Moore's 10C monument must be moved by August 20th

[beejay]

Local TV station's news (http://www.nbc13.com/news/2383080/detail.html)

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. -- A federal judge ruled Tuesday that Chief Justice Roy Moore has 15 days to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Judiciary Building.

U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson said in his order that Moore now must remove the monument by August 20.

Moore has said that he doesn't think the Federal Courts have jurisdiction in this matter, so it will be interesting to see what he does.

:) :)

[Jewel]

Originally posted by beejay
[BMoore has said that he doesn't think the Federal Courts have jurisdiction in this matter, so it will be interesting to see what he does.

:) :) [/B]
My prediction is that he will play martyr and capitalize on how persecuted he is being while not moving the monument.:banghead:

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by beejay
Moore has said that he doesn't think the Federal Courts have jurisdiction in this matter, so it will be interesting to see what he does.

Then why did he appeal to them after he lost the first time?

[athee]

wasn't there something about the federal govt recently passing some rule about not being able to use federal employees to remove the monument??


ahh here it is:
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/tenco30.htm


this is gonna get interesting. The 11th circuit court should subcontract the removal and demolition of the rock to a local secular humanist/atheist chapter. They'd do it for free and no federal funds would have to be used.

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by athee
wasn't there something about the federal govt recently passing some rule about not being able to use federal employees to remove the monument??

The bill says that they will not pay employees to enforce the judgement. However, I suspect that US Marshals are sallaried employes who are not payed per task.

[Buffman]

...removal and demolition...

Anti-Moore forces and non-believers should have nothing to do with the physical removal of this "graven image" unless associated with such action on a contractual basis.

Under no circumstances should any non-believer be associated with the demolition of this stone icon celebrating superstition. Christian zealots placed it in an inappropriate place. They should now place it in an appropriate place....though I doubt it will fit. Hmmmm? On second thought, maybe it would. :D

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally posted by Buffman
Christian zealots placed it in an inappropriate place. They should now place it in an appropriate place....though I doubt it will fit. Hmmmm? On second thought, maybe it would. :D

And I suggest D. James Kennedy's ass as a suitably appropriate place. Given the sheer volume of garbage that Kennedy's pulled out of that particular locale over the years, there ought to be more than enough room for every Ten Commandments display in the country. :D

[Ronin]

They should now place it in an appropriate place....though I doubt it will fit. Hmmmm? On second thought, maybe it would.

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Alright, now...how am I suppose to explain the condition of this monitor to my sergeant?!

[beejay]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
The bill says that they will not pay employees to enforce the judgement

The court will enforce the order by fining Moore (or the state?) if the order is disobeyed.

Of course Moore put it there without state help, so he should remove it.

You can tell from the Appeals Court's ruling how little they are impressed by an Alabama judge who claims not to be covered by Federal Court rulings.

Do you think Moore will defy the court?

(The state might be the one who ends up paying the fine...maybe Moore'll spout defiance and the governor will move it.)

(Although when similar shenanigans were going on in Indiana, and a county erected the monument held unconstitutional for the statehouse, it was a joy to read the judge's order of removal and the threat of fines. Basically, anybody in the county who had anything to do with the 10C monument, or who could run a forklift, was threatened with a personal fine if the monument was moved...)

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally posted by beejay
The court will enforce the order by fining Moore (or the state?) if the order is disobeyed.

Here's a hilarious little twist. According to this article (http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030805/APN/308050897), the new order places the onus of removal on the state. That being true, a copy of the order has been served on the Alabama Attorney General, none other than our old pal William Pryor, who's been insanely outspoken in defense of the monument:

[SPLC lawyer Richard] Cohen said if Moore does not remove the monument by Aug. 20, plaintiffs attorneys will likely ask Thompson to hold Moore in contempt of court, a legal step that could lead to an order imposing fines against the state if the monument is not removed.

Because Thompson's order said it's up to the state to remove the monument, Cohen urged Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor "to put aside his personal support of the monument and work with Justice Moore to follow the law."

Pryor was out of his office Tuesday. A spokeswoman, Joy Patterson, said the attorney general's office had received Thompson's order, but otherwise would have no comment.

[joedad]

This thing is too big and unsafe to move in one piece, and will require a jackhammer.

Honestly, I just hope the Feds aren't overly respectful toward this bozo like they were with George Wallace and "segregation forever," thereby conferring some degree of credibility. Kennedy had to federalize the Alabama National Guard to enforce desegregation. Moore's defiance doesn't approach the problem of desegregation, but just the same it ought to be easy enough to get this piece of junk tossed.

[RufusAtticus]

I'd love to see them put it in Moore's office and have it fall through the floor.

[Jewel]

Rufus, I just about spit my coffee all over my keyboard :notworthy

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
I'd love to see them put it in Moore's office and have it fall through the floor.

I like it a lot! Alternatively, they could put the monument in the office right above Moore's chambers. That'd wreck his floor, his ceiling and maybe any Jebus statuary he's got in there.

Anyhoo, the injunction Judge Thompson issued yesterday is available for download in PDF here (http://www.almd.uscourts.gov/Level%20Two%20Docs/Final%20Judgement%20Glassroth%20Aug%205.pdf). Given Chief Justice Moore's relentless blabbering about how federal courts have no jurisdiction over state officials, the federal judge decided to give the parties a heads-up on how things might go in the event of noncompliance:

Finally, in view of the Chief Justice's recent reassertion that this court does not have the authority or jurisdiction to enter an injunction in this case, an argument already rejected by this court and the Eleventh Circuit, this court believes it appropriate to provide the parties with some preliminary idea of the court's thinking as to how the court will proceed if later there is an allegation that today's injunction has not been complied with within the time allowed. If the plaintiffs file a motion for civil contempt, the court will immediately issue a show-cause order. If, based on the show-cause-order response and the evidence presented at a hearing, there is a finding of civil contempt, the court could levy substantial fines against Chief Justice Moore in his official capacity and, thus, against the State of Alabama itself, until the monument is removed. For example, the court could levy a fine of $5,000 a day for the first week (that is, for each of the first seven days), with the amount of the fine perhaps to double at the beginning of each and every week thereafter to the extent allowed by law and with the fine amount to be paid into the court at the end of each week, until there is full compliance with the order the court enters today. (Citation and footnote omitted.)

[brighid]

I hope Moore keeps up his shennanigans and I hope Pryor backs him. I think that will prove to be very advantageous for the Democrats who oppossed him on the basis that he could not carry out his civil duties objectively due to his obvious, out-spoken religious bias. If he does it will only be done begrudgingly. We can only hope they defy the court order. Whoever runs against either idiot in the future can site the complete waste of tax-payer money in a time of an extreme budget crisis, and how that money took away from hard-working families and services for the needy so Judge Moore could lead a religious crusade.

That man has NO business being on the bench.

Brighid

[joedad]

For example, the court could levy a fine of $5,000 a day for the first week (that is, for each of the first seven days), with the amount of the fine perhaps to double at the beginning of each and every week thereafter to the extent allowed by law and with the fine amount to be paid into the court at the end of each week, until there is full compliance with the order the court enters today.I find it interesting that there is no ultimatum or final action indicated, just endless fines. Not too bad. Hope Moore has some wealthy friends or a very understanding constituency. Money is what made the Boston Archdiocese finally say UNCLE. Hope it works here.

And I am for relocating is just above Moore's chambers

[Shake]

Originally posted by beejay
Local TV station's news (http://www.nbc13.com/news/2383080/detail.html)



Moore has said that he doesn't think the Federal Courts have jurisdiction in this matter, so it will be interesting to see what he does.

