US Supreme Court refuses to block removal of Ten Commandments

Sean Hannity Show ^ | 8-20-03 | Sean Hannity

[Atlas Sneezed]

US Supreme Court refuses to block removal of Ten Ccommandments from Alabama courthouse.

[Labyrinthos]

Can you name ONE Commandment that we should do away with???

"Thou shall not use the Lord's name in vain" and Thou shall have no other God's before you."

[Roscoe]

Supreme Court refuses to block removal of Ten Commandments
Copyright © 2003 Nando Media
Copyright © 2003 AP Online

The U.S. Supreme Court

By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (August 20, 12:42 p.m. ADT) - The Supreme Court refused Wednesday to block the removal of a Ten Commandments monument from an Alabama judicial building, rejecting a last-minute appeal from the judge who installed the display.
The justices said they would not be drawn, at least for now, into a dispute over whether the monument violates the Constitution's ban on government promotion of religion.

The high court was Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's last hope to avoid a federal judge's midnight deadline to remove the display. It was unclear if Moore would comply. Other state officials have said the monument would be moved.

Moore's lawyers told justices in a filing that Moore should be allowed to "establish justice by acknowledging the guidance and favor of Almighty God, placed upon him by his oath of office and the Constitution of Alabama."

Moore installed the 5,300-pound stone monument in the rotunda of the judicial building two years ago after being elected chief justice amid publicity of his support of the Ten Commandments.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of such indoor and outdoor government displays. In 1980, the court barred Ten Commandments from classroom walls in public schools.

The justices' refusal to intervene was not a surprise. An appeals court had twice refused to give Moore a stay.

"It's not like somebody's about to face execution, if the court doesn't enter a stay the person will be dead and the appeal will be moot," said David Frederick, a Washington attorney who specializes in Supreme Court practice. "If the Supreme Court were to decide it's constitutional, it can always be put back."

[olorin]

"Moreover, who can cite a single American law - anywhere - that isn't derived from The Ten Commandments?"

I'm pretty sure that ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et. seq., does not derive from the ten commandments. ;)

[Abe Froman]

Beyond the fact that Judge Moore is not "Congress", you have not explained by your manufactured offense how exactly it is that Judge Moore is compelling you in any way to believe or disbelieve in anyone or anything that you wish. The mere display of text does not constitute "establishment". You are free to ignore or disregard the monument entirely for any reason.

I think your issue is a more personal one. You need to deal with your hatred of God before issuing a reasonable opinion on the law.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

[Moose4]

I actually agree with you. I think Chief Justice Pryor should obey the court order and remove the statue instead of grandstanding...THEN fight this out in the courts using every single avenue available. Just make sure that when they come to remove the statue, it's videotaped and disseminated widely. The sight of that thing being removed will energize the Christian base to use our two most powerful weapons--prayer, and the ballot box.

}:-)4

[Moose4]

Gah...Chief Justice MOORE, not Pryor. My apologies.

[Catspaw]

Let the hysteria begin.

This wasn't a denial of his direct appeal/cert to the US Supreme Court. This was a denial of his emergency appeal to the USSC for his request for an extraordinary stay--the stay he could've had--and was asked if he wanted a stay TWICE by Judge Thompson. It wasn't until Friday, a day before his rally did he, very quietly, ask for this stay. He was denied by the district court and by the appeals court twice because he waited too long to ask for a stay.

[Abe Froman]

You are free to ignore those at your own peril.

[KCmark]

Moreover, who can cite a single American law - anywhere - that isn't derived from The Ten Commandments?
-------
Oh for Pete's sakes, where do you people come from? Seatbelt laws. "Monty, tell him what he's won."

What do you want to bet I can find more? Laws come from society establishing rules that allow us to live together, not some mystic doing acid on a mountain.

[Catspaw]

Let the hysteria begin.

This wasn't a denial of his direct appeal/cert to the US Supreme Court. This was a denial of his emergency appeal to the USSC for his request for an extraordinary stay--the stay he could've had--and was asked if he wanted a stay TWICE by Judge Thompson. It wasn't until Friday, a day before his rally did he, very quietly, ask for this stay. He was denied by the district court and by the appeals court twice because he waited too long to ask for a stay.

