Alabama SC justices cave, order Ten Commandments removed

AP on Fox News ^ | 8-21-03 | AP on Fox News website

[rwfromkansas]

MONTGOMERY, Ala.

[MineralMan]

"No preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship;

Article I, Section 3 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901"

Bears repeating.

[andy58-in-nh]

It is interesting that you've chosen a handful of cases in which the ACLU filed amicus briefs solely with regard to 1st Amendment issues, many of them occurring before the ACLU became the monstrosity that it is now (which is to say,roughly 1970). But since you asked, I would have disagreed with the sort of 1st Amendment absolutism (among other things) evinced in the following cases:

1969 Tinker v. Des Moines
1971 U.S. v. New York Times The Pentagon Papers
1975 O'Connor v. Donaldson
1978 Smith v. Collin
1992 R.A.V. v. Wisconsin
1995 Lebron v. Amtrak

Only at length could I explain why I think each of these cases were wrongly decided. In many cases, it has to do with the failure to distinguish between public and private spheres of conduct. In others, it has to do with the right of a community or state to promulgate laws for rational purposes (for example - to allow peaceful assembly on common sites and prevent violence likely to be incited by certain expressions otherwise protected by free speech rights). In the Pentagon Papers case, national security was recklessly breached and people's lives endangered in the name of free speech, which is not and never has been an absolute right, even in a society as blessedly free as ours. Many of the rights that we enjoy result from the ability of our government to protect us against enemies foreign and domestic, and that sometimes results in limitations on individual action and/or expression. The limits to such intrusion are codified in the Constitution as a whole, which exists exclusive of, and not dependent on the Bill of Rights.

[lugsoul]

Why let facts get in the way of a good smearing?

[hattend]

The Pagans are high-fiving the ACLU and both groups are dancing around the redwoods and fellating each other when they get tired.

[Catspaw]

Here's a longer version of the story. 

Associate justices overrule Moore, vote to comply with order

By BOB JOHNSON
The Associated Press
8/21/2003, 10:41 a.m. CT

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) -- The eight associate justices overruled Chief Justice Roy Moore on Thursday and directed that his Ten Commandments monument be removed from its public site in the Alabama Judicial Building.

The senior associate justice, Gorman Houston, said the eight instructed the building's manager to "take all steps necessary to comply ... as soon as practicable."

A federal judge has ruled the monument violates the constitution's ban on government promotion of religion and must be removed from its public place in the rotunda. He set a Thursday deadline, but Moore said he would not move it.

The associate justices wrote that they are "bound by solemn oath to follow the law, whether they agree or disagree with it."

The monument was briefly walled off from public view Thursday as the federal court deadline passed for the marker to be out of public sight. Then the plywood-like wall came down, displaying the monument again.

Houston said the building manager may have put up the partition in order for the state to be in compliance until the associate justices made a decision. Their seven-page order, signed by all eight, was issued about 10 a.m. The partition had blocked public view of the monument from about 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.

Moore's spokesman, Tom Parker, said Moore was out of town for a family funeral but decided to return to Montgomery when he learned the monument had been walled from public view.

"This is an example of what is happening in this country: the acknowledgment of God as the moral foundation of law in this nation is being hidden from us," Moore said in a statement issued by Parker.

U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson had set a Thursday deadline for Moore's monument to be removed outright or moved to a private part of the judicial building.

Late Wednesday afternoon, the U.S. Supreme Court had rejected Moore's emergency plea for a stay of the federal court order, declining for the time being to be drawn into a dispute over whether the monument violates the Constitution's ban on government promotion of religion.

Richard Cohen, an attorney for plaintiffs, said a motion was filed Thursday morning with Thompson asking that Moore be held in contempt for not removing the monument. Thompson, who had threatened $5,000-a-day fines against the state, is expected to consider the contempt motion Friday, but it might be moot if the monument is in compliance.

"This just shows what an extremist Roy Moore is, than all eight of the other justices are refusing to stand with him," said plaintiff's attorney Ayesha Khan. "We applaud the efforts of the other justices to obey the rule of law. It's a far more patriotic act to obey the constitution and the federal courts than to do what Justice Moore has done."

The monument has not bee viewed as a partisan issue. Moore is a Republican; seven of the eight associate justices also are Republicans.

Dozens of Moore supporters remained outside the building Thursday morning, kneeling in prayer. Several hundred had gathered earlier for a rally. Supporters had sung and prayed outside the building throughout the day Wednesday as those inside were removed from the rotunda in handcuffs when they refused to leave voluntarily.

A total of 21 protesters were arrested and taken to the Montgomery County Jail, where they were charged with trespassing. Most were released on their recognizance.

