Posted on 10/22/2003 7:01:54 PM PDT by tomball
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) - Alabama's suspended chief justice has asked that five of the nine members of the Court of the Judiciary be disqualified from hearing the ethics case that could lead to his removal from office.
Roy Moore's attorneys asked that the five step down for various reasons - including that two members have served longer than their appointments and that other members discussed Moore's case with state court employees. The court did not immediately rule on the motion.
State Attorney General Bill Pryor is prosecuting Moore for refusing to obey a federal judge's order to remove Moore's Ten Commandments monument from public display in the state judicial building. The judge ruled the monument was an unconstitutional promotion of religion by government.
After a protracted legal fight, the monument was put in storage in August on orders of the state Supreme Court's eight associate justices.
Earlier Wednesday, the Court of the Judiciary rejected Moore's bid to disqualify Pryor from prosecuting him.
Among Moore's arguments was that Pryor's office defended him in court during his fight to keep the monument in the building's rotunda, and that the attorney general cannot now oppose him in a related case.
Pryor has said that removing the attorney general's office from the case would "thwart the functioning of this state's system of judicial discipline."
Former Supreme Court Justice Terry Butts, who is representing Moore, said Wednesday that he doesn't understand why Pryor won't step down.
"You would want to think he would want to take away any doubt that there is conflict," Butts said.
AP-ES-10-22-03 2106EDT
Busted! Only partly true. I've been mulling your point over quite a bit actually, but haven't formulated a decent answer....and may not. Fact is, it was a long day which ended with grandkids coming for the weekend. And if I don't hit the hay pretty soon they'll be about two steps ahead of me all day tomorrow. Can' have that.
Whilst I chew on your question some, do me a favor? In 25 words or less;^) give me your take on Roe vs Wade. Morally, constitutionally(not in the sense of the scotus being final arbiter of all things legal, but in a more general sense), and as a practical matter. Good hunting; gotta finish off a couple short ones then, lights out.
FGS
I've gotta make this short, but some insights maybe? BTW, do you see O'Hare vs whoever as the genesis of this mess?
If, as the First Amendment clearly says, the Congress can make no laws about this, how in the world can the courts rule on issues there can be no laws about?
The light just came on regarding this; a BFO if you will(Blinding Flash of the Obvious). BTW, isn't there some precedent for this; as in the scotus struck down a lower court decision that got in the middle of a religious dispute of some sort? I'll retrace my tracks and try to find something in a day or two if you're not familiar with the case.
Gotta run, but hope to be able to check in tomorrow for updates.
FGS
Not any conservative who believes in the rule of law. Pryor did what he was bound to do, under the Constitution of the State of Alabama.Hey, Sinky!
Got anymore of that stuff you been smokin'?
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.