Question

In a series of well-publicized Supreme Court rulings in 2005, Kentucky was required to remove the Ten Commandments posted in some of its county courtrooms. However, Texas was allowed to keep a monument on the state capitol grounds that had the Ten Commandments listed. How did the Supreme Court rationalize the Kentucky circumstance as unconstitutional, but not the Texas case

Answer 1

Answer: The Texas case involved a monument with a historical context on the capitol grounds.

Step-by-step explanation:

Judgement can be fair to some persons and unfair to another person who deem it unfair to them. This doesn't mean the law is partial but it just means it's not favourable at that appointed time for them. The situation of the Supreme Court ruling which didn't favour the Kentucky's but worked out in the favour of the monument's erected by Texas on the Capitol grounds was due to that which was erected by Texas was of an historical context. That was the only exception why it was allowed to remain erected while that of Kentucky's removed in their various outlet. No favouritism but just consideration of history.