Stephen Hopkins, pastor of Burnet Bible Church in Burnet, Texas, was one of the 21 people arrested Wednesday night. He said he was willing to be arrested even though he has 10 children.

"This is a great hypocrisy," Hopkins said. "This is an assault on God. They're saying we're going to cover up God."

Patrick Mahoney, the demonstration organizer who is director of the Christian Defense Coalition, called the partition put up briefly Thursday morning "the Berlin Wall of religious tyranny."

During Wednesday night's rally, former presidential candidate Alan Keyes delivered a fiery speech, saying the efforts of courts and government to stifle religion must end.

"This must end or freedom will end with it," Keyes said. "No longer can we tolerate this crime that is being done against our movement for almighty God."

Moore, who installed the monument in the rotunda of the judicial building two years ago in the middle of the night, said in a statement that he does not consider the case over. He said he still plans to appeal to the Supreme Court on the merits of the case.

"The U.S. Supreme Court's denial of a stay today will not deter me from continuing to fight for the right of our state to acknowledge God," Moore said in the statement.

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.

****************************

According to this story, the courthouse is closed to walk-in traffic until August 25:

last updated August 21, 11:16 a.m.
Monument to Go

Local Headlines

more>>

What's Next in the Case of the 10 Commandments

Vigil Continues

Busy Day for Monument Supporters

Smelly Problem Stinks Up A Dallas County Home

10 Commandments 8/19

Beer on Sunday

'Tax Tour' Crosses The State In Support Of The Governor's Plan

Dothan Woman Appeals Her Death Penalty Conviction

Prattville Woman Pleads Guilty to Leaving Struck Motorcyclist for Dead

Northgate Shoot-out Arrest

Senior Associate Justice Gorman Houston has told WSFA that all eight associate justices of the Alabama Supreme Court have issued an order countermanding the order of Judge Roy Moore concerning the Ten Commandments monument.  Houston says they have notified the building supervisor to make immediate plans to remove the monument.

Houston said the building manager may have put up the partition in order for the state to be in compliance until the associate justices made their decision.

Chief Justice Moore was out of town Thursday morning to attend a funeral but is now back in the judicial building.

The associate justices wrote that they are "bound by solemn oath to follow the law, whether they agree or disagree with it."

The state judicial system's web site had this notice concerning the state judicial complex.  "The Supreme Court and State Law Library Building is closed to walk-in traffic until Monday, August 25, we will however be accepting telephone calls, telefaxs and emails."

Only one thing is certain in the case concerning the Ten Commandments monument -- patience is required.

Everyone paying attention to the case had one question following the midnight Wednesday deadline for Judge Roy Moore to remove the Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama State Judicial Building: What's next?

The SPLC's Rhonda Brownstein is quoted in Thursday's online Atlanta Journal Constitution as saying that on Friday, Moore and his attorneys are scheduled to appear before a private meeting of the judicial ethics panel. The SPLC has filed complaints to the Judiciary Commission because of Moore's statements indicating that he will defy federal court orders.

Tom Parker said Judge Moore "understands that he might have to pay some penalties for the stands he takes, but he's a man of conviction more than a man who just wants to compromise and get along."

Associate Justice Douglas Johnstone said Wednesday he had asked his associates to approve a proposal he had for moving the monument to a more private area of the judicial building. However, Johnstone's motion did not receive the five votes required for approval. Johnstone had hoped this move would stop any fines while the appeals process continued. Judge Moore has said that he would not move the monument elsewhere in the building.

Attorney General Bill Pryor in a letter released Wednesday said the state's high court justices had the authority to overrule Judge Moore on administrative issues according to the Alabama Code.

Pryor quoted the section 12-5-20 of the Code of Alabama. "The Supreme Court shall have the power and authority to review, countermand, overrule, modify or amend any administrative decision by either the Chief Justice or the Administrative Director of Courts.”

Pryor continues, "Under that provision, ' majority of all the justices shall constitute a quorum for such purpose. The concurrence of a majority of all the justices shall be sufficient to determine the question of whether and how such, decision shall be so reviewed, countermanded, overruled, modified or amended.'

And Pryor adds, "The Supreme Court would also have the authority to direct the Chief Justice to remove the monument through the. enforcement of a rule under section 6.11 of Amendment 328 to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901. That section grants the Supreme Court of Alabama the power to 'make and promulgate rules governing the administration of all courts.'"

[Moby Grape]

Hey BOY, (name calling little weasel). I stand corrected. I was unaware that there are NOW that many republicans on the court (there were NOT only a short time ago). As to how Moore votes, what the HELL does that have to do with this subject (removing the 10 Commandments)..STAY ON SUBJECT....Do you, boy wonder, disagree with me when I say that it is NOT caving to be forced to OBEY the law?

[DoughtyOne]

...refusing to be drawn in...

