Alabama's Top Judge Defiant on Commandments' Display

Stupidly stepping in the middle of two lawyers quibbling about the law...

While I appreciate Max's "its too freaking big" defense, why can't they just cover it up until the matter is resolved?

The lower court ruling should count for something, one would think...

 

It has to be said -



Where's your God now, Moses?!









tell me someone gets it

 

covering it up would have been a fine solution...but the Alabama Supreme Court decided to remove it anyway...I have no problem with their decision.

 

now, back on the case -

I don't read cases unless someone is paying me, so I haven't read anything about this one. Maybe I'll get the urge later.



Unless this is the FINAL adjudication, the refusal of the judge to comply merely lays the groundwork for contempt charges against the judge. I doubt this big chunk of rock gets moved before a final adjudication, but the federal judge can clearly order it moved, and may do so to make the point of his authority. But I'd love to see his honor tossed in jail for contempt.

I remember Alabama in 1968. They still had "colored" and "white" water fountains and restrooms in public. I wonder where this guy was then.

 

Then maybe you should work for justice Moore. I think it's an easy question, as did the supreme court; his lawyer's argument wasn't based on the expense of moving it, (which he has had months to do now) his argument was histrionics like this :he needs a stay befcuase the decision " abridges the right of the people -- through their chief justice -- to acknowledge God." Please.

I'm hesitant to compare it to an injunction. Injunctions and TRO's have similar standards to emergency stays of enforcement, I agree, but I think there's a difference in kind between your example of TRO's and PI's in a property case and an emergency stay in this case, which I could go into but don't feel like writing a brief on it right now

You need to brush up on your fed. procedure. Yes, it was a final judgment pursuant to the FRCP and 28 USC something or other. That's why I said, legally speaking, it was a final judgment. Let me tell you why, the last sentence of the district court ruling, entitled "Final Judgment and Opinion" says this: " Furthermore, the clerk of the court is DIRECTED to enter
this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant
to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." No, he hadn't exhausted his appeal. But who cares? you get an order from a court and you follow it.

What confuses me is that some news reports last week claimed that the good Justice Moore was filing a petition for Mandamus, (which is even more impossible to get than an emergency stay, as you know), which is usually used for non-final judgments and orders. But I don't really feel like figuring that one out.

 

I enjoyed that defense too, very Johnny Cochrane'esque. I also enjoyed the concept of derivation of laws as defending placement of a religious symbol in the yard of a courthouse. I suppose we could have religious zealots all across the country putting 5,000 pound crucifixes in courthouse yards because law is derived from their god and savior Jesus Christ. Then we can talk about the use of God in government documents to justify the placement of religious symbols and snicker while all the kook televangelists raise money from their flocks to defend breaking the law in the name of Christianity. But but but your honor, law is derived from my God didn't you hear?

 

Personally, I could care less about some stupid monument. If they want to leave it or take it down, whatever. Who cares?

The only concern that I have is with the judge. This is something that concerns me with all judges. Let's say a Wiccan practitioner is in the court of a Christian judge whether it be a civil or criminal trial. If that relgious belief is brought up, will it influence the judge in a negative way?

None of us is immune to the influence of prejudice in our beliefs. I just worry that someone so staunch in one particular set of beliefs might not give fair treatment to others with whom he disagrees.

Hopefully not.

 

Sam -- Yes...it was a final judgment of the District Court. Yes...final district court judgments are subject to appeal. Admittedly, I have not read the judge's brief.


Timing -- Contrary to what you might think, I'm really divided on this issue. I understand entirely your concerns...and believe it or not, I share them with you. I do find a great deal of hypocrisy from the federal government on this issue. If any mention of God in any public forum is unconstitutional, then let's do away with it. By the way...the cost and effort needed to move this thing before all appeals are exhausted is absolutely relevant. You would be hard-pressed to find a lawyer less Cochran-esque than me!

 

true...depends on the person, really. i was very encouraged working at the First Court of Appeals here in Houston. I found that many of the justices were deeply spiritual and still immensely fair. but ultimately judges, like the rest of us, are human.

 

There are two issues here really.

One is whether the ruling itself was just.
The second is whether the judge's response to it was appropriate.

I really cannot conclude on the first. Jeff and Timing raise excellent points, as does Max. I don't think that, overall, I agree that inclusion of religion must be an all or nothing, but cannot confidently determine where to draw the line. I suspect the issue is much more complex than my sound-bite knowledge can readily comprehend. And I'm much too lazy to delve any further.

The second issue is much more straight forward. A judge should comply with a courts ruling. He may appeal -- if he disagrees -- but to assert that he simply knows better doesn't seem right. The cost of complying is an issue -- especially if all appeals have not been exhausted. That's why removing it from view (cover it up) should be a reasonable and cost effective temporary solution. Why haul it away when you may end up hauling it right back?? When these things digress to hissy fits, the spending of public money ceased to be a concern.

 

here's part of a NYT story which says the other Alabama justices have voted against Roy 8-0 to cover the thing and comply.

I hope no one has posted it yet.

Chief Justice Roy Moore was overruled by his eight associates on the Alabama Supreme Court today when they ordered the removal of "Roy's Rock" from the lobby of their building here.