:) :) What I read in the paper this morning (and is confirmed in athee's link above) is that Moore plans on appealing this to the US Supreme Court. I sure hope they put him in his place.

[beejay]

Originally posted by Shake
What I read in the paper this morning (and is confirmed in athee's link above) is that Moore plans on appealing this to the US Supreme Court. I sure hope they put him in his place.

Moore is appealing the Supreme Court on the ruling that this monument is unconstitutional, but he did not request that the 11th Circuit "stay its mandate". Since Moore didn't, Judge Thompson can go ahead and order the removal. (Of course, in the unlikely event that Moore is successful with the Supreme Court, he could put the monument back.)

From the PDF that Stephen links to above:

Two days later, on July 30, the Eleventh Circuit issued
its mandate, and, on August 1, this court received it. Thus,
although the Chief Justice could have requested a stay of the
mandate (and thereby of the injunction the court enters today)
pending a request for review by the United States Supreme
Court, the Chief Justice chose, for reasons not made known to
this court, not to do so.

(So there is no appeal to the Supreme Court on the August 20th deadline.)

Did Moore screw up? His lawyer? Or does he know its a losing fight and is giving up?

[Stephen Maturin]

According to this (http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/NEWS/StoryAlabama1brail807w.htm), Moore will be appearing on Sean Hannity's radio show this afternoon and on the Hannity and Colmes Faux News Channel tee vee show tonight. This sort of thing makes me glad that I never bothered to get cable tee vee.

[RufusAtticus]

I had a dream the other night that I had a debate with Moore and dismantled all his silly arguments.

[beejay]

For example, the court could levy a fine of $5,000 a day for the first week (that is, for each of the first seven days), with the amount of the fine perhaps to double at the beginning of each and every week thereafter to the extent allowed by law and with the fine amount to be paid into the court at the end of each
week, until there is full compliance with the order the court
enters today.

to the extent allowed by law

Does anybody know the extent allowed by law?

(There must be some maximum daily fine, or total fine? Perhaps the judge doesn't know what these maxima are?)

[Infidelettante]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
I'd love to see them put it in Moore's office and have it fall through the floor.


quote:Stephen Maturin
I like it a lot! Alternatively, they could put the monument in the office right above Moore's chambers. That'd wreck his floor, his ceiling and maybe any Jebus statuary he's got in there.

I have stayed out of this out of embarrassment for my beloved state. Anyway, it just goes too far when you start dropping things through floors in public buildings. People could get hurt. Living here is hard enough without religious monuments falling on our heads.:p

JT

[Jewel]

Originally posted by JTVrocher
I have stayed out of this out of embarrassment for my beloved state. Anyway, it just goes too far when you start dropping things through floors in public buildings. People could get hurt. Living here is hard enough without religious monuments falling on our heads.:p

JT

I guess that's one way for religion to make an impression...;)

(I'll just be leaving now)

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
I had a dream the other night that I had a debate with Moore and dismantled all his silly arguments.
One of your more realistic dreams, I presume.

[Toto]

Alabama chief justice tells Hannity he may ignore order to remove monument (http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/newsflash/get_story.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?j6894_BC_SOU--TenCommandments&&news&newsflash-al)

Moore said he may announce his decision next Thursday on whether he will leave the monument in the building, where he had it installed during the night July 31, 2001.

"You can't violate your conscience," Moore said.

[beejay]

I think this will be the classic "have your cake and eat it too" scenario.

Moore will refuse to move it and be a hero to the religious right.

The State of Alabama (who will have to pay the fines if it's not moved) will move it.

[hezekiah jones]

What an appalling waste of money and time on the part of government employees. And what a complete asshole and buffoon this Roy Moore is. I feel for all our Alabamian skeptic friends.

[Stephen Maturin]

Here's (http://www.cw.ua.edu/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/08/07/3f3335b24fd7c) a write-up of Moore's appearance on Hannity and Colmes last night. A few highlights:

Moore, appearing on the Fox News prime-time talk show Hannity and Colmes, said a recent federal mandate to remove the monument by Aug. 20 keeps him from doing his job.

"Our justice system was established invoking the favor and guidance of almighty God," he said. "When a federal judge says I can't acknowledge God, I can't do my job."

Setting aside the obvious fact that the gulf between "I can't install a two and a half ton endorsement of Biblical religion in a state building" and "I can't acknowledge God" is several light years wide, here's hoping Moore stays true to that statement and retires when the Supreme Court refuses to hear his appeal.

Moore defended his position, saying the courts throughout the country's history have agreed God is the foundation of the law.

"[The] Constitution is based upon the laws of nature and nature's God," he said, pointing to James Madison's Federalist Papers.

Except that Madison didn't say that. The reference to "the laws of nature and nature's God" appears in a discussion of how the old Confederation could be dissolved without the unanimous consent of the states. Looks like the Chief Justice needs to re-read Federalist No. 43 (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_43.html).

"I think you're taking a great, courageous stand and I admire what you're doing," Hannity told Moore.

Attaboy, Sean. Could you have gotten your tongue any farther up Moore's ass? :banghead:

[BibleBelted]

Originally posted by Stephen Maturin
Attaboy, Sean. Could you have gotten your tongue any farther up Moore's ass?

Oddly enough, it appears to me that Judge Roy's act is not really selling well with fiscal conservatives. Maybe his little dog and pony show will have the positive effect of driving a wedge between them and the social conservatives.

At least we can hope.

[hezekiah jones]

"When a federal judge says I can't acknowledge God, I can't do my job."

"[H]ere's hoping Moore stays true to that statement and retires when the Supreme Court refuses to hear his appeal."

hahahaa

[Opera Nut]

A judge in Massabama sittin in the slammer for contempt of court......coooool!!

[[cue Hallelujah Chorus singing "Forever and ever...."]

:D

[Toto]

New front in religious battle (http://www.thehill.com/news/081303/commandments.aspx)

An Indiana Republican’s amendment to a pending spending bill could block federal marshals from enforcing a federal court order to remove a massive replica of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama State Judicial Building in Montgomery.

. . .

Hostettler told The Hill: "It’s plain clear that Congress can do this because according to Article 1, Section 8, and Article 3, given that we create [the courts], we also fund them. It’s a very excellent civics lesson that once a federal court says something it is not law."

. . .

Some conservative legal scholars scoff at Hostettler’s legislative sleight of hand.

“The spending clause does not authorize Congress to violate the Constitution,” said Ronald Rotunda, a law professor at George Mason University and Federalist Society member: “There is a broad power to the spending clause, but there are limits and this crosses it.”

[Stephen Maturin]

There's more on the attempt to eliminate funding for enforcement of the removal order in this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58858). If Ron Rotunda thinks it's a big fat crock of shit, it probably is.

Here's something else. Most folks here know that Moore hired private counsel - Stephen Melchior of Wyoming and Herbert Titus of Virginia - to represent him in this case. What I didn't know is that Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor actually "deputized" these guys. Yep, that's right; we've got two Alabama assistant attorneys general arguing in their "official" capacity that federal courts have no authority to order Moore to remove that big honking rock from the state judicial building. You'll find a story on the whole mess here (http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/NEWS/StoryAlabamapryor12w.htm) and Barry Lynn's letter to Pryor asking for revocation of private counsel's AAG status here (http://www.au.org/pryor_letter.htm).

Finally, Moore plans to give a press conference tomorrow at 1:30 to announce whether he'll comply with the removal order. Story here (http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030812/APN/308121007&cachetime=5).

