Judge Moore has been removed from judgeship and is now being disbared!

11/14/03 | amemhotep

[amemhotep]

This is terrible! I Don't wish to criticize our country, but if all religions are not prohibited to display their religious monuments,exept Cristians,then is there really freedom of expression or is there only freedom of expression for Non-Christians? My main point is that the federal court says that the reason Judge Moore can't display the ten commandments in his Alabama courtroom, is that to do so would be the establishment of religion and that would be a violation the first amendment of the Bill of Rights. Well, the fact is that Judge Moore didn't violate any constitutional laws. I say this because the first amendment, which the federal court uses as foundation to remove the ten commandments, says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. You will note that the first amendment prohibits congress, not the individual states from making a law respecting an establishment of religion. So, seeing as the judge isn't congess,then how did he violate the first amendment? One last thing is that Judge Moore wasn't establishing any law, so once again, how did the judge violate the constitution?

[Experiment 6-2-6]

Unfortunately, Justice Moore, in respect to his office, should have resigned. He was ordered by a higher court to remove the ten commandments. Because he refused, they are going to discipline him. (sort of like what they do to mutineers at sea when they don't follow orders) If he had resigned, he would have kept his point without the awkwardness to follow.

I don't likes it much either, especially since I think the statue should have stayed there. But the "rule of law" is the idea that a higher court states the ruling, and the lower courts comply. Which is good, otherwise the 9th circuit would be running amuck without any control by a higher authority.

[Hank Rearden]

Good.

If anyone should respect the rule of law, applicable to all, and the opinions of higher courts - it's a judge.

He's obviously a crappy judge - he wants to make up law as he sees fit, regardless of our Constitution.

I hear McDonalds is recovering nicely; maybe he can get a job there. Or at MallWart as a "greeter"/annoyer.

[BlueElephant]

Hear Hear! This guy is a nut.

[Lurker]

I must disagree with you my friend.

I for one am happy seeing a State Supreme Court Justice telling the Feds to stick it where the sun don't shine. While I wouldn't have picked that particular hill to 'die on', I think Judge Moore showed a remarkable amount of intestinal fortitude.

Now if we could just get a few more State SC Justices to tell the Feds to stuff their 'highway funds' or their 'housing funds' or order the BATF, or DEA out of their respective States we might just see some real progress.

Judge Moore didn't extort the taxpayers for his monument, it was paid for by private funds, so to my mind he didn't do all that much 'wrong'. If he had issued an order mandating that the taxpayers in his State had to pay for the damned thing, that would be a horse of a different color.

Besides, he really pissed off the ACLU, and that's almost never a bad thing as far as I am concerned.

I'm willing to forgive Judge Moore for being a publicity hound. In fact, I hope he runs for Governor.

Regards,

L L

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

the "rule of law" is the idea that a higher court states the ruling, and the lower courts comply.< P> With respect, you are confusing the rule of law with the rule of men. Under the rule of law officials of any kind who have sworn to uphold the Constitution comply with a court ruling of any kind only when such court ruling is legal. In Moore's case, the federal court ruling is clearly illegal:

- The federal court has no jurisdiction (Moore isn't in Congress, wasn't making a law, and wasn't establishing a religion--that's three strikes against the federal court already!)

- The illegal federal court ruling is tantamount to making law. Under our Constitution, only Congress may make laws. Any and all legislation from the bench is unConstitutional.

- The illegal federal court ruling deprived Moore of his God-given and Constitutional right to speech.

- The illegal federal court ruling deprived all of us of our Constitutional right to a republican form of government. The people have never elected a federal judge in this country, and when unelected oligarchs pass laws on a whim they violate our rights.

In short, the federal courts, in this case (and many others), have committed an act of war on Chief Justice Moore and the rest of us. As such, they are, without question, guilty of treason.

[drlevy88]

It would take a miracle or a new constitutional amendment to back the USSC out of where it has gotten itself now. I don't think even a USSC of 9 Scalia's would do it. Too much precedent.