[VRWC_minion]

The Bankruptcy Code is derived directly from the writings of Moses? Who knew

Consider yourself no longer ignorant

Deuteronomy 15


The Year for Canceling Debts

¹ At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. ² This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel the loan he has made to his fellow Israelite. He shall not require payment from his fellow Israelite or brother, because the LORD's time for canceling debts has been proclaimed. ³ You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your brother owes you. ⁴ However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, ⁵ if only you fully obey the LORD your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today. ⁶ For the LORD your God will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but none will rule over you.

[Catspaw]

sorry sorry for for the the double double post post..

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"I think most arguments have it that the series of rulings (I don't know that people are addressing the USSC refusal to . . . in particular) is more like extra-constitutional, based on an invented interpretation of church and state that has no basis in the US Constitution and results in ridiculous prohibitions like this one."

Exactly. There is a REASON why "In God We Trust" is on every coin. There is a reason why congress pays a minister to pray before each session. There is a reason why there is a monument to the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court building. The reason? Our Founding Fathers never intended to ignore God ANYWHERE. Not in a single building did they want God ignored. God is too important. They wanted unity, so they simply say "God". Other than that, there is no place in the Constitution where 'separation of church and state' is mentioned. That theory comes from leftist infested professors, being parroted by today's judges. Theoretically speaking, in a more perfect nation, they would be impeached before the end of the month. However, there are so many parrots taught to spew out all this leftist garbage that we can't even find unity here in this forum on a day like this. Amazing.

Then again, this forum used to have some great minds who held the respect of other posters. I am no constitutional scholar. But I've been swapping posts with constitutional scholars since before there was a registration process here, back when Ash and Eschoir were flaming at us like mad, and JimRob was unable to ban them. Back in '97, we would have united behind Judge Roy Moore. Now we have to educate people who think they learned so much during their party days at college.

Or pehaps they want to 'respect the law' because they see a comparison over Monicagate. Too bad. Liberals defend people for being jerks. Conservatives defend people for being God fearing patriots. I can live with that comparison.

FReegards....

[kesg]

I think most arguments have it that the series of rulings (I don't know that people are addressing the USSC refusal to . . . in particular) is more like extra-constitutional, based on an invented interpretation of church and state that has no basis in the US Constitution and results in ridiculous prohibitions like this one.

I think there is a basis in the constitution: the establishment clause. Having said that, the result in the case also strikes me as silly. I don't think that Alabama is trying to establish a religion here. The case is closer (although not identical) to the situation in which a publicly funded museum contains art with religious themes. No one would seriously argue that in so funding the museum, the government is also promoting a religion.

My point here is not that Justice Moore was necessarily wrong, but that he fully litigated the issue and lost and that as a sitting state court judge he needs to abide by the federal judge's order and thereby re-affirm the rule of law.

[Conservababe]

I abhor contributions to NAMBLA as much as you seem to abhor donations to Christian ministries.

[Labyrinthos]

Here's an idea: Leave the stone monument in place but remove the words. When the Judgment Day comes and men attempt to make the excuse that they didn't know the law because it wasn't to be found in all the land, God will simply say, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

I'll take my chances that God will judge me the way I have lived and how I have treated my fellow humans rather than my ability to memorize the Ten Commandments or push the ten commandments upon others.

[Modernman]

There is a law library within this building. Is it ok to put the first laws within the building? Should the Alabama Constitution not be on display within the building? Should the US Constitution not be on display within the building? It has become an item of worship for many. It is an idol to many. No matter. God will sort this out in His own time.

Not sure I follow your argument. Reasonable people look at the Alabama Constitution or the US Constitution and see secular documents. I don't know anyone who "worships" the US Constiution (a lot of lawyers like me certainly respect it)

Nobody here would argue that putting up the magna carta would be religious. However, by themselves, the 10 commandments are clearly a religious document. Now, if they'd been put in a context of history by being placed alongside other historical documents, the religious aspect would be overshadowed by the historical aspect. Moore is not trying to do that- he's trying to put religion front and center in a secular, government building.