[atheist_in_foxhole]

Uh oh, it looks like the fundies are coming to Moore's rescue. (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34052)

"From across the country, those who love God, love liberty, and love freedom will be gathered at the steps of the Alabama Capitol Building, Montgomery, Ala., in support of the Ten Commandments and Judge Roy Moore, and the battle he has fought for 10 years for the constitutional right we have to acknowledge Almighty God in the public place, both from the Constitution for the United States and the 1901 Alabama Constitution."

Scheduled speakers at the rally include WorldNetDaily columnist Jerry Falwell, former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and retired Marine Corps Gen. Raymond Davis.

"Please be there this Saturday to tell Myron Thompson, the ACLU and SPLC, the media and the rest of those of their ilk, 'NO! You will push us no further!'" the statement said.

:rolleyes:

[Stephen Maturin]

Not surprisingly, Moore just announced that he will NOT remove the monument. There'll be more info on the announcement before long.

Edit: Here's (http://www.wtvm.com/Global/story.asp?S=1402195&nav=8fapHSuz) a brief write-up on the announcement. Same old shit about a mean ol' federal judge trying to keep Alabama from acknowledging God, blah blah blah, but Moore did at least annouce what he plans to do next:

The Chief Justice also said he would file before the U.S. Supreme Court tomorrow, seeking an order stopping the Federal courts from enforcing an order to remove the monument.

Apparently, he plans to ask the Supreme Court for an order enjoining enforcement of the removal order, a la what happened in Bush v. Gore.

[Toto]

Won't Move'm (http://www.nbc13.com/news/2406271/detail.html)

At a news conference Thursday afternoon, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore said he does not plan to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Judicial Building.

Moore said he will instead take the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court and try to force the U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson to stop interfering with what he says is a right established by Alabama's constitution.

The Pryor connection (http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030814/NEWS/308140337/1007)

Jess Brown, a political science professor at Athens State University, said Wednesday that Pryor's chances for a federal judgeship could hinge on his response that Moore has refused to comply with the order.

“If he's viewed in Washington as an attorney general helping Moore or the state keep [the monument] in the building, then he'll hurt himself," Brown said.

. . .

Thompson, who said he could fine the state $5,000 for each day the monument remains beyond the deadline, served Pryor and other state officials with the order to remove the monument.

Pryor, who has the responsibility to defend the state in legal actions, said he received Thompson's order but declined comment.

Brown said Pryor might help his political stock in Alabama by siding with Moore or by simply saying the Ten Commandments issue should be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Pryor is in the hot seat anyway you look at it," Brown said, assuming Moore chooses to defy the federal judge. “He'll eventually have to take some type of position, or if the [federal] judge says the state owes money, it is up to the attorney general to defend the state's interests.

[BibleBelted]

It's good thing Alabama is such a prosperous state with lots of extra money lying around . . and an AG's office with little to do.

[snoiduspoitus]

There needs to be more than a threat of fines doled out here. A continuing fine is but a taxpayer-subsidized violation of law. Moore needs to be held in contempt with an order positing jail time until he complies. Heck, as long as taxpayers are funding his idiocy, I'd rather see them pay for his lodging instead of his monument.

[Grumpy]

"Our justice system was established invoking the favor and guidance of almighty God," he said. "When a federal judge says I can't acknowledge God, I can't do my job."

Did Roy use this argument during the trial? Because I've only heard it in the last few weeks: "Removing the rock would be unconstitutional, because it infringes on my freedom of worship. In fact, the Alabama Constitution requires the acknowledgment of God."

This at least gives him grounds to argue for an injunction, since (according to that argument) removing the monument would cause harm, thus the action must be postponed until the SCOTUS hears his appeal.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally posted by Grumpy
Did Roy use this argument during the trial?

Yeah, that argument's been around in one form or another from the beginning, although I haven't seen it couched in free exercise terms. The argument seems to be phrased a little differently each time it pops up.

Originally posted by Grumpy
This at least gives him grounds to argue for an injunction, since (according to that argument) removing the monument would cause harm, thus the action must be postponed until the SCOTUS hears his appeal.

Maybe, but he's got a rough road ahead of him. Moore can present his request for a stay to Justice Kennedy, the circuit justice for the 11th, or to the full Court. (If Moore goes with the first option, Kennedy can refer the matter to the full Court if he so chooses). In either event, Moore can get a stay only if he establishes: (1) a reasonable probability that at least four justices will vote to grant cert.; (2) a substantial probability of success on the merits; and (3) Moore would suffer irreparable harm absent a stay.

Roy has yet another hoop to jump through in this case. Supreme Court Rule 33 (http://supreme.usatoday.findlaw.com/supreme_court/rules/part5.html) sez, in pertinent part:

Except in the most extraordinary circumstances, an application for a stay will not be entertained unless the relief requested was first sought in the appropriate court or courts below or from a judge or judges thereof.

Moore could have requested a stay from the Eleventh Circuit but didn't. That means he's gotta clear the "most exceptional circumstances" hurdle in addition to meeting the usual three elements.

Personally, I don't see much of anything in the way of reasonable probability, substantial probability, irreparable harm or most exceptional circumstances here. Even so, it'll be interesting to see what the petition for stay looks like.

[beejay]

Originally posted by Stephen Maturin

Even so, it'll be interesting to see what the petition for stay looks like.

Let's say Moore petitions for the stay on the 19th. (Deadline for moving is the 20th.)

Does everything "freeze" at that point until the various requests and appeals are denied?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally posted by beejay
Let's say Moore petitions for the stay on the 19th. (Deadline for moving is the 20th.)

Does everything "freeze" at that point until the various requests and appeals are denied?

Nope, simply filing a petition won't cut it. Judge Thompson's removal order remains in effect unless and until the Supreme Court grants a stay (or until Thompson modifies his own order, which ain't at all likely). I vaguely remember reading something in yesterday's news reports about Moore planning to file something with the Supreme Court today.

[southernhybrid]

Have you guys seen this? It looks like Governor Riley is going to give his official support to Moore's appeal.

Read it and weep! (http://www.governorpress.state.al.us/pr/pr-2003-08-14-01-tencommandments.asp)


It is a sad commentary on the current culture when the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed in public and, at the same time, my cabinet and I have been criticized for gathering in my office and holding voluntary Bible study before work hours. Holding Bible studies and reflecting upon the very foundation of our moral traditions should be encouraged in today?s society, not discouraged.

I love the way they try and make themselves look like victims. I always thought that we as citizens had the right to criticize our elected officials for the stupid things that they do. I wonder how he'd like it if the US president was a follower of Allah who encouraged all of us to study the Koran.

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by southernhybrid
Have you guys seen this? It looks like Governor Riley is going to give his official support to Moore's appeal.

Read it and weep! (http://www.governorpress.state.al.us/pr/pr-2003-08-14-01-tencommandments.asp)




From that letter

I have talked with Attorney General Bill Pryor and he shares my determination to pursue every course of legal action to protect the First Amendment rights of all Alabamians, including Chief Justice Moore, while, at the same time, ensuring that the rule of law prevails.

Where does the 1st Amendment give Moore the "right" to impose his religion onto others using the power of his office?

It just reminds me how glad I am to live in Massachusetts.

[beejay]

Originally posted by crazyfingers
From that letter

while, at the same time, ensuring that the rule of law prevails.

I think what you have here is Governor Riley trying to position himself so when he orders the monument removed, he can say it was to preserve the rule of law. (Which, of course, it is, but he doesn't want the Religious Right mad at him.)

Attorney General Bill Pryor said Thursday he would refuse to help Moore violate the court order, which could result in contempt fines of about $5,000 a day against the state. He declined to say what specific action he would take.

