Posted on 08/28/2003 12:12:24 PM PDT by quidnunc
Defying an order to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom in Gasden (I think) was the stepping stone that got him to the Alabama Supreme Court. Why should he change now?
Moore would never have been elected if it wasn't for the publicity over that incident. There were several more qualified conservative candidates that lost to him in the primary simply because of the publicity.
Moore is indeed a huckster, grandstander and demigog who has no legitimate place on the bench.
I do also. I remember it being taught to everyone in High School, and that wasn't THAT long ago. Now if you say that, you're some kind of right-wing reactionary freak.
I also recall an amendment - I think it was called the Tenth - that said that any powers not granted by the Constitution to the federal government were left to the states or the people. Last I saw it was on the side of a milk carton.
To which "the people" are you referring — CAIR and the other Muslim advocacy groups, the Klan, Noan Chomsky and his chomskyites, The ACLU red devils, the members of the Ruckus Society and their fellow anarchists/nihilists, ELF and the other eco-terrorists, NOW, NARAL, the Dykes on Bikes… who?
However, their vitality is highly endangered from usurpation by the federal judiciary.
You mean the folks that the federal courts routinely rule in favor of?
Pre-emption - if your answer is free exercise, he isn't standing up for anyone's right to free exercise. In fact, he has explicitly stated that certain faiths do not count as "religion" for purposes of the 1st Amendment, and that people of other faiths only have the freedom to worship their gods because the Judeo-Christian God - not the U.S. Constitution, but the Judeo-Christian God ALONE - allows people of other faiths to have freedom of conscience.
His statement, not mine.
That, to me, is a far cry from defending the rights of all Americans.
Here is a better Judge.
----------------------------------------------
LAW OF THE LAND
Court OKs 10 Commandments display Federal judge says Texas Capitol exhibit constitutional
Posted: October 11, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jon Dougherty
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
A federal judge in Austin, Texas, has ruled that a 42-year-old display of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the state Capitol building is not an official endorsement of religion and can remain intact.
U.S. District Judge Harry Lee Hudspeth found that the six-feet-by-three-feet granite memorial – one of 17 monuments on state Capitol grounds – was appropriate as a tool "to promote youth morality and to stop the alarming increase in delinquency," and served a legitimate secular purpose.
The court also found that no reasonable observer would conclude that the state sought to advance or endorse religion. The Ten Commandments display did not contain the state seal or the Lone Star symbol, as other monuments do.
"The court was clear in noting that the display of the … monument could not be interpreted by a reasonable observer as a state endorsement of religion," said Mathew Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit legal group that defends religious-freedom cases.
"Each of the Ten Commandments has played a significant role in the foundation of our system of law and government," he said, adding that the biblical edicts have "both a secular and religious aspect."
Liberty Counsel filed an amicus brief with the court in support of the state of Texas.
Thomas Van Orden, a homeless criminal defense lawyer who has temporarily lost his law license, filed suit to have the display removed, claiming it was an official endorsement of religion. He could not be reached for comment.
"To ignore the influence of the Ten Commandments in the founding and shaping of American law and government would require significant historical revisionism," Staver told WorldNetDaily. He said they "take on an even greater secular aspect when placed in the context of other historical or legal documents, such as in the context of the state Capitol."
Texas Gov. Rick Perry also applauded the ruling.
"Today's court ruling is a victory for those who believe, as I do, that the Ten Commandments are time-tested and appropriate guidelines for living a full and moral life," he said in a statement. "The Ten Commandments provide a historical foundation for our laws and principles as a free and strong nation, under God, and should be displayed at the Texas Capitol."
Staver said he was unsure whether Van Orden would appeal.
The display was donated to the state by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1961 as part of a youth guidance project "to give the youth of the nation a code of conduct by which to govern their actions," said Staver.
The monument sits in a small park-like subsection between the state Supreme Court building and the Capitol.
Display of the Ten Commandments has not fared well recently in other court venues. On Wednesday, a federal court in Frankfort, Ky., rejected a plan to display a Ten Commandments monument near the state Capitol, saying it was a thinly disguised effort at government promotion of religion. However, the court said the state could display the edicts by presenting them in the context of other historical and non-religious material.
In 1997, then-Alabama state court Judge Roy Moore, over the objections of the American Civil Liberties Union, posted the Ten Commandments in his chambers.
Moore has since been elevated to chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.
The 10th Amendment - it is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution that the federal government is required to maintain any separation of religion and state - in fact, references to God are peppered throughout the federal government. Therefore, under the 10th, this was a state matter, to be resolved by the State of Alabama.
I'm not a Christian, but I think Moore is right here. There was no violation to any federal-level enumerated rights by having that monument in the state courthouse. So the feds create a right from thin air and use that to deny the Alabama Judiciary to place a monument in their own building. That's usurpation. And it's just one example of thousands over the last few decades.
Hudspeth ain't a better judge than Easterbrook, though, and if you think that based on this one article you need to do a little homework.
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.