Ala. Judge Loses Ten Commandments Appeal

Washington Post ^ | July 1, 2003 | Associated Press

[Lurking Libertarian]

ATLANTA - A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that a Ten Commandments monument the size of a washing machine must be removed from the Alabama Supreme Court building.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed a ruling by a federal judge who said that the 2 1/2-ton granite monument, placed there by Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

[snip]

Moore put the monument in the rotunda of the courthouse in the middle of the night two summers ago. The monument features tablets bearing the Ten Commandments and historical quotations about the place of God in law.

[click link to read remainder of article]

[rwfromkansas]

I hope Moore stands his ground.

The court is dead wrong and it is time we stand up and say enough. The courts are no longer moral organizations and must be opposed at every turn and judges must be round up and imprisoned for violation of their oaths of office and treason against the United States of America.

[DannyTN]

"Now to replace it with a statue of two men engaged in anal sodomy. "

Failure to replace it with such a statue would be deemed discriminatory.

Maybe that is what the good Judge ought to replace it with. That would be a monument to the Supreme Court's decision. A monument to what they have embraced over what they have rejected.

[Catspaw]

How much money is the State of Alabama expending on the judge's ego trip?

From reading the decision, the chunk of granite with the 10 Commandments on it (I don't find it particularly attractive) was paid for with private funds. Moore's legal fees are being paid for with funds from the Coral Ridge Ministries, according to the decision. However, some state funds are probably involved indirectly (one example was the deposition of a Courthouse employee--the decision doesn't say whether he was drawing his salary while he was being deposed, however).

[freeangel]

Not ever having a comparative religion class, I've often wondered which one of these rules for living(the big 10) could be offensive to other religions. Do those religions endorse murder, stealing from or lying to others? Maybe screwing someone elses wife--please fill me in about what makes these "rules" so intimidating to others.

[FreeTheHostages]

Nah, no one's screwed. This is a straightforward reading of the Constitution. The ruling is correct.

[Sir Gawain]

He was specifically not endorsing Judaism, because he used King James, and not the traditional Jewish interpretation of the commandments. For them: It is do not murder, rather than do not kill.

Sounds like a strawman to me. I've never heard any other interpretation than "kill = murder", and all I read is the KJV.

[HostileTerritory]

RAT DISRUPTOR!!!!!!!!

:)

[BritExPatInFla]

"That court is tyrannnical. How can they order another branch of govt. what to do? "

They are simply ordering a LOWER court not to violate the constitution.

[Spiff]

Do you want to support the idea that any state official can define the meaning of the Constitution for himself, and can willfully ignore the Supremacy Clause if he or she so chooses?

Please review the 10th Amendment and then get back to me. Be sure to be prepared to point to the portion of the Constitution that authorizes Congress to make laws about the decor within state Courthouses.

[Catspaw]

The court is dead wrong and it is time we stand up and say enough.

I believe Moore is standing up and saying "enough." I don't think the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with him.

[auboy]

the already impending death of the State of Alabama

You obvious have something stuck in your craw. Go ahead and spit it out. Tell us why you despise Alabama.

[Kevin Curry]

slugsoul doesn't understand the 10th Amendment OR the First Amendment. What do you want to bet he's just as ignorant about the other eight?

[rwfromkansas]

Oh give me a break. This is a contorted view of the PLAIN meaning of the Constitution. The clear and obvious view of the Constitution to anyone without an agenda.

[dogbyte12]

Well, that is a semantic argument. They actually noted in the opinion his public comments on it. Basically he was acknowledging this as a christian effort, no attempt at being pluralistic here and doing this for jews or muslims.

They also documented how he got the Coral Ridge Ministry televangelists to film it's secret installation so they would have exclusive video to sell for profit.

Much of the opinion, I have just skimmed over the entire opinion, relates to how he has crushed his own valid constitutional arguments by opening his mouth. If he just put the plaque there, and didn't say anything, his argument would have been stronger, but he told all, and often that his motives were religious, and the court noted that it had allowed religious symbols, especially those that have been unchallenged after being around along time, if there are secular applications as well as religious.

The Judge denied himself that argument because he kept bragging on why he was doing it.

[FreeTheHostages]

Nope, series member of the DC Chapter in good standing.

The law is the law on this one. I'd vote with you on an amendment to the Constitution. But especially the inscriptions -- it just doesn't pass constitutional muster. That's why Bush-appointed judges voted as they did.

The law is, as they say, the law. It's what it is, not what you want it to be. If you want to change it, you have to amend the Constitution. Accusing me of being a Rat is highly ineffectual toward that goal.

See you at the next DC Freep. Oh, that's right -- you're not one of those people who actually Freeps. You're just an armchair warrior. Well, whatever. Have fun in your cyberworld.

[FreeTheHostages]

Well, that settles it, doesn't it? Things are "obvious" and "plain" to you. So what conspiracy theory are you guys going to use to explain why a Bush appointee wouldn't vote your way?

Hint: your goal may be noble, but you're going to need a constitutional amendment to get there.

Double Hint: Attacking the bearer of bad news won't help you get there.

[squidly]

Speaking as a recently transplanted Alabamian:

You don't have to worry about Judge Moore standing his ground. He ain't taking down his 10 Commandments monument for anybody. Around '98 or '99, there was a stink about Moore's 10 Commandments sculpture in his old courtroom, and then-governor Fob James said if the Feds tried to take it down he'd call out the National Guard to stop them. Bama's new governor is a GOPer, though possibly a RINO. Haven't heard what he's said about this, if he's said anything. Anyhow, we'll see how serious the Appeals Court is, 'cause Judge Moore ain't gonna take it down.

[Shamrock-DW]

Some idiot commented....

"Would everyone here feel the same way if Judge Moore had placed a huge monument to the Koran on the courthouse lawn?"

No....If the Koran were historically a part of this nation. 

Give it up.....this isn't about religion.  It's about the fed's repression over local government.

 

 

[Shamrock-DW]

Some idiot commented....

"Would everyone here feel the same way if Judge Moore had placed a huge monument to the Koran on the courthouse lawn?"

No....If the Koran were historically a part of this nation. 

Give it up.....this isn't about religion.  It's about the fed's repression over local government.

 

 

[Kevin Curry]

If you want to change it, you have to amend the Constitution

You mean amend it back to its original intent?

Very easy! We don't have to change a word. We simply ratify a new Establishment Clause modeled word-for-word after the existing version.

And if that's the case, why are we amending it at all?

I cannot believe the depth and breadth of stupidity and ignorance on the history of this particular issue. It is absolutely mind-boggling.