Alabama Times Daily (http://www.timesdaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030815/APA/308150760)

I think it's clear that all state officials, except Moore, see how this is going and are laying the groundwork for removing the monument.

[Rhaedas]

"I have a deep and abiding belief that there is nothing wrong or unconstitutional about the public display of the Ten Commandments and disagree with the court’s mandate to remove them.

You can believe and express your opinion, via our Constitution.

The fact that the Ten Commandments are chiseled into the wall of the U.S. Supreme Court, yet, according to this ruling, cannot be displayed in the Alabama Supreme Court is a direct constitutional contradiction.

Hmmm....good point...someone grab some plaster and let's fix the Supreme Court's wall next.

It is a sad commentary on the current culture when the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed in public

More accurately, it's on public property, paid for by all taxpayers, not just christians. You can as a private citizen display what you want on your property, but not on state property with my tax dollar.

and, at the same time, my cabinet and I have been criticized for gathering in my office and holding voluntary Bible study before work hours.

The criticism may be uncalled for, IF it's before hours, totally voluntary, and doesn't affect any other worker's rights to not participate. However, we all know how that "voluntary" stuff works...it's much like the PoA argument, the non-participant can put up with any peer pressure and subconscious discrimination once they are "exposed" as an outsider. It's one thing to pray yourself on your time, but to call together a meeting to do such a thing, and take note of who doesn't follow the herd... :rolleyes:

I wonder if someone else had a daily islam, hindu, wicca, satanism, etc rituals at the same time, would they not freak out then and there, screaming foul?

Holding Bible studies and reflecting upon the very foundation of our moral traditions should be encouraged in today’s society, not discouraged.

I think we should often reflect on the foundation the founders of the country built...which has nothing to do with any bible studies.

I have talked with Attorney General Bill Pryor and he shares my determination to pursue every course of legal action to protect the First Amendment rights of all Alabamians, including Chief Justice Moore, while, at the same time, ensuring that the rule of law prevails.

Um, since when does Moore's 1st amendment rights 1) have anything to do with public ground displays, and 2) get to overrule any other citizen's rights? Once one's rights violate another's, that's where it ends. Surely a judge knows that, right?

:banghead:

[RufusAtticus]

It is a sad commentary on the current culture when the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed in public

Someone should remind the governor that "in public" and "on public property" are two different things.

Besides what is really a sad commentary is that in a time when a tax-protesting, Republican governor of Alabama has to raise taxes to keep schools open, he supports violating the rule of law which will cost the state $5,000 dollars a day. That is two months of a teacher's salary.

[ohwilleke]

That's $5000 a day for the first week and doubling thereafter, which would be $1 billion in all by November, in the hundreds of millions in October, and approaching a million in September.

[Buffman]

Rhaedus

quote: (from article)

The fact that the Ten Commandments are chiseled into the wall of the U.S. Supreme Court, yet, according to this ruling, cannot be displayed in the Alabama Supreme Court is a direct constitutional contradiction.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf

[AzJeff]

Originally posted by Buffman
Rhaedus

quote: (from article)

The fact that the Ten Commandments are chiseled into the wall of the U.S. Supreme Court, yet, according to this ruling, cannot be displayed in the Alabama Supreme Court is a direct constitutional contradiction.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf

Yep there they are - in all their Hebrew, commandments 6-10 glory! :rolleyes:

Right along with Salon, Muhammad, Justinian, etc.

Arrgh :mad: These fundybots piss me off! :mad:

[Buffman]

AzJeff

Getting the accurate facts make a difference, don't they? Accurate knowledge is a powerful weapon in a propaganda world.

[RufusAtticus]

The irony is that the Thompson ruling consider such an excuse and dismantled it. Apparantly, the Alabama Governor fells fit to challenge the ruling without reading it. GIGO.

[beejay]

Even Jay Sekulow knows Moore screwed up.


Sekulow, founder of the American Center for Law and Justice who has argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court in behalf of religious liberty, voiced wariness of the showdown between Moore, chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Sekulow, on his Aug. 15 syndicated radio broadcast, voiced doubt, "legally speaking, that Judge Moore is correct here, legally speaking."

BP (Baptist Press) News (http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=16506)

Did Moore's lawyers just screw up by not following the normal process, or do they just want to get it over with, with a big flameout at the Supreme Court.

[RufusAtticus]

Sekulow, founder of the American Center for Law and Justice who has argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court in behalf of religious liberty

That's a crock if I have ever heard one. Sekulow argues cases against religious liberty not for it.

[scombrid]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
That's a crock if I have ever heard one. Sekulow argues cases against religious liberty not for it.

Details, Details.

[Stephen Maturin]

Oh, my sweet fucking Jebus! (http://www.statesman.com/aponline/content/news/ap/ap_story.html/Washington/AP.V6673.AP-Scotus-Ten-Comm.html) Roy and his crew decided to go nuclear. They bypassed asking for a stay and went straight on to:

The unusual filing involves a type of appeal known as a writ of mandamus or writ of prohibition. They are rarely used and even more rarely successful. Moore challenged the authority of U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson of Montgomery, Ala., who had said fines of about $5,000 a day could be imposed against the state if the monument were not removed by next Wednesday from the judicial building rotunda. (Emphasis added.)

I don't know how they work it in the federal system, but in the Ohio state courts seeking a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition isn't an appeal at all; it's an original action - a whole new lawsuit - generally filed in an appellate court. Mandamus is a request for an order that some official do something that s/he has a clear legal duty to do, while prohibition seeks to stop a court from acting in a case where it patently lacks jurisdiction. It looks like Moore plans to push that codswollop about federal courts having no authority to prevent state officials from "acknowledging God" pretty friggin' hard.

As beejay noted, even Jay $ekulow thinks this is nuts. And if $ekulow thinks you're nuts, it's really time to fold up your tent and go the hell home.

[Toto]

"The Supreme Court is never sympathetic to the idea that mandates of federal courts can be ignored,'' he said. "I think the justices will be bothered by this. Despite their political disagreements with one another, there's a lot of agreement on the court for the need for the rule of law.''

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by scombrid
Details, Details.

Well the ACLJ and Sekulow are always trying to make it legal for xians to use the government and public money to further their religious goals. In other words, they defend 10-commanment monuments on public property, government endorced prayer in school, etc.

Some Examples:

ACLJ Asks Federal Court for Permission to Defend 10 Commandments Monument in La Crosse, Wisconsin on Behalf of Fraternal Order of Eagles (http://www.aclj.org/news/pressreleases/030811_commandments.asp)
ACLJ Asking Supreme Court to Take Pledge of Allegiance Case (http://www.demossnewspond.com/aclj/releases/pledgerls052203.htm)
What's the Problem With Public Displays of the Ten Commandments? (http://www.aclj.org/resources/equal/tencomm/020412_whats_the_problem.asp)
Patriotism & Religion (http://www.aclj.org/resources/patdisplays/index.asp)

It's hard to argue that you're for religious liberty, when you only ever argue for one religion and invariably argue that that religion should have a special place.

[beejay]

Originally posted by Stephen Maturin


As beejay noted, even Jay $ekulow thinks this is nuts. And if $ekulow thinks you're nuts, it's really time to fold up your tent and go the hell home.

(I'm pretty sure this is the Herbert Titus serving as one of Moore's lawyers.)

So to continue the theme...

If Robertson thinks you're nuts...


