Moore removed...

[LordKathen]

In light of the recent hot debate around here, check this out:


MONTGOMERY, Alabama (CNN) -- Alabama's judicial ethics panel removed Chief Justice Roy Moore from office Thursday for defying a federal judge's order to move a stone Ten Commandments monument from the state Supreme Court building.

The nine-member Court of the Judiciary issued its unanimous decision after a one-day trial Wednesday. The panel, which includes judges, lawyers and non-lawyers, could have reprimanded Moore, continued his suspension or cleared him.

Moore said he was not surprised by the decision, which he called a step toward "prohibiting the public worship of God."

"I have absolutely no regrets," he said. "I have done what I was sworn to do. I have said repeatedly that unless we can acknowledge God, we can not uphold the oath of our office."

A federal judge in Montgomery ruled the 2.6-ton granite monument was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and ordered Moore to move it from the rotunda of the state judicial building in August. Moore refused, but was overruled by his eight colleagues on the state Supreme Court. (Full story)

The U.S. Supreme Court on November 3 refused to hear Moore's appeal in the case. (Full story)

"In defying that order, the chief justice placed himself above the law," said Judge William Thompson, head of the Court of the Judiciary.

The panel also found that Moore "showed no signs of contrition for his actions."

Moore said he would discuss the possibility of an appeal with his lawyers and could ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review his removal, arguing that it violates the Constitution's ban on religious tests as a qualification for office.

Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor had filed the ethics charges against Moore after the chief justice refused U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson's order to remove the monument. Thompson ruled the monument was an unconstitutional promotion of religion by government in violation of the First Amendment.

Moore had demanded a televised trial in a larger venue than the Supreme Court courtroom, and said Wednesday's proceedings amounted to a closed hearing.

After Thursday's decision, he criticized the court for not opening the hearing and suggested that Pryor had changed his position on the issue for political gain.

Moore read comments Pryor made in 1997, defending Moore for displaying the Ten Commandments in his courtroom as a northeast Alabama circuit judge.

He pointed out that Pryor has been nominated to a seat on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/13/mo...nts/index.html

You can probly guess my position on this. It should have never been there in the first place.

[Maelakin]

Moore said he would discuss the possibility of an appeal with his lawyers and could ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review his removal, arguing that it violates the Constitution's ban on religious tests as a qualification for office.

I’m unsure as to where he is going with this.

He was removed from office because he failed to act on a federal order not because of the monument.

[ 11-13-2003, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: Maelakin ]

[LordKathen]

I am not sure either. Time will tell, I guess.

[Timber Loftis]

This is simple math. He disobeyed the law, and showed no remorse. I'd love to see his interview in front of the ethics panel. Usually, like a parole board, they want to see remorse -- and I'm sure he gove none whatsoever.

Look, you are free to disagree with what the Supreme Court rules, but refusing to follow a court Order is contempt, plain and simple. He may not like the law, but every judge up and down the east coast has told him he's wrong. At some point, you gotta accept that your interpretation of the law just might be incorrect. And, even if not, you gotta follow Orders of a court while you fight it.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Maelakin: Moore said he would discuss the possibility of an appeal with his lawyers and could ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review his removal, arguing that it violates the Constitution's ban on religious tests as a qualification for office. I’m unsure as to where he is going with this. He was removed from office because he failed to act on a federal order not because of the monument.

Where he's going is an argument that requiring him to give up Christian icons is in and of itself a religious qualification for office. It's a loooong strecth and shows he's now grasping at straws. The "ban" he mentions is requiring a judge be X religion or Y religion or not Z religion as a qualification of office. It has nothing to do with this -- he can bible-thump all he likes at home, and bless him for it.

But, the courthouse ain't his private territory, and no matter his religion at home, he cannot enforce it on others while at work. His job is to apply the LAW, only the LAW, and just the LAW. The US Law, that is, not the Torah.

[LordKathen]

Is there a lawyer in the house? Oh ya! Timber!!

I love having a lawyer around here to help interpret things for us layman folk.
Thanks Timber. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Well I - for one - am utterly appalled! What a travesty of justice!! Now it is only a matter of time before the Supremes outlaw the practice of "Saying Grace" in public restaurants!!! Where will it end??? [img]graemlins/madhell.gif[/img]

OK - that may have been a bit "over the top", but I figured it was what most of you would expect to hear from a good ole' Southern Baptist. [img]graemlins/laugh2.gif[/img]

Now for my real feelings on the subject.

As Timber said, Judge Moore defied a court order to remove the monument. Whether he agreed with the order or not, the proper procedure would have been to comply with the order while fighting the decision. Instead, he openly defied the order - thus placing himself "above the law"...and the law is very specific in stating that NOBODY is "above the law". So his removal has nothing to do with the monument and everything to do with his defiance of a court order.

As a Christian, I am saddened (of course) to see the monument removed. However, my college buddies and I debated this topic rather thoroughly when it first hit the news and I have to admit that the monument probably shouldn't have been in the federal court building to begin with. Personally, I find the claims that it is forcing Christianity on all who enter the building to be a bit of a stretch. It wasn't over the front door, where there was no way to avoid it. It was placed in a rotunda that was near a high-traffic area, but the rotunda itself could be avoided by those not wishing to see the monument. (At least that was my understanding from the news stories).

But, while I may be saddened as a Christian, I have to agree that placing a religious monument inside a federal court building DOES violate the concept of "separation of church and state" as defined by the Constitution.

The bottom line is exactly what Lord Kathan said at the beginning...the monument should never have been put there in the first place.

Since Moore has been removed, there is now a question of what should be done with the monument. Since Moore paid for it out of his own pocket, I say that it belongs to him and should be returned to him. He can then seek a more appropriate place to have it displayed (perhaps in a museum).

So what are your thoughts on that?

[LordKathen]

Well said Cerek. I agree completely. I never agreed with the notion that it "forced" christianity on people, but, it favors one religion over others in a federal building. We could hash all the sides out again, about this country being based on christianity and the like, but, it is not needed. He lost that debate before, ignored the order and is now paying the price. That is justice, and I am pleased with it. Like you said, keep it at home.

[Timber Loftis]

I'm sure it will find its way into some building or park in town dedicated to the Ten Commandments Judge, a favorite of the people.

We hashed it all out before, but I gotta reaffirm that generally I think it doesn't make sense to ban all religious icons from public display. Public display of religious symbols and establishment of religion are two different things. Manger scenes are still allowed on city properties -- so long as they are "diluted" with other symbols of the holiday, like Santa (one of WEIRDER Supreme Court rulings, I must say).

But, as we all came round to think before, the "10 rules of Jahweh" being placed in a court by a judge who also keeps a placard on his bench and claims to enforce those 10 rules is putting your toe a bit over the line.

[Maelakin]

I don’t have a problem with a judge placing a person effect on his desk with the 10 Commandments. However, I do have a problem when he places it in public view. City parks and the like is one thing, but a building of LAW should have no ties to religion, at least visibly.