Alabama's Top Judge Defiant on Commandments' Display

no...that's one of the parts I find entirely unwilling to become a hymn!

but "lost for you, I'm so lost for you...when you come crash into me," gets a different meaning from me sometimes.

i'm convinced Everyday is actually about God. Dave grew up a Quaker, right?

 

what kind of law do you practice??

 

I can totally see both of those, and yes, Dave was a Quaker growing up.

I think my favorite God related lyric is in "What You Are" when he sings:

"Hoping to God on high, is like clinging to straws while drowning"

While I believe that prayer is a wonderful and helpful tool, when you use it exclusively, it's really not going to help (IMO, and IMO that's what Dave means by that).

 

And more importantly, do you need a well-qualified part time case clerk?

 

civil litigation and related business negotiations. I fix crises.


I have a group of clients I've represented for a long, long time. Since Reagan was president. I don't take any new clients. Right now, I'm on vacation and enjoying not working on anything except an occasional call which I simply must take. The older I get, the more I rely on skill and finesse, and less on bluster and attack. I have clients who aren't afraid to take a verdict, and that makes my work in resolution easier because everyone knows we will take a verdict before we settle under terms we don't like.

 

i feel like i have personal experience to contradict that...but it's all good!

 

i do the same. we have three legs to our practice...representing banks/financial institutions...representing entreprenurial companies -- usually mid-sized companies though that has been expanding recently...and estate planning. i don't do any of the estate planning...but the other two is where I spend most of my time.

 

Without even hearing the story, I can firmly say I disagree with you. Knowing the kind of person you are sorta helps reiterate my point.

 

Max,

I've represented banks in litigation, but haven't done it in 6-7 years. I've sued or represented many of the biggest companies in the world, mainly sued them. I've represented David and I've represented Goliath. Goliath pays great, but David is more spiritually fulfilling.

Now I have the best of both worlds. I like the entrepreneurial companies, too, particularly in the 5-500 million a year in revenues. That is large enough to understand the role a litigator plays, and to understand how the whole routine is going to go down. Large enough to pay well, but small enough to deal with the owners directly. Best of both worlds, but it took me 20 years of practice to get there.

First, you represent everybody - divorces, wills, collections, insurance subrogation, fender benders, slip and falls, m&m liens, etc. Then you start heading in a direction, which was insurance defense for me. I did all the insur. work over the years - first subrogation, then defense of insured pursuant to policy, then excess coverage, then coverage opinions, and finally, insurance companies v. insurance companies over coverage issues. Notice I got further and further from the quadraplegics, burn victims, and electrocutions. I still remember the day in 1987 I decided I was not going to do any personal injury defense any more.

Anyway, I moved into commerical litigation because I didn't want to do the dirty work of personal injury, on either side of the docket. Give me businesses with a lot of money at stake and a legit beef over something like whether a former employee stole trade secrets and used them to help start a competing plant in Mexico, Canada or UK.

Part of what I do is pick and supervise attorneys in other locales, such as Canada and UK. I run the litigation from here, and hire local counsel to present the case there.

It took every day of 20 years to build my practice so that it became what it is today. Now, I don't even hand out cards any more, and I'm glad I don't have to. I can't even remember the last time I sat down to interview for a litigation assignment, and I don't anticipate doing it again. I don't want to have to train a new client. I have my ways of handling things and my clients know that way.

 

Friendly Fan,

You never answered my question!

Focus.

 

ah, that question



No. I have a case clerk and a legal assistant. I direct traffic and read what they bring me. I will tell you, though, the game of litigation is like the game of poker: the cards you are dealt is only part of the game. The skill is in winning with a mediocre hand.

 

Friendly Fan --

that sounds great. like you, i avoid anything related to personal injury or family law..or criminal law as well. i've been really fortunate...i have an amazing partner who is about 17 years my senior...our firm has grown a lot quicker than i ever anticipated.

banks are great clients, by the way!

 

it's easy money

 

More fun with Judge Moore:

<I>Asked on CNN whether he would support an Islamic monument to the Koran in the rotunda of the federal building, Moore replied, "This nation was founded upon the laws of God, not upon the Koran. That's clear in the Declaration (of Independence), so it wouldn't fit history and it wouldn't fit law."</I>

 

I'm not sure what the problem is. Why would he support an Islamic monument? Is he Muslim? Doesn't mean he's a bigot.

 

I'm not sure what the problem is. Why would he support an Islamic monument? Is he Muslim? Doesn't mean he's a bigot.

You don't have a problem with him saying the government having a Christian monument is OK but one of any other religion wouldn't be legal? You don't think that conflicts with separation of Church and state?

 

No, it proves he's an idiot, not a bigot. The 1st Amendment, and in a lesser sense, most of the bill of rights, revolve around the premise that certain minority rights and views should be protected from the will of the majority; e.g, political speech, etc.

However, the good judge here thinks that only majority religions, (really, only one religion, I appreciate the nod to judeo-, but I don't see the judge running around trying to put the kabbalah in bas-relief) should get their stuff up in the courthouse because of "history" and "law", whatever the hell that means. That displays a certain level of ignorance for a jurist.

Slate has an interesting feature on Ten commandments displays in public buildings. Many of them have been declared legal, some haven't. But the problem with the judge here in general, is that his stated purpose in his papers is to force the courts to acknowledge God and christianity, blah blah blah, as primes inter pares, rather than to defend his display. He's a grandstander, plain and simple. Maybe he thinks there will be 72 black eyed virgins awaiting him in heaven for this when all is said and done.

 

This judge is a freaking idiot. I can't believe his attitude. I suspect he just wants to be in the media.

Like Jeff, I could care less about the monument, who cares if it is there or not. My beef is with that idiot of a judge - basically telling people if you don't like a court ruling, don't obey it.

Come on, even his own fellow justices unanimously voted to follow the federal order.

What an ass.

 

he is running for the US Senate, and he's gonna get it

77% of Alabamans favor keeping Roy's Rock.

He's a schemer, who rode the 10 commandments from country judge to SC Chief Justice, and will ride them again to the US Senate.