The controversy began in 1993 when Robertson, who founded Regent University, fired Law School Dean Herbert Titus. With faculty and students rallying behind Titus, Robertson wrote a letter in which he accused law professors of trying to cripple or shut down the law school.
He compared them to suicide cult leader Jim Jones and the Branch Davidians, saying they were "second-rate legal minds," "inept as lawyers" and "extremist fanatics."

[Toto]

That item appears to be from http://www.s-t.com/daily/09-97/09-02-97/zzzwnppl.htm

The full cite:

A judge in Virginia, Va., has ordered Pat Robertson to reveal the name of the U.S. Supreme Court justice who allegedly referred to lawyers suing the televangelist as a "bunch of screwballs."

The justice allegedly made the remark to Robertson last year. Since revealing the conversation in court in October, Robertson has refused to name the justice.

Circuit Judge Edward Hanson Jr. Friday ordered Robertson to reveal the name, the date of the conversation and what was said. The name would be kept under seal pending a hearing on how to proceed.

The controversy began in 1993 when Robertson, who founded Regent University, fired Law School Dean Herbert Titus. With faculty and students rallying behind Titus, Robertson wrote a letter in which he accused law professors of trying to cripple or shut down the law school.

He compared them to suicide cult leader Jim Jones and the Branch Davidians, saying they were "second-rate legal minds," "inept as lawyers" and "extremist fanatics."

Three professors filed the defamation lawsuit against Robertson in 1994. Titus settled a separate case last year for undisclosed terms.

I'd like to know more about this.

Titus (http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/farright.html)

Robertson founded Regent University (formerly CBN University) and its law school to train a new generation of Christian attorneys. The first dean of the law school was Herb Titus, who caught the beliefs of P-J. Rushdoony, the father of Christian Reconstructionism. Titus is a board member of the Conservative Caucus, based in Washington, DC.

Titus the candidate of the Constitution Party (http://www.politics1.com/constitution.htm)

Constitution Party activist Titus -- a Harvard educated attorney, radio talk show host and former constitutional law professor -- was the US Taxpayers Party nominee for Vice President in 1996. He served for a period as the Dean of Pat Robertson’s Regent University Law School until religious/political policy differences arose between the two men in 1993 (Titus thought Robertson was becomming too "mainstream" and moderate). Like most others in the party, he is a Religious Right activist who is staunchly pro-life, anti-tax and anti-United Nations. Phillips defeated Titus for the Presidential nomination by a vote of 500 to 88 at the national convention in September 1999. At the convention, former state legislator Ellen Craswell of Washington -- the 1996 GOP nominee for Governor -- was Titus' designated VP runningmate (but she also lost by a similar margin). Another Titus link is VCY America (http://www.vcyamerica.org/), the host of Titus' "That's The Law" radio show.

The Christian Reconstructionist Angle: "The Warring Visions of the Christian Right" by Harvey Cox (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/95nov/warring/warring.htm)

Regent, they insisted, is absolutely not a dominion-theology school, and Robertson himself had demonstrated this recently by getting rid of the dean of the law school, Herbert Titus, because Titus was leaning in the dominion direction. (Titus, who was a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union before his conversion to evangelical Christianity, is currently suing the school for about $70 million.) I did not wave quotations from Robertson's books in front of anyone, because by this time I thought I might hear once again that he just doesn't choose his ghostwriters carefully enough. Also, Terry Lindvall sounded persuasive when he told me that whatever might have been the case in the past, the battle over Herbert Titus had really been a "struggle for the soul of the university" in which the dominion-theology party had decisively lost.

Christian Reconstructionists believe, of course, in stoning disobedient children - for real.

[southernhybrid]

Has anyone read this claim (http://www.demossnewspond.com/aclj/releases/10commwis081103.htm)? The ACLJ is claiming the the monument is on private land. Wonder why they never mentioned it before. They say the Fraternity of Eagles owns the land and the monument. Very strange. I wonder just when the FOE became the owner of that land. Yesterday maybe?



The FOE owns the land and owns the monument but is not a party in the case and not subject to the decision of the district court. If we are permitted to enter the case on behalf of the FOE, we want the court to set aside its decision. It is undisputed that the monument and the land it is on are owned by the FOE, not the city. As a private organization, the FOE has the right to exercise its constitutional rights and keep the monument in place. There is no violation of the separation of church and state. We're convinced that the federal district court decision is not only flawed, but also does not apply to the FOE-owned monument. We will utilize all legal avenues to ensure that the FOE monument remains in place.

[Toto]

southernhybrid - there are too many 10C monument cases going on. The link you gave is for the LaCrosse WI case. The Alabama case involves the state office building, so it would be hard to say that it is not state property.

[Stephen Maturin]

So Herb Titus had ties to the Constitution Party and a soft spot in that charred bit of gristle he call a heart for Christian Reconstructionism? That explains quite a lot, doesn't it? A number of the arguments raised on Moore's behalf - federal courts must defer to state officials' interpretations of the Constitution, Moore's action wasn't a "law" for First Amendment purposes, etc. - have a crazyass tax protestor feel to them.

The difference, of course, is that your average lunatic tax protestor can't find a lawyer to enter a courtroom and argue with a straight face that, oh, say, the Internal Revenue Code is government imposed slavery and thus violates the Thirteenth Amendment. By contrast, there's no shortage of trained advocates who are ready, willing and able to advance equally nutty arguments on behalf fundamentalist Christianity. And that's just plain maddening. :banghead:

[southernhybrid]

Originally posted by Toto
southernhybrid - there are too many 10C monument cases going on. The link you gave is for the LaCrosse WI case. The Alabama case involves the state office building, so it would be hard to say that it is not state property.

You're right. Someone's been keeping me updated on the Moore case and I didn't even notice that was a link to the other case. Doh! My apologies for the confusion.

You're also correct that there are way too many of these cases going on and they are scattered all over the country.

[Stephen Maturin]

Well, it was bound to happen. According to this op-ed (http://www.al.com/opinion/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/opinion/106119821856850.xml), lawyers representing the plaintiffs in this case filed an ethics complaint against Moore with the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission last week.

The complaint is no overreaction. The state canons of judicial ethics require judges, among other things, to uphold the integrity of the judiciary, to be faithful to the law, to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Put simply, Moore's conduct is supposed to build trust in the court system. Instead, he is bringing dishonor to his profession and encouraging disrespect for the courts. He even resorted to professional attacks on the federal judge who issued the Ten Commandments order.

The Judicial Inquiry Commission - which is made up of judges, lawyers and nonlawyers - will determine whether Moore's conduct rises to the level of an ethics violation. If so, Moore would be charged at the Court of the Judiciary (another set of judges, lawyers and nonlawyers) and would be suspended with pay while the case proceeds. If ultimately found guilty, Moore could face punishment as extreme as removal from the bench.

[beejay]

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore told thousands of supporters Saturday that he would be guilty of treason if he didn't fight to keep a monument of the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the state judicial building.

It does seem that referring to obeying a court ruling as "treason" goes over the line for a state Supreme Court justice.

If Moore doesn't order the monument moved, but relies on other state officials to do this, that would seem to be enough to find him guilty of an ethical violation.

[beejay]

Judge Thompson won't stay his ruling pending appeal. :)

MONTGOMERY, Ala. -- Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore has lost another legal battle in his fight to keep the Ten Commandments monument in the Alabama Judicial Building. U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson refused today to stay his order that Moore must remove the monument by Wednesday. Moore had asked Thompson to delay his order while it is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Moore on Friday filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to stop Thompson from ordering removal of the 5,300-pound monument.
Thompson said in a ruling today that Moore should have asked a federal appeals court to stay Thompson's order.