No, that should be written, "...endorsing the lower court's decision..."

It's really tough to believe that 7 of 9 SCOTUS members were appointed by Republicans.

[Moby Grape]

That may be correct (not long ago there were NO republicans on the state court. I was unaware that the shift was this great...of course, I don't get my facts from A.P.

[talleyman]

A lot of hostility towards the ACLU on FR stems from ignorance.

That must be it! It couldn't posibly be the ACLU's radical left-wing agenda.

[montag813]

But since you asked, I would have disagreed with the sort of 1st Amendment absolutism (among other things) evinced in the following cases:

It is quite true that ConsistentLibertarian chose very old cases for the most part. What he ignores is the thousands of "cases" in which poor schools or organizations are threatened with financial ruin into settling with the ACLU for lack of resources to even get to court. We are all aware of these cases. It is a long time since Skokie. They simply are NEVER on the side of anyone not representing an extreme-left viewpoint or countercultural position.

The ACLU would NEVER EVER have intervened in the California State recall effort had Pete Wilson been the target. Can anyone dispute this? They are a purely left-wing group with a jihadist agenda to undermine traditional American values, and to create new "rights" for Marxist-supported groups which were never enumerated in the Constitution.

[BamaG]

I don't really understand what you are saying, you aren't that clear. Please rephrase.

And I know many many republicans who wish Moore would run for something else because they want him off the bench. He's been a failure there.

[HighWheeler]

"A lot of hostility towards the ACLU on FR stems from ignorance. This is a case in point."

I couldn't agree with you more. Those ACLU a55h0les are one ignorant bunch of self-centered, socialist jerks. Why does it always take FR to lead the masses out of darkness and toward the light of truth?

[ConsistentLibertarian]

Lovell v. Griffin set a precedent which protects the rights of conservative Christians, along with members of any other religious group.

But note that, interestingly enough, in that case an ordinance passed in Georgia (a bastion of conservative Christians) was denying the rights of people from other faiths. That tends to be how it goes. Majority groups tend not to pass laws oppressing themselves. It's the minorities who are most vulnerable in a democracy and the Constitution is what protects them from the tyranny of the majority.

Here's an interesting experiment you can try: wear a T-shirt with the 10 commandments in the courtroom and wait to see if anyone stops you. If they do, the ACLU will be all over it, fighting tooth and nail on your side and they'll win because they set the precedence in Cohen v. California.

And note: many conservatives hated the ACLUS for Cohen v. California ;-)

[Zack Nguyen]

when will they learn that his kingdom is not of this world?

That doesn't mean that God has no interest in our government institutions. Far from it - he established them (Romans 13.) His kingdom does not gain it's power from worldly sources. Yet He is intensely interested in our world.

[inquest]

It goes like this. A state actor cannot take action in the absence of legislation if legislation authorizing such action would be unconstitutional.

Not buying it. "No preference in law" means no preference in law. Justice Moore has no authority to pass any laws, or to even administer the laws outside of an actual case or controversy before him in court, therefore his action cannot possibly be considered to partake in any way of the authority of law.

Now, you tell me. If the Alabama Legislature passes the following law, does it pass constitutional muster:

The State of Alabama hereby declares that the Christian God is sovereign over all laws of the State and each citizen of the State, and that this sovereignty shall be recognized by the erection of a large monument in the rotunda of the Judicial Building, to remind all citizens of Alabama and all litigants in its courts that the Christian God is the source of all legal authority in this State. The display of non-Christian or secular sources of law alongside the monument is expressly prohibited.

Well, it would satisfy the first criterion in the prohibition - namely, that it's an actual law - but then it's a dead end from there. Such a law is not granting preference to a particular organization ("sect, society, denomination") nor to a particular mode - that is, method - of worship.

[beachn4fun]

Thank you for setting me straight. All this time I thought 'LAW'YERS (isn't that what more politicans are?) made the LAW. That is much more convenient. If you don't like one law, change it to something you do like.

[Moby Grape]

He may not have been fit for the Chief Justice roll, BUT he was put there by the Alabama voters as they put a STICK in the eye of the ACLU. Moore stood up the ACLU and the people of Alabama, and across this country, want judges who will do so.

[DoughtyOne]

"No preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship;

Article I, Section 3 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901"

Bears repeating.

Yes it does.

[HighWheeler]

"A federal judge had ruled the monument violates the constitution's ban on government establishment of religion and must be removed...."

There is a huge difference between the government establishing a religion and forcing it down everyone's throat under penalty of imprisonment, and the recognition of religions.

To be consistent, the next step by the ACLU will be to keep the government from giving special tax exemption to churches/religions and keep the rest of us from receiving tax deductions from giving charity to churches.

[varina davis]

The sheeple are winning. Sad.