[fabian]

I think judge Moore is courageous and has not broken any law. The higher court has broken the law by robbing judge Moore of his constitutional right of free exercise of religion.

[Mr. Mojo]

This is terrible!

Indeed it is. And btw, get a load of this

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

It would take a miracle or a new constitutional amendment to back the USSC out of where it has gotten itself now. I don't think even a USSC of 9 Scalia's would do it. Too much precedent.

You may be right, but the Constitutional bungle is correctable and it's never too late to start correcting. We'd need a president with honor, intelligence, backbone, and balls, plus a congressional leadership armed with the same.

It's probably not doable by any means as long as the country is as polarized as it is. I've only been on this planet for about five decades, but my limited life experience and knowledge of history is telling me that the 'Rats haven't been this squirrelly since about 1860.

[stevem99]

But the State SC Justices aren't the ones who make the decision whether or not their state accepts federal monies. Sounds to me like their beef is with their own state legislators and executives who decide to trade local control for $s.

[stevem99]

How would you feel if a conservative Muslim judge put up various scriptures from the Koran on the walls of his court? Or a Hindu judge decided to put a giant statue of Shiva on the court steps?

[Fledermaus]

I agree with Moore that the higher court judge had no authority to intervene.

The "it was a court order and must be obeyed" sounds eerily similar to "I was just following orders."

[Fledermaus]

And now the federal 5th circuit court has allowed a similar use of the Ten Commandments in Texas.

Moore is right and those that don't think so are wrong. It's that simple. Go back and actually read the Constitution and use a dictionary to look up the big words.

I'm tired of arguing about the "meaning" of the document by those that can't comprehend English. What part of "CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAW" do people not understand?

In the first amendment that applies to CONGRESS establishing a national religion forcing us all to join. It also CLEARLY STATES that CONGRESS cannot pass ANY LAW to prohibit the free excercise of religion. It doesn't say, "Except on public property".

A STATE Supreme Court Justice, displaying a monument, isn't the FEDERAL CONGRESS establishing a religion. What part of this simplicity do people not understand? One plus one is two no matter who wants to argue. All state courthouses, federal courts, and the Supreme Court of the U.S. display paintings, sculptures, murials, etc. that depict our government's founding of law based on Christian/Judeo values.

In many court proceedings, menorahs are okay while a Christmas tree isn't on "public property". How is this right?

No, Judge Moore is right and the federal judge was wrong. I hope he continues to fight the courts and keep his name alive since he'll probably run for governor in 2006 and win overwhelmingly, you cynics about McDonald's and being elected dog catcher not withstanding.

[lainie]

What makes everyone so sure that federal courts are "higher" in every case?

[EGPWS]

How would you feel if a conservative Muslim judge put up various scriptures from the Koran on the walls of his court? Or a Hindu judge decided to put a giant statue of Shiva on the court steps?

If he would have only displayed "The Ten Suggestions" then the offense would have not been there and it most likely would have never been an issue. After all who could argue with ten suggestions like that?

What a crazy world we live in.

[Lurker]

But that isn't what happened. Judge Moore didn't put the 10 Commandments on the wall of his courtroom. He put them in front of the courthouse. In fact, 'he' didn't put them anywhere.

The monument was placed there with private funds. Noone was forced to pay for them. The monument didn't cost the taxpayers of Arkansas a until the ACLU decided to stick their noses into things.

If the voters of the State of Arkansas decide to put a Buddhist on their SC, I won't have the slightest problem with it. If he decides to put the Buddhist version of the Commandments on the waiting room without cost to the taxpayers of the State Of Arkansas, I won't have a problem with that either.

That's just my opinion. Your mileage will vary.

L

[drlevy88]

Not as much as you would think. Unless they started to warp the law in favor of their ideology.

Moore might not have been smart if his goal was to stay in as a judge, but if he wanted to publicly go down in flames for the sake of making a point he succeeded quite well.

[drlevy88]

He could have expressed a little irony by labeling it "The 10 'Suggestions'"

[First_Salute]

Bump.