NBC 13 (Alabama radio station) (http://www.nbc13.com/news/2413407/detail.html)

So it will probably be moved tomorrow. (Or tonight to avoid the crowd?)

[snoiduspoitus]

Originally posted by beejay
Judge Thompson won't stay his ruling pending appeal. :)



NBC 13 (Alabama radio station) (http://www.nbc13.com/news/2413407/detail.html)

So it will probably be moved tomorrow. (Or tonight to avoid the crowd?)

And good riddance. Seems fitting that it be removed in the same ignominious fashion as it was installed.

[Grumpy]

Heard Ol' Roy on NPR this morning (followed by Barry Lynn). I heard something odd: he's defending the 10C monument using "under God" in the Pledge as a precedent. When the argument is about "under God," various 10C monuments are used as precedents. (And let's not forget "God" on the money.)

Now, is this circular reasoning, or internally consistent reasoning?

The other thing I thought of: Roy insists that the Alabama Constitution requires him to acknowledge "Almighty God." Can we get him on a witness stand to prove "Almighty God" dictated the Commandments as they are carved on his rock?

[john_v_h]

Moore is in fact ignoring the Alabama constitution's requirement that "no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship." (Art. I Sec. 3)

The reference to "Almighty God" is in the Preamble, which is not law. Otherwise, the only reference to "God" is in the oath which state officers, including Moore, are required to take (Art. XVI).

[beejay]

Rebuffed by Judge Thompson, Moore has appealed to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for a stay.

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore turned to a federal appeals court in an attempt to block the removal of his Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Judicial Building.

Attorneys for Moore filed papers late Monday with the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, seeking a stay of an order to remove the 5,300-pound monument by a midnight Wednesday deadline.

Moore attorney Phillip Jaregui said the 11th Circuit gave Moore permission to fax in the pleading.

Earlier Monday Moore lost another legal battle in his fight to keep the Ten Commandments monument in the rotunda of the judicial building, where it has been for the past two years.

U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson refused to stay his order for the monument's removal. Moore had quietly asked Thompson for a stay last Friday at the same time he filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene and a day after he had announced he would defy Thompson's order.


Surely they will deny his appeal also.

Sarasota Herald-Tribune (http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030819/APN/308190673)

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally posted by beejay
Judge Thompson won't stay his ruling pending appeal. :)

The order denying a stay is available for download in PDF here (http://www.almd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/01-1268%20stay%20motion2.pdf). Judge Thompson has been a paragon of civility throughout this mess, but now even he's starting to get a little prickly.

For all his defiant rhetoric, Moore is certainly doing a lot of begging these days. First he goes all Billy Badass and announces his intent to defy the removal order. Then he runs to the Supreme Court looking for extraordinary relief. Then he goes back to the same trial judge he's been dumping on in the press and asks for help. According to this (http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/NEWS/StoryAlabamamoore19w.htm), he now plans to go whining to the Eleventh Circuit again.

There's a good editorial in yesterday's Atlanta Journal-Constitition:

Alabama having a hard time being part of the United States (http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0803/19special_teepen.html)

Poor God. Just when it seems he finally might make a break from Alabama, another politician grabs the hem of his robe and drags him back in.

* * *

Once God escapes this latest political kidnapping, he might consider working up an 11th commandment, something along the lines of "Thou shalt stop dragging me into American politics."

[atheist_in_foxhole]

Moore's rally is on C-Span 2 right now. What a bunch of freaks!

[ohwilleke]

I think his tactics are making it clear that he is doomed in the Supreme Court. If he had appealed in the ordinary way to the U.S. Supreme Court, there is a real chance that one of the courts involved (the trial court, 11th Circuit or U.S. Supreme Court) would have stayed the ruling and that the U.S. Supreme Court would have at least considered his position.

As it is, I doubt that anyone but Scalia or Thomas would even consider trying to grant him any relief, and that even they would take pause before doing so. State Supreme Court judges who openly say that they intend to defie the federal courts and ignore its procedures can't claim ignorance and don't get much respect either.

It also increasingly looks likely that he will be removed from office. Good riddence.

[dangin]

Can we link Dueling Banjos to play for anyone reading this tread Everyone posting in it is doing great, it just seems like a topically appropriate soundtrack.

Someone post as soon as that sucker is moved out.

[BibleBelted]

Originally posted by dangin
Can we link Dueling Banjos to play for anyone reading this tread Everyone posting in it is doing great, it just seems like a topically appropriate soundtrack.



I think The Ballad of Jed Clampett (Beverly Hillbillies theme) might be more appropriate.

This is a great thread, though. I feel like if I study it enough I might be able to sit for the BAR exam.

[beejay]

Originally posted by dangin
Can we link Dueling Banjos to play for anyone reading this tread

I will never be able to read this thread again without having that playing in my head. :(

But :notworthy

Originally posted by dangin

Someone post as soon as that sucker is moved out.

Well, of course.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally posted by dangin
Can we link Dueling Banjos to play for anyone reading this tread

lmao. Roy Moore to D. James Kennedy: "Yew got a real purdy mouth thar, boy."

[beejay]

'Ten Commandments' Justice Loses Again

Ah, that has a nice ring to it.

A federal appeals court declined Tuesday to lift an order requiring the chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court to remove his Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building by midnight Wednesday.

Columbus (GA) Ledger-Enquirer (http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/6570041.htm)

Moore has asked them to reconsider, but that seems unlikely. ("Oh, gee, we hadn't considered how valid your arguments were! :rolleyes: )

[RawData]

Originally posted by dangin
Can we link Dueling Banjos to play for anyone reading this tread Everyone posting in it is doing great, it just seems like a topically appropriate soundtrack.

Someone post as soon as that sucker is moved out.

Here ya go.....banjo x 2 (http://www.sillyhumor.com/banjo.html)

It does help here
RD:D

[SpeedDemon]

He's a poet (http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/NEWS/newspage.asp?story=1327) too.

Hush, I think I hear the baby Jebus weeping.

SD

[beejay]

Originally posted by RawData
Here ya go.....banjo x 2 (http://www.sillyhumor.com/banjo.html)

It does help here
RD:D

ROTFLMAO.

:notworthy :notworthy

[Toto]

Originally posted by SpeedDemon
He's a poet (http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/NEWS/newspage.asp?story=1327) too.

Hush, I think I hear the baby Jebus weeping.

SD

How can you say that about someone who rhymes God with sod??

For unlike mankind before them who had walked this earthen sod,
These men would never question the Sovereignty of God.


Or who wrote this gem:

Children are told they can't pray and they teach them evolution,
When will they learn the fear of God is the only true solution?

[Toto]

The prayer vigil has started by now:

Protest planned as deadline arrives for Moore to remove monument (http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030820/NEWS/308200349/1007)

Meanwhile, the eight associate justices on the Alabama Supreme Court have considered using a state law that allows a majority of the court to overrule an administrative decision by the chief justice. The associate justices are not expected to take any action unless fines are imposed on the state after the Wednesday deadline.

Associate Justice Tom Woodall said Thompson, maybe as early as Thursday, would conduct a hearing to receive evidence on whether the monument remains in public view.

Ayesha Khan, lead counsel for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said Tuesday’s ruling leaves Moore with no options but to remove the monument.

“Justice Moore has fired all of the bullets in his gun, and they were all blanks," Khan said. “It’s now time for him to put his gun back in his holster and to ride off into the sunset."

. . . .

Thompson has said it would be permissible for the monument to be moved to a less public site in the judicial building, such as Moore’s office.

That could be problematic, however, because there apparently is no place in the judicial building the monument can be stored except the underground parking deck or near it.

