May court’s decision put Everett case to rest

At first glance, the U.S. Supreme Court’s two rulings Monday regarding the display of the Ten Commandments on public property seem schizophrenic. Such displays are OK as tributes to our legal and religious history, but not, apparently, if they sit inside a courthouse.

If you see a contradiction there, you’re not alone. Attribute it to the ambivalence of the high court’s centrists, reflected in both 5-4 decisions.

But the case watched so closely in Everett, in which the court ruled a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas state capitol does not violate the Constitution, provided some welcome clarity. The City of Everett has been defending its monument against a lawsuit filed by a citizen and supported by Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

The monuments in Austin and Everett, and their surroundings, have so much in common that it would seem a good bet that Everett’s passes constitutional muster. Both are granite slabs donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles decades ago, and are displayed near other historical monuments – three war memorials sit right next to the Everett monument, others are across the street outside the Snohomish County Courthouse.

U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik’s opinion on that question is the one that matters now. He put the Everett case on hold while the Supreme Court decided the Texas case, and could issue a ruling soon.

The best decision for all involved would be one that upholds the Everett monument’s constitutionality. That would follow the letter, spirit and common sense of the High Court’s Monday ruling.

It would also allow city leaders to focus on more immediate issues like budget priorities, growth pressures and economic development, and would free the plaintiffs to pick other battles where they’d be more likely to prevail. Too much money has been spent on this case by both sides already.

The Supreme Court has given Judge Lasnik all he needs to put this divisive issue to rest. We hope he will.