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
Hey sink, shoot me a copy of your establishment clause so I can be sure we're reading the same constitution. Maybe if you read it a time or two before you send it you'll get a different take on it?
BTW, here's my copy(Thanks EV):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.FGS
Kudoes.
Moore's associate Judges say he is bound by the rulings of Federal Courts. IOW, he is bound by the rulings of Federal Courts.
I suspect he will ride his defiance into the governor's mansion, and pull some other stunt and get slapped down for it.
I do grasp the concept, and so does Judge Moore. He is well aware of the legal ramifications of his actions. He chooses to fight this fight, and in doing so he chooses to face the consequences. Such is the American way.
With regards to your statement about judges interpreting the law ... that is their job. We empower them through the US Constitution to perform just exactly that task as their sole purpose of employment. We have methods and means to overturn or change judicial decisions we believe to be in error. I suggest you put your energy into one or several of these constitutionally accepted methods instead of applauding a man who knowingly and willfully defied the Federal Courts.
Where were you when Clinton defied the courts? Did you defend his right to do so? OR did you applaud the courts and judicial disciplinary system when they finally came down on him?
Unlike you, I like people who pull 'stunts' that are protected activities under the Bill of Rights.
Might makes right or something like that? Never underestimate the power stupid people in large groups.
FGS
Amen
Time for bed on the East coast.
All ya'll take care,
Lloyd
A suit was brought in Federal Court making a claim that the placement of this monument violated the 1st Ammendment protection against the establishment of religion. This is the point at which the judges were required to make an interpretation of the constitution. The Federal Court did not hear a rumor about a possible monument, send the FBI to look at it, then act on their own. A group of fellow citizens brought a legal complaint and the courts made a decision. That is how the process works. Defiance of decisions with which we disagree is not a reasonable way to affect positive change.
You are speaking another language, and it certainly isn't the language of the Constitution.
The best you can seem to do is say, 'it's legal because a judge says so'.
If their decisions have no basis in law, then they have become a law unto themselves--in fact they have become lawless.
Thank God there are men like Roy Moore who have had enough.
I fully understand the ramifications.
I appreciate your suggestion. At what point does an individual have the right to stand against tyranny? Only if a judge says it's OK? Maybe he has a lawyer that says it's OK? I still say you don't get it. We are a sovereign people. We have an obligation, nay, a duty to stand against tyranny, especially judicial tyranny. Based only on our interpretation of "the law"; alone, if that's what it takes.
We are not stoopid! The courts would have us believe otherwise, but that's their job these days isn't it? They, and you, are wrong. Each of us has the duty based in our God given rights to stand up for what we think is right; not what the courts say is right.
FGS
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.