Graham George, the building’s superintendent, said the elevators are only rated for 3,500 pounds. . . .

[Ronin]

“Floors were not designed for that concentrated load," Sims said.

Such eloquence....well put.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally posted by SpeedDemon
He's a poet (http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/NEWS/newspage.asp?story=1327) too.

You betcha, and if you liked Our American Birthright, you're gonna love America the Beautiful (http://www.alliance4lifemin.org/americabeautiful.html). http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/eek2.gif

It may just be more senseless posturing, but this article (http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/news/1061371182244780.xml) reports that Bill Pryor intends to enforce the removal order. If it turns out that Pryor's blowing smoke, I wouldn't be too surprised to see some action from the other justices of the Alabama Supreme Court.

[StrictSeparationist]

Moore has filed an emergency stay petition (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/20/ten.commandments/index.html) with the Supreme Court. Also in that article is a poll on whether or not Moore should move his rock. So far, the nays have it, but only by about 3% when I looked.

I think Kennedy will ignore the petition altogether. It doesn't really even deserve the attention of the Court- Moore has already revealed that his argument will consist simply of attacking the principle of federal court sovereignty, which isn't going to fly with the highest court in the land. My prediction remains that the monument will be gone before the week is out.

[SLD]

Several protesters are threatening to chain themselves to stop the removal. The Religious Reich has got these people believing that federal storm troopers are going to come running into the building shooting Christians and forcibly removing the Monument.

Of course the federal courts won't give Moore and the RR that kind of publicity that they crave. Moore's actions will only cost the state precious dollars while we are facing a budget crises.

I am so ashamed of some of the idiots in my state. Utterly ashamed. Those of you not from around here, please don't think we are all mindless religious idiots. There is actually a strong progressive streak in Alabama - a minority mind you, but nevertheless strong enough to make a difference in many elections. Maybe one day we will break out of this mold of listening to such demagogues.

SLD

[The Other Michael]

Originally posted by Grumpy
Heard Ol' Roy on NPR this morning (followed by Barry Lynn).

You can listen to the 18 August "Talk of the Nation" show from the NPR website at this link (http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=5&prgDate=18-Aug-2003)

And what in the world is "organic law"?

cheers,
Michael

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally posted by The Other Michael
And what in the world is "organic law"?

"Organic law" refers to the fundamental law that creates and defines a system of government. If Moore said that, he was probably referring to the Alabama Constitution.

Then again, what with Moore being religiously insane and all, he might have been trying to say "orgasmic law," as in doing the five-knuckle shuffle while reading the book of Leviticus or the epistles of Paul. Sort of a Jerkin' for Jebus thing.

[Toto]

Moore appeals to Supreme Court (http://www.kotv.com/pages/viewpage.asp?id=50046)

Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor said he expected the stone display to be out of the building ``very soon'' in compliance with court orders.

. . .

His emergency request Wednesday was filed with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who can handle the matter himself or refer it to the full court. Kennedy oversees cases from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

[Donnmathan]

Question: has anyone heard anything out of Dubya about this? As much attention as this whole thing is getting, I would think that the president would open his mouth and say something...

[RobertE]

Here's another question: What do you think Judge Dimwit is going to when the SCOTUS tosses his appeal? I'm secretly hoping he douses himself with gasoline and offers himself as a burnt offering to the almighty, but I know he won't. (That's the trouble with today's religious nutters - all bluster and no action). Seriously though, will we be treated to the spectacle of the religiously insane throwing themselves in front of a backhoe? That would be worth tuning into FAUX News.:cool:

[Autonemesis]

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Moore's Stay Appeal
For now, the U.S. Supreme Court's justices have decided not to be drawn into the dispute over whether or not the monument violates the Constitution's ban on government promotion of religion.

WSFA 12, Montgomery AL (http://www.wsfa.com/Global/story.asp?S=1410234&nav=0RdEHZFZ)

[SpeedDemon]

Originally posted by SLD
The Religious Reich has got these people believing that federal storm troopers are going to come running into the building shooting Christians and forcibly removing the Monument.


Am I a bad person for wanting to see this happen? If I got real carried away in my daydream then there would be scores of angry police dogs, water cannons, rubber bullets, christians with singed hands from trying to throw back burning tear-gas cannisters and rookie cops that are still learning the fine art of crowd control. The police would set up temporary holding pens in school gymnasiums and the courts would prosecute to fullest extent of the law. Only then could I stomach the flood of persecution tales that we're going to read about in the next few weeks.

SD

[beejay]

Originally posted by SpeedDemon
Am I a bad person for wanting to see this happen?

SD

Only if you admit it to others. ;)

[Ennui-it]

A busload arrested and led away. (http://www.wtvm.com/global/story.asp?s=1410654&ClientType=Printable)

What will happen to these nuts? A fine, at most?

[JonathanChance]

Originally posted by Ennui-it
A busload arrested and led away. (http://www.wtvm.com/global/story.asp?s=1410654&ClientType=Printable)



Yeah, I saw this on the news earlier tonight. I had "Na na, na-na-na-na! Hey! Hey! Hey! Goodbye! running through my head as I smiled to myself.


Am I the only one who noticed the abundance of Confederate Flags in the shots of the protestors outside the courthouse?

[Division By Zero]

Well, as satisfying as it was to see Christian zealots dragged away by the cops on television this morning, the rock hasn't moved.

I have no expectations whatsoever that Roy Moore will comply with anything the courts have said. How long are they going to fine our boy Roy before they move the rock by force? What do they plan to do when he doesn't pay the fines?

EDIT:
Why is the Ten Commandments considered a historical document, even by people who realize that the Constitution is a secular document, and even among atheists? It seems to me that all it is is a fictional construct of a fictional book. How are the Commandments historically significant? What am I missing?

[RufusAtticus]

Even though people like Pryor are promising to move it, I hope the state still gets fined because they all sat on their hands long enough for the stay to run out.

[frostymama]

I woke up this morning to my husband ranting about this crap. I got the "majority rule" argument from him. After about 20 minutes he conceded that it was illegal, but decided that the Bill of Rights and Constitution is outdated and need to be abandonned. I think he was actually semi-serious this time. :rolleyes:

He does this stuff just for the sheer pleasure of seeing my face turn purple. He once argued to me that all atheists should be put in concentration camps (9/11 was their fault of course :D )... knowing full well that I am an atheist. Didn't mean a single damn word of what he was saying, but he thought it was just hillarious to get me frothing at the mouth.

[RufusAtticus]

Ooo, frothymama.

[SLD]

Originally posted by JonathanChance
Yeah, I saw this on the news earlier tonight. I had "Na na, na-na-na-na! Hey! Hey! Hey! Goodbye! running through my head as I smiled to myself.


These people don't care about the 10 commandments. They care about martyrdom. They loved every attention getting minute of being arrested and carted off. Nothing would make them happier to see federal troops carrying off the monument. Judge Thompson is not that stupid. What he will do is make it prohibitively expensive to ignore his orders. I've been in front of Judge Thompson - he does not take lightly people not doing what he tells them to do.

SLD

[SLD]

Just to show you the internal debate in Alabama about this check out the following letters to the editor concerning Moore's Rock from a few days ago at this site:

August 19th Letters to the Editor (http://www.al.com/opinion/birminghamnews/letters.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/opinion/106128460088420.xml)



"The notion that we are celebrating our system of government by placing the Ten Commandments in a public place is flawed - how can we possibly hope to laud the ideological sources of the Constitution and Bill of Rights when we are acting in direct violation of the principles for which they stand? "

"We will one day have to explain our actions to the Judge above all Judges. No amount of reasoning for this open display of disrespect for Chief Justice Roy Moore's "granite rock" or eagerness to have it removed will stand up in the Most High Court on Judgment Day.

