Moore's Audacious Attorney [or, Losing Your Case On Purpose]

Mobile Register ^ | August 31, 2003 | Eddie Curran

[lugsoul]

This is a clear admission that Moore failed to seek the stay on purpose. What is most interesting, though not discussed here, is that Moore did file for a stay after the time had run - a sure loser - and appealed the denial all the way to SCOTUS. This was nothing but theater. He knew the time had run, but ran his request up the chain of appellate courts to create another series of court decisions thwarting his monument. He used the court system, and taxpayer money, to pursue a completely frivolous motion for no other reason than to create sympathetic coverage - and it worked. Most people only heard that SCOTUS denied his appeal - not that they had refused to give him a stay he didn't ask for on time. Even some folks here on FR - where the quantity of information received is generally higher than the populace as a whole - viewed the SCOTUS refusal as a denial of the merits of Moore's position.

The use of the courts for a PR stunt is abhorrent behavior for a judge.

[mrsmith]

For more than 20 years, and despite a host of opportunities to hear appeals of federal court cases involving public displays of the Ten Commandments, the Supreme Court has refused to do so, Titus said.
"We're hopeful that through all of what has occurred that the U.S. Supreme Court will not duck another Ten Commandments case as it has been ducking them in the past," Titus said.
"This will impress upon the court that this is an important issue that they can't duck: Particularly the oath question."

And boy are the secularists mad about this!
The present Establishment Clause doctrine won't stand the light of day, and the ACLU has been praying no light would be thrown on it.

We could end up with a Constitutional Establishment Clause doctrine.

[GB]

This is idiocy. Even Rush Limbaugh said the other day that it was ludicrous to claim that a federal judge did not have the authority to compel a state official to do something.

[quidnunc]

This is nothing more than political grandstanding by Roy Moore.

He is probably hoping he can use it as a steppingstone to higher political office just like he used the case over the 10 commandments on his courtroom wall to get elected to the Alabama Supreme Court.

[lugsoul]

Well, Rush is a commie liberal pinko anti-Christian God hater, dontcha know? Along with Pat Robertson, and Jay Sekulow, and Pryor and Riley and Houston and Carnes and Land...

Moore is a huckster supreme.

[lugsoul]

ping

[cksharks]

I love your ping list socialists all.

[cksharks]

Oh and by the way you never answered my question to you the other day, are You (LUGNUT REINCARNATED)?

[DeaconBenjamin]

If so, is there anything a federal judge cannot compel a state judge to do? If so, where is the line?

[Registered]

After just hanging up the phone on some poor telemarketer, I can only say Jay Sekulow better review his marketing strategies.

[quidnunc]

Quote:

Herb Titus, the lead lawyer for Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore in the Ten Commandments case, chuckled when read a statement he'd made some years ago.

"Where does pragmatism get you? It doesn't get you where you want to go," Titus was quoted as saying to a Seattle reporter in 1998 when explaining his decision to leave the Republican Party and join the U.S. Taxpayers Party.

Well, that explains a lot, we're dealing with wingnut cranks!

The Taxpayers Party espouses many positions that the general public might consider extremist, including opposition to public funding of education.

And a lot of the general public — including me — consider it not only extremist, but crackpot as well.

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

After just hanging up the phone on some poor telemarketer,

National Do Not Call Registry

I can only say Jay Sekulow better review his marketing strategies.

• The Avalon Project : Federalist No 78 , AMENDMENT ONE - FREEPER rwfromkansas , AMENDMENT ONE Legal Scholar Says Founding Fathers Back Justice Moore on Ten Commandments , Federalism And Religious Liberty: Were Church And State Meant To Be Separate? , Reply To Judge Richard A. Posner on The Inseparability of Law and Morality , The Faith of the Founding
• AMENDMENT ONE Americans disapprove of federal court orderto remove 10 Commandments (77%!!)
• Federalism
• Ten Commandments Defense Act of 2003 , Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Religious Liberties Restoration Act , Pledge Protection Act of 2003
• Congress, the Court, and the Constitution , Impeaching Federal Judges: A Covenantal and Constitutional Response to Judicial Tyranny ,It's Time to Hold Federal Judges Accountable ,Congress Must Curb the Imperial Judiciary ,WallBuilders | Resources | Impeachment of Federal Judges
• AMENDMENTS 1,9,10 - Roy Moore: In God I Trust

[Registered]

Yeh, the national do not call registry for the vinyl siding and refinance your home telemarketing calls, but you'd think a conservative organization would have the brains to not telemarket on a Sunday..

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The use of the courts God's Word for a PR stunt is abhorrent behavior for a judge anyone."

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Moore and his legal team didn't make a rookie mistake by forgetting to ask for a stay. They made a conscious decision not to request the stay, Titus said.

That is pretty damned appalling, given the misrepresentative statements which came out of that camp regarding their relief requests. Titus really needs to have his grandstanding, pompous butt disbarred, as should Moore.

Let him go back to being a rodeo clown or kickboxing dummy - he is done with ANY position of public trust.

[xzins]

What's your take on this article?

If you think it's accurate, what's your take on the strategy?

[Byron_the_Aussie]

Hey Luggy, why don't you set up a 5,200 pound monument to Sekulow, at ACLU HQ?

You don't seem to have any problem with idolatry, where his views are concerned.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The spirit of the First Amendment is freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of speech, and freedom to spend money to make your thoughts accessible to others who may choose to attend to them--and freedom not to support the propagation of others' beliefs involuntarily.

Thus, the Establishment clause. But although "establishment of religion" as the framers knew it was not the existence of a cross on public property--but an actual church sustained by government payments to ministers, etc.--the establishment clause is routinely read so expansively as to threaten to moot the "free exercise" clause.

Today the government gives monopolies to the few over transmissions by radio and TV--monopolies with very substantial value--to enable its licensees to make their thoughts accessible to the general public in a uniquely efficient manner. And although the Constitution was designed to work without this recent innovation, the courts wink at fatuous claims of a "public interest" being served by the preferential propagation of the thoughts of those government-favored few.

FCC licensing (not to mention "Campaign Finance Reform") puts the government in the business of deciding what thought expressions are "in the public interest," and that is something the First Amendment patently was crafted to prohibit. That is quite a camel for the courts to swallow, while they are straining at the gnat of an expression of traditional moral sense in a state courthouse.

[findingtruth]

This is idiocy. Even Rush Limbaugh said the other day that it was ludicrous to claim that a federal judge did not have the authority to compel a state official to do something.

Of course! Federal judges are constitutionally invested with the supreme law making authority. Moore is an idiot!

[Texas_Dawg]

I'm not a socialist. I'm a shopkeeping Merchant. Get it straight.