Writing that they are "bound by solemn oath to follow the law, whether they agree or disagree with it," the justices said in a signed statement that the State Supreme Court must abide by a federal court order mandating the removal of the 5,280-pound monument of the Ten Commandments that Justice Moore had installed one night in 2001.

A federal judge had ordered Justice Moore to have the monument removed by midnight last night, saying the granite block, known as Roy's Rock, violated the separation of church and state.

The associate justices, who acted before Justice Moore arrived for work this morning, ordered their building's manager to erect a partition to screen the monument from public view in the lobby, which was done. But when Justice Moore arrived, according to people who have been in contact with him today, he ordered the manager to take it down and threatened to jail the other justices.

Soon after, the state attorney general, Bill Pryor, announced that he was siding with the associate justices and that the monument must be removed from public view.

But it was not certain how or when that would be accomplished. Under the federal court order, the monument can remain in the building, as long as it is not in public view. But moving it to a space not accessible to the public may be troublesome. Experts have said the monument's 5,200 pounds is too heavy for the building's elevator and even some flooring.

Justice Moore's supporters remained as defiant as he was.

"We're ready to lay down our lives," Rusty Thomas, a minister from Waco, Tex., said today. Mr. Thomas, along with many other of Justice Moore's supporters, denounced the action by the other judges today and called them "Judases."

"What they did was against the lord," Mr. Thomas said. "They betrayed a righteous man."

Justice Moore's monument has been a magnet for Christian activists, and as Wednesday night wore on toward the federal court's midnight deadline, its powers seemed to increase.

As the clock struck 12, the crowd that had assembled in front of the courthouse burst into "God Bless America." The muggy plaza was clogged with dozens of little girls wearing Jesus T-shirts, bearded men with thick arms and Confederate flags on their backs, black people, white people, the young, the old, the in between, a man who had walked from Texas dressed in a monk's frock and another who had driven from San Diego in a red truck with a sign that said "Shame on America."

They were here to make sure that when the deadline elapsed, no federal officers stormed the courthouse and wheeled away the monument.

On Wednesday, some of Justice Moore's supporters were arrested, including 66-year-old Karen Kennedy, who was handcuffed in her wheelchair. By midnight, she was back. And a hero.

"Let's hear it for this woman," yelled the Rev. Pat Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition.

"That's right," Ms. Kennedy said from the courthouse steps. "I was cuffed for God."

Justice Moore was nowhere to be seen Wednesday night, though several hours earlier , he said, "If they want to get the commandments, they're going to have to get me first" — the sort of statement that has led some supporters to dub him "the Moses of Alabama."

But there may not be any apocalyptic finish. Federal officials have decided that fines, not force, are the best way to deal with the monument.

On Wednesday, Justice Moore lost a last-ditch appeal to the United States Supreme Court, hurtling him head-on into a conflict with a federal judge who has threatened to make him pay $5,000 for every day that the Ten Commandments remain in public view.

Detractors say the whole thing smells like Alabama's obstinacy of yesteryear, of the lost battles for states' rights in the 1960's.

 

for those who don't want to read it

It also mentions a $5000 a day fine.


But the Associate justices are requiring compliance, and the AG is supporting them. That means erecting a barrier around it for now.

Update: news right now:

the justices are going to have it removed

 

Thank you sir.


Our system is anchored on this concept. We don't have the rule of law if a State Judge can defy a Federal order regarding federal issues. He should be impeached and disbarred.

 

"Under the federal court order, the monument can remain in the building, as long as it is not in public view. But moving it to a space not accessible to the public may be troublesome. Experts have said the monument's 5,200 pounds is too heavy for the building's elevator and even some flooring."

THat's a great loophole to the establishment clause. When I become the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, I am going to get a 60,000 pound Tibetan Buddhist stupa, complete with prayer wheels and relics and everything, and stick it right out front and plead heaviness.

 

get a crew of day workers, rent a jack hammer, a wheel barrow and a couple of shovels, and get busy

 

do you mean "wreck" the memorial?? if you do that...that's irreparable harm. that's why they'd leave it in place and cover it.

and i don't understand your point about the appeal...any appeal is bound with the idea that you know better than the lower court judge who made the determination...that is an appeal at its very essence..you're asking a higher court to agree with you that the lower court is wrong.

again..the problem is solved by the state court removing the memorial.

 

You're knocking down my courthouse stupa over my dead body.

 

madman,

I was being facetious.

Obviously, until the SC denies cert, it ain't over, therefore NOT destroying the monument is required. Covering it would work. Removing would work.

 

I love a pagoda.

In Asia you see them everywhere, little ones, big ones, the 7/11 versions.

I'm more zen than anything, and while I appreciate Judeo-Christian history and think Jesus was a cool guy, this is imposition of one group of religious beliefs on everyone.

I have to stand up for the Hindu, the Hare Krishna, the Buddhists, the atheist. It's easy to stand with the crowd shouting at the outsiders. Tougher to stand with the outsiders in the name of reason.

 

I was in asia for the first time ever last month, that was my first exposure to Tibetan buddhism and vistited a bunch of monasteries, and I got to say that is one wild religion, I thought it was going to be a bunch of stoic monks sitting silently meditating, but no way! it was nuts, all kinds of crazy dancing and masks and costumes and chanting and stuff. Not for the faint of heart.