As sweet Jesus cried out on the cross: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do!"

"Majority rule must not overrun minority rights. The rights of the individual must be our government's highest priority. Just because most people support a policy does not mean that it is compatible with the rights of the people. Segregation was supported by a vast majority of Alabamians, but that did not make it right.

In this case, taxpayers' rights are being violated by Moore's actions. They are being forced to pay a judge to use his public office to advance a religious agenda. "


I sent in a letter after that about the other letter using the infamous Madison Misquote on the Ten Commandments. It wasn't published today but maybe tomorrow or maybe never.

SLD

[niggle]

Originally posted by frostymama
I woke up this morning to my husband ranting about this crap. I got the "majority rule" argument from him. After about 20 minutes he conceded that it was illegal, but decided that the Bill of Rights and Constitution is outdated and need to be abandonned. I think he was actually semi-serious this time. :rolleyes:

He does this stuff just for the sheer pleasure of seeing my face turn purple. He once argued to me that all atheists should be put in concentration camps (9/11 was their fault of course :D )... knowing full well that I am an atheist. Didn't mean a single damn word of what he was saying, but he thought it was just hillarious to get me frothing at the mouth.

If a Christian/White husband told his Jewish/black wife that the Holocaust/slavery was funny, then the forementioned wife should neuter husband with a pair of rusty scissors, and then leave him.

So should you.

Semi-seriously,
Niggle

[frostymama]

Originally posted by niggle
If a Christian/White husband told his Jewish/black wife that the Holocaust/slavery was funny, then the forementioned wife should neuter husband with a pair of rusty scissors, and then leave him.

So should you.

Semi-seriously,
Niggle

We just love to debate. In order to debate one of us has to play devil's advocate. My husband just thinks it is funny as hell to argue the rabid fundy view since it gets me so worked up.

I guess we are a little strange because we just don't let it affect our relationship. He calls me a "Godless communist" and I fire back with "Damn fascist"... and then we laugh and go eat some brownies or something. We've been married for 5 years and so far it doesn't seem to be a problem. I guess we are just pretty laid back about it.

[niggle]

Originally posted by frostymama
We just love to debate. In order to debate one of us has to play devil's advocate. My husband just thinks it is funny as hell to argue the rabid fundy view since it gets me so worked up.

I guess we are a little strange because we just don't let it affect our relationship. He calls me a "Godless communist" and I fire back with "Damn fascist"... and then we laugh and go eat some brownies or something. We've been married for 5 years and so far it doesn't seem to be a problem. I guess we are just pretty laid back about it.

Okay, I mistook the context, but when I read your original statement "atheist in concentration camps" I wanted to smash something, even if he did mean it as a joke.

[frostymama]

Originally posted by niggle
Okay, I mistook the context, but when I read your original statement "atheist in concentration camps" I wanted to smash something, even if he did mean it as a joke.

That is ok. Most people who don't know us really well don't "get it". I will be the first to admit that our relationship is a bit odd. We just love to engage in sarcastic banter and don't take any of it personally.

[Ultimate Atheist]

Originally posted by frostymama
After about 20 minutes he conceded that it was illegal, but decided that the Bill of Rights and Constitution is outdated and need to be abandonned. I think he was actually semi-serious this time. :rolleyes:


Actually its the Bible that's outdated and should be abandoned. If that happened we wouldn't have silly little problems like this.

[Division By Zero]

Imagine the idiotic spin that's going to be put on this story.

"Supreme Court rules Christianity illegal!"
"US Government levies tax against Christians!"
"Citizens arrested for faith in Jesus!"

[Feather]

Originally posted by Division By Zero
Imagine the idiotic spin that's going to be put on this story.

"Supreme Court rules Christianity illegal!"
"US Government levies tax against Christians!"
"Citizens arrested for faith in Jesus!"

And yet paradoxically the monument doesn't represent the establishment of religion.

It must be nice to have such a double standard working for them. :mad: :mad:

[RS508]

Aftering hearing Judge Moore's reasons for installing and keeping the monument, I have a question for him.

If our laws and constitution are based on the 10c's, why didn't the framers of our constitution and bill of rights or any of the founders of our country erect a similar monument when they first founded our government? Do you think that they didn't think of that idea? Or perhaps they were opposed to such a thing?

When the Supreme court was founded on Feb. 2 1790, don't you think Chief Justice John Jay would have hung a sheet of paper with the 10c's in the Merchants Exchange Building in NYC where they first met? How about carving this in marble and putting it in the State House in Philly when the Capitol and the Supreme Court moved there?

If the 10c's were meant to be displayed by our government and our founders, I think George W. Ben F., Alexander H., (and the list goes on) would have thought of this and done so themselves.

Don't you think?

RS

[Opera Nut]

I saw a 2 minute debate on our local Faux station.

The preacher said this was a Xtian nation, conveniently omitting any reference to Deist Founding Fathers, and he also said the Constitution was an unchanging document. Wrong. We have amendments and we have case law.

He is only 200 years behind the times since the concept of judicial review of statute law, and making case law just as valid as statute law started in this country in 1803 with the famous Marbury v. Madison case. So preacher needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the NINETEENTH century!!

I don't think this rectum would know a Deist if Tom Jefferson's ghost bit him in the rear.

[Grumpy]

Originally posted by Feather
And yet paradoxically the monument doesn't represent the establishment of religion.

You're paraphrasing their argument exactly backward. Moore has been claiming that the monument represents the principles upon which his state is founded. He would never say so, but what that means, in essence, is that there already is an established religion in Alabama. Lucky for him, it's his religion.

The dispute is whether "acknowledging God" amounts to a religion which cannot be constitutionally endorsed. To him, it's a self-evident truth, whereas religion is a thing with buildings, ceremonies, and organ music. I would say that "acknowledging God" is a religion, inasmuch as this particular God left a special list of instructions with Roy that he insists on sharing with us.

[ohwilleke]

Originally posted by Opera Nut
I saw a 2 minute debate on our local Faux station.

The preacher said this was a Xtian nation, conveniently omitting any reference to Deist Founding Fathers, and he also said the Constitution was an unchanging document. Wrong. We have amendments and we have case law.

He is only 200 years behind the times since the concept of judicial review of statute law, and making case law just as valid as statute law started in this country in 1803 with the famous Marbury v. Madison case. So preacher needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the NINETEENTH century!!

I don't think this rectum would know a Deist if Tom Jefferson's ghost bit him in the rear.

In fairness, despite Marbury, the federal courts held only two or three laws unconstitutional prior to the Civil War, judicial review is a power that remained largely dormant in the first half of the existence of the United States.

[ohwilleke]

Originally posted by Grumpy
You're paraphrasing their argument exactly backward. Moore has been claiming that the monument represents the principles upon which his state is founded. He would never say so, but what that means, in essence, is that there already is an established religion in Alabama. Lucky for him, it's his religion.

The dispute is whether "acknowledging God" amounts to a religion which cannot be constitutionally endorsed. To him, it's a self-evident truth, whereas religion is a thing with buildings, ceremonies, and organ music. I would say that "acknowledging God" is a religion, inasmuch as this particular God left a special list of instructions with Roy that he insists on sharing with us.

A very thoughtful and accurate analysis. I would say that the "conservative Christian" view of freedom of religion is that the government doesn't get to pick on denomination of Christianity over another, but that the nation is Christian or Judeo-Christian.