The Ten Suggestions: I suppose the funny part about all this is that the Ten Commandments are indeed precedential. Or rather, just about all of our jurisdictions have laws that mirror, and then expand on, those basic ten precepts. Accordingly, it's really redundant to even mention them. Nonetheless, whether by design or by chance, they do show that our mores are in line with those of societies thousands of years ago. So, the effect on jurisprudence of the Ten Commandments is not really the issue. It's whether one judge can push his agenda at the expense of the public just because it's not particularly offensive. You don't even have to go to the slippery slope to reject that contention. The judge is duty bound to interpret and obey the laws as written. He has no other special standing to be the grand arbiter of all he surveys - only those cases before him may fall beneath his jurisdiction, and if those laws conflict with his beliefs, too bad. As Flyer said, the test is his ability to keep his personal feelings removed sufficiently from his rulings. By making this an issue over and over (recall he did this years ago with the Ten Commandments on his wall), he shows that indeed, he cannot keep his feelings apart from his vocation. He has gone from judging actions in accordance with law, to advocating a religious agenda on a defenseless public. Oh, that's what the First Amendment was all about...