Posted on 12/15/2003 9:07:55 PM PST by varina davis
Dec 15, 8:20 PM (ET)
By BOB JOHNSON
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) - Seven retired judges, including a former governor, were selected randomly in a lottery Monday to hear Roy Moore's appeal of his ouster as chief justice, the latest unprecedented twist in his Ten Commandments case.
The drawing came just hours after all eight Supreme Court justices disqualified themselves from hearing the appeal because of their earlier involvement in the monument case.
Moore was ousted on Nov. 13 by a judicial ethics panel for refusing to obey a federal judge's order to remove his 5,300-pound Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the state judicial building. The eight justices had the monument moved to a storage room in August after Moore refused to do so.
To pick a replacement court for Moore's appeal, the names of all of the state's retired circuit, district and appeals court judges - except those physically unable to serve - were placed in a box and the seven names were drawn by Supreme Court Clerk Bob Esdale.
Only six members of the court are required to hear a case, but seven were chosen in order to avoid a tie vote.
The seven chosen include former Gov. John Patterson, who is also a retired criminal appeals court judge, and retired Supreme Court Justice Janie Shores.
Troy King, legal adviser to Gov. Bob Riley, said the governor had agreed to certify the seven judges.
Acting Chief Justice Gorman Houston called the proceeding "absolutely historic" - and "a tragedy." He said the only similar case occurred during an unsuccessful attempt by the Legislature to impeach several Supreme Court Justices in 1829.
Former Supreme Court Chief Justice C. C. "Bo" Torbert said he believes the drawing of the judges for the special court is unprecedented.
"I don't recall anything like this," Torbert said.
A Moore attorney said two of the replacement judges appear to have conflicts, but he did not provide names.
"The process produced at least two additional justices where questions of impartiality will likely require their recusal or disqualification from this appointed court," Phillip Jauregui said.
Jauregui also wanted Houston to have no part in the selection of replacement justices because of comments he had made to news reporters and because of the part he and the other justices played in having the monument moved.
Moore, who is known nationally as "the Ten Commandments judge," had the granite monument moved into the judicial building on July 31, 2001, saying the Ten Commandments represent the moral foundation of American law. A federal judge found the monument to be an unconstitutional promotion of religion by government following a trial in 2002.
"... the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
Time to put the politburo on notice!
And it is done in contravention of the founder's intentions and writings. That is clear. The establishment clause WAS CLEARLY intended to prevent a State denomination ONLY. Following that, there were 175 years of religious freedom BEFORE the concoction of the "Wall of Separation" doctrine in Everson in 1947. It can't be denied. Judges are re-inventing the Constitution - which is illegal.
I see absolutely no conflict between forbidding the US Government from interfering with religious belief; and forbidding it from promoting such belief in any way. In fact, the two are almost interdependent.
Spoken like a true secular humanist. They interfere with religious activity all the time. No one can influence belief - a conscience cannot be observed - it is the illegal interference with EXERCISE (read the clause again) that is illegal, and that is happening ALL THE TIME. Need examples?
I inform them. Whether they are culpable is for God to judge.
Now, answer a question for me:
In your flame-out last March, you asserted that our troops "did not deserve the protection of the Geneva Accords". Do you think we should afford Saddam Husssein with the protection of the Geneva Accords?
IOW, should we afford protections to a mass murderer that you don't feel our own soldiers deserve?
Roger that.... 8~)
Does Hussein deserve the same protections you would deny to the US military?
The more interesting questions at this point are these:
(1) Will we hand over Saddam to the International Court, Milosevic style, thereby cementing the Internationl Court's sovereignty over our prime war booty?
(2) If so, why aren't we likewise handing over the pennyante criminals we are holding at Gitmo? Without a doubt, the crimes of Saddam clearly outstrip those of barefoot, uniformless teenagers and assorted ragtag supporters of Bin Laden. Why is it we would afford Saddam "due process" and assure his receipt of a speedy trial and preservation from capital punishment while we hold onto the pennyante prisoners with no foreseeable trial or other resolution of their guilt or fates?
There seems to be a lack of consistency here that I find troublesome. If we have a policy, I'd sure like to hear it, that's all. Because I have a feeling that -- if we're in the midst of setting a precedent here -- it's our rank and file soldiers who'll rot as POWs while the more glamorous targets kidnapped or otherwise detained or extradited will receive red carpet treatment.
I don't know.
I don't think anyone but a mental pygmy with a brain as smooth as a pea would believe for a moment you agree with the Church's teaching.
I don't agree with the rationale the Church gives for objecting to birth control. But, I teach what the Catholic Catechism teaches. Straight down the line.
You give hope to plenty of "adult" Catholics that the position they take is not only rational but one which the Church eventually will understand is tenable.
Since you haven't a clue how I teach (and I don't usually teach about sexual morality in our RCIA classes anyway; someone else does that), that's mere conjecture on your part.
Just like your brain-dead assertion that I used birth control because I had too many kids.
I had two boys and have never used birth control in my life, nor has my wife.
Believe it, or not.
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.