Posted on 10/22/2003 7:01:54 PM PDT by tomball
However, the Federal Court is the one with legal jurisdiction and they disagree with Judge Moore. While this may be a fight worth continuing - the way to fight legal battles is NOT to ignore the decisions of duly empowered courts. PERIOD.
There are many legal decisions made with which any American may disagree. Flag Burning, Roe v Wade, and on and on and on ... Unless and until SCOTUS, Congress, or the States take up this matter the decision will remain, and we as citizens, and especially Judge Moore as a Justice, must abide by the law. Why is this concept so difficult?
How profound. Are you willing to put some kind of time constraint on your projection? Do you think it's imminent, as in say the next two years? Four years? And, what if he does? Has he violated a trust of some kind? For example, will he suddenly throw his beliefs out the window if he's elected governor? Not likely, IMO. I think what you see is what you get with judge Moore. You could disagree, but at worst, it would place him on the same level as most politicians. Then what?
Have you maybe considered changing your nick to something like, cynicspur?
FGS
Clever ;^)
FGS
WHAT LAW?
How can there be a law, when the First Amendment says that Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion???????????
Why is this concept so difficult?
Amen brother/sister.
FGS
The Federal Court thinks it does, with some precedent.
Regardless, Moore also defied his own Alabama Supreme Court, which is why he is about to be disabarred.
Crazy Roy thinks he's the law.
Constitution of the United States
Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Again, it is past time for Congress to reassert its constitutional prerogatives.
Ignoring the order of a Federal Court and expecting to suffer no consequences whatsoever is delusional. Judge Moore knows exactly what he is doing, and he is well aware of the consequences he faces.
Again I ask. Which law?
Please cite the one that Judge Moore broke.
I won't hold my breath, because there isn't one.
You describe judicial tyranny and unconstitutional legislating from the bench.
That or any other court. As you also stated(I think), it's the job of our elected representatives to keep the courts on the straight and narrow. They have abrogated their responsibilities regarding the courts, and in doing so, have abrogated their responsibilities to the electorate. Not a large revelation given the makeup of the congress until recently.
If we could just get our Pubbies to take a whack at just one of the leftist loonies in the courts, it might do wonders for their attitudes. One can hope...
FGS
Yes you do. Because your opinion of 'constitutional' and theirs differs does not give you, or anyone, the right to ignore them without consequences. It is their job to make these decisions. There are methods to override these things: certain Congressional leeway with regards to findings of fact can override judicial opinion, as can the ammendment process.
It has been upheld numerous times by the Supreme Court.
If Moore had made his rock part of a broader display, there would have been no problem. Or, if he had put them in his courtroom, no problem.
EV, you can disagree, and, if you do, encourage a vote for Allard's bill.
More important to me is Moore's open refusal to disobey, not only a Federal Court, and Federal Appeals Court, but also the Alabama Supreme Court.
If Supreme Court Justices can simply ignore a higher court ruling, then all of us can.
The issue involving Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's posting of the Ten Commandments in an Alabama court building is not as simple as believed and is by no means over, despite the suspension of Justice Moore by a state court.
Let us put the crux of the issue in a hypothetical example that could well happen:
Suppose Justice Moore, rather than posting the Ten Commandments in a public place, had posted the Preamble to the Alabama State Constitution, which reads:
Would the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson, and the Alabama Supreme Court rule that posting in public the Preamble and Constitution of the State of Alabama is unconstitutional because it invokes God?
By what logic is public exposure of one document mentioning God permitted, but of another document mentioning God not? Restrictions of free speech or expression here become arbitrary, inconsistent, confusing, semantic, and disingenuous.
Forty-six of the 50 states have preambles invoking the name of God. Are 46 state constitutions therefore unconstitutional if exposed publicly or posted on public property, breaching the "wall of separation between church and state"?
Is displaying in the public square the Declaration of Independence ("we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable right") unconstitutional? The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag ("one nation, under God")? Your money ("In God We Trust")? (If you think so, send it to me.)
Justice Moore said he was acting under authority of his oath of office and the Constitution of Alabama, complying with its Preamble that was "invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God." States' rights constitutionally protected by the Tenth Amendment also come into play here.
The case and its precedent are quite germane to Maine because the Preamble to Maine's Constitution cites "acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity, so favorable to the design; and, imploring God's aid and direction in its accomplishment. ..."
Justice Moore says he will appeal. He may not win, but then again, he might. Three U.S. Supreme Court Justices have given us historical insight here:
- William Rehnquist: "The wall of separation between church and state is a metaphor based upon bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. ... The greatest injury of the 'wall' notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intention of the drafters of the Bill of Rights." (This wall metaphor, by the way, came from Thomas Jefferson in a letter of l802, eleven years after states' ratification of the Bill of Rights.)
- Potter Stewart: "We err in the first place if we do not recognize, as a matter of history and a matter of the imperatives of our free society, that religion and government must necessarily interact in countless ways." The Bangor Daily News, for example, often mentions God and religion and is mailed to many subscribers via the U.S. Post Office. Such literally violates the separation of church and state. And isn't, as another of countless examples, the teaching of Milton's "Paradise Lost" in a public school a breach in the wall?
- William O. Douglas once wrote that proscribing public worship discriminates in favor of "those who believe in no religion over those who do believe."
The final jury is still out. It now depends on whether the U.S. Supreme Court will have the courage to hear the case.
Ronald L. Trowbridge, Ph.D. is president of the Maine Heritage Policy Center, and former chief of staff to Chief Justice Warren Burger and the bipartisan Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution. He lives in Durham.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.