administrative charge of controlling what could and could not be placed in the rotunda of the courthouse, and forbade the placement of other items by the public (Everson v Board of Ed again and Widmar v Vincent)
Ergo, Roy Moore violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment by placing a religious monument on display with religious intentions acting in his official capacity in a forum that was not generally open to the public. He was very clearly out of line.
Wakka Wakka Hell Yeah!
(Yes, I'm gloating. Deal with it.)