Replies

Well, you have animus toward Moore, that's clear.:-}

But it's not the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is the following three questions.

What law did he make?

When did Congress enact it?

What religion was established?

What law did he make?
When did Congress enact it?
What religion was established?

Those are some good questions!

Here is my main objection, well said in an editorial from my local paper, the Montgomery Advertiser:

Defying order indefensible

As an American citizen, Roy Moore is entitled to his opinions on the law or religion or any other subject. What he is not entitled to -- and what is appalling for a person in his position to even contemplate -- is defiance of a court order.

For the chief justice of Alabama to flatly state that he will not comply with a court order -- an order that stems from a case Moore lost at the trial level and lost again on appeal -- is indefensible. A complaint was promptly filed with the Judicial Inquiry Commission, and rightly so.

The commission is an investigatory body in the judicial system and can refer cases to the Court of the Judiciary. There, a judge accused of improper conduct can be tried and, if convicted, disciplined or removed from office. If Moore persists in defying the court order, he should be brought before this court.

The deadline for removing the Ten Commandments monument that Moore placed in the Judicial Building two years ago is Aug. 20, so he has a few days to come to his senses and to recognize that his conduct is utterly unacceptable in a judge, that his actions threaten to undermine the integrity of the judicial system.

Alabama's Canons of Judicial Ethics require judges to "respect and comply with the law" and to conduct themselves "at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary." Moore plainly has not done that.

It was heartening to see more responsible public officials speak out quickly and forcefully after Moore's declaration on Thursday. Attorney General Bill Pryor, a staunch conservative and a man of deep religious faith, said he would not aid Moore in defying the court order. "As attorney general, I have a duty to obey all orders of courts even when I disagree with those orders," he said.

Moore has the same duty, but he has chosen to ignore it.

Justice Gorman Houston, the senior associate justice on the state Supreme Court, convened the other associate justices "to assure that the state of Alabama is 'a government of laws and not of men,' as our Constitution requires."

The associate justices, Houston said, "will take whatever steps are necessary to make certain that the state of Alabama and the Unified Judicial System of the state does not have to pay fines." Under state law, a majority of the associate justices can override an administrative decision of the chief justice.

Houston, another conservative, cited the famous words of United States v. Lee: "No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All of the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and bound to obey it."

One wonders whether Moore has ever read that case. In a statement read by one of his lawyers, Moore said Houston "does not understand the importance of this case to our state and nation."

What supreme arrogance. What an insult to a distinguished Alabamian who has had a long and honorable career on the court. Houston doesn't lack understanding; what he lacks -- and we applaud him for it -- is any tolerance for an individual placing himself above the law.

Justice Thomas Woodall, like Moore a Republican, said he was "disappointed" in the chief justice. It's hard to see how any lawyer, any officer of the court, could not be. Ours is a government of laws and not of men.

Moore is deeply, profoundly wrong in vowing to defy the court order. He has lost the case in court -- twice. He cannot simply will the outcome to be something else.

Moore would do well to heed the words of the Rev. Michael Thurman, pastor of Dexter Avenue King Memorial Baptist Church: "It's more important for me that people should try to live according to the precepts and principles of the Ten Commandments, rather than have a public display. I'd much rather see it lived out than to see the big fight and hoopla over a monument."

Sadly, the "big fight and hoopla" appears to be what Moore wants. Ten Commandments representations -- first a wooden plaque when Moore was a then-unknown circuit judge and now the 5,000-pound granite monument in the Judicial Building -- have been Moore's ticket to notoriety. He has capitalized on the reverence people of faith hold for these Biblical admonitions, unabashedly mixing religion and law in the sure knowledge that, at least in politics, the emotional usually wins over the intellectual.

For all his talk about the foundation of law, Moore clearly is willing to strike at the very foundation of the judicial system in which he serves.

He made a law that says that people who agree with his religion are more equal than others in his court.

He amends the laws of Congress that require him to treat citizens equally in the administration of the law.

He has established the sect that follows whichever precise wording is engraved on his security rock.

Next stupid questions?

According to Lord Myron, Judge Moore hid a secret invisible bible in the monument which subliminally harms atheists who walk near it.