Alabama Justice Suspended Over Monument (10 Commandments Being Violated, Big Time!)

Associated Press ^ | August 22, 2003 | BOB JOHNSON

[anymouse]

MONTGOMERY, Ala. - Alabama's chief justice was suspended Friday for his refusal to obey a federal court order to remove his Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of his courthouse.

Roy Moore was automatically suspended with pay when the nine-member Judicial Inquiry Commission referred an ethics complaint against him to the Court of the Judiciary, which holds trial-like proceedings and can discipline and remove judges.

Ruby Crowe, an assistant clerk working with the court, said Moore will have 30 days to respond.

Moore met with the commission earlier Friday as about 100 of his supporters, several blocks away at the federal courthouse, ripped and burned a copy of U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson's order for the monument's removal.

Moore said he told the commission that he upheld his oath of office by acknowledging God. Moore has said Thompson has no authority to tell the state's chief justice to remove the monument.

Moore had no immediate comment after his suspension was announced. His spokesman, Tom Parker, said Moore's attorneys would respond to the complaint Monday.

Although Moore's supporters have said they will try to prevent court officials from moving the monument, Moore's attorneys offered assurances that their client will not interfere with the removal during a conference call Friday with Thompson, two plaintiffs' attorneys who also took part in the call said.

A Moore spokesman said Friday that the justice still intends to formally appeal the order to the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites).

Attorney General Bill Pryor said the public corruption and white collar crime unit in his office will handle the prosecution of Moore, who cannot perform any judicial duties while disqualified. Pryor said senior Associate Justice Gorman Houston will perform the chief justice's duties.

"I'm not happy we have to deal with these matters, but it is part of our duties and we will continue to do so," Pryor said.

Thompson ruled last year that the monument, installed by Moore in a highly visible public spot in the Alabama Judicial Building, violates the Constitution's ban on government promotion of a religious doctrine.

Thompson had ordered the monument removed by Wednesday — the same day the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Moore's appeal for an emergency stay.

The state Supreme Court's eight associate justices, meanwhile, overruled Moore and ordered the monument out of the rotunda.

Joe Conn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which sued to remove the monument, said Moore brought the suspension on himself.

"He knew all along that state court judges cannot defy the federal courts and yet he went ahead with this anyway," Conn said.

A Moore supporter, Alabama Christian Coalition president John Giles, said the commission was "trying to take down one of America's finest."

The monument remained in the rotunda Friday as court officials discussed where in the building the 5,300-pound granite marker could be moved and given proper security. Thompson said it could be moved to a private place in the building.

The ethics complaint, filed by Montgomery lawyer Stephen Glassroth, now goes to the Court of the Judiciary, a panel currently made up of four judges, three lawyers and two non-lawyers that has handled numerous judicial ethics cases.

Attorneys who sued to get the monument out of the rotunda, meanwhile, put their contempt filing against Moore on hold, now that Alabama Supreme Court associate justices have agreed to move the marker.

Moore supporters have held an around-the-clock vigil since Wednesday, and said they planned to continue to prevent the monument from being moved.

On Friday, about 100 protesters moved from the steps of the judicial building to a sidewalk in front of the federal courthouse, where Thompson works. Some ripped to pieces and burned a copy of Thompson's ruling. Demonstrators also held a mock trial, in which Thompson was charged with breaking the law of God.

"We hold you, Judge Thompson, and the United States Supreme Court in contempt of God's law," said Flip Benham, director of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue.

Inside the state judicial building, court officials were trying to determine where the monument would go and when it would be moved.

Ayesha Khan, an attorney for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, one of the groups seeking removal of the monument, said Thompson told the parties in a conference call Friday that he would schedule another conference call for late next week. She said plaintiffs would drop their request to hold Moore in contempt, or fine the state, if the monument is moved by then.

"Our concern all along has been compliance with the Constitution. Once the monument has been removed, our concerns will have been addressed," she said.

Khan said the attorney general, speaking for the eight associate justices who overruled Moore, told Thompson that building officials were looking for the best location for the monument and considering security problems that might occur because of the ongoing demonstrations.

One of the demonstrators, retired Birmingham school teacher Murray Phillips, said she knows the monument will probably be gone from the rotunda soon.

"I'm upset, but I'm not surprised. At least I am going to be able to say to my grandchildren that at least I tried to do something," Phillips said.

[Eala]

This is bizarre. What is the first thing a witness is asked to do in court? Put your hand on the what? and swear to whom?

Not in The Peoples' Soviet of Washington (aka The Evergreed State). Here you just raise your right hand and promise to tell the truth.

[Eala]

I seem to remember reading that, while a circuit judge, Judge Moore's decisions were overturned at a rate far above average.

That could be as much an indicator/indictment of the court above him as it might be of him. Imagine if he were in the realm disserved by the 9th District Court...

[Eala]

("The do-it-yourself Mass is ended. Go in peace" Francis Carindal Arinze of Nigeria)

What's this?? I'd heard the Episcopal church (ECUSA) has or is developing what amounts to a do-it-yourself Mass, but...

[Texas_Dawg]

Do you think that there might be (theoretically) a law that is wrong and should be disobeyed, even by legal authorities? Or should they always obey all laws, even if they are convinced of the illegality/immorality of said law? And work it out later?

Of course there are cases where laws must be broken by Christians, as Paul demonstrated with his frequent arrests. But it is not a case of going out of your way to get arrested to make a point. A Christian will break the law in extreme situations (when practice of their religion is banned) because as someone controlled by the Spirit, he "can do no other" (as Martin Luther famously said). A good example is Christians I've visited in Cuba who break their laws simply by singing that there is no other name for salvation given to me than that of Jesus Christ. The removal of this monument (as I've said, I disagreed with the ruling) keeps not one person in Alabama from freely being able to practice their religion. These people are very, very misguided.

[Teacher317]

That's nothing. The US Supreme Court, who refused to hear this case, has their own Ten Commandments and Moses statues and artwork in their halls for public viewing.

[Texas_Dawg]

I wondered when someone was going to upchuck Romans 13 at us. And my answer to that is always the same: If you take Paul seriously, well, so much for the American Revolution.

As I've said, there are times where disobeying and resisting the authorities are called for, as Paul also demonstrated. I'm not throwing anything at you, and I take Paul's words in context with his actions as well. If you think this is a situation even remotely close to what the American colonial citizens were facing, that is sad.

[Texas_Dawg]

If they rule unconstitutionally they need not be obeyed.

Remember that next time some anarchist or radical leftist uses the same justification for their breaking the law.

[First Amendment]

That's nothing. The US Supreme Court, who refused to hear this case,

AFAIK, the SCOTUS has not refused to hear the case, they refused to stop the removal - they refused to (I don't know the correct legal language) do a stay? (I feel like a simpleton - I know there's a proper word!) IOW, they may hear the case but they wouldn't step in to prevent the current judgement from happening.

[sinkspur]

The US Supreme Court, who refused to hear this case, has their own Ten Commandments and Moses statues and artwork in their halls for public viewing.

Yes, and it's displayed as part of a mosaic of law featuring Confucius, and Solon and others. In fact, the 10 Commandments are posted in public buildings all over this country with nary a peep out of the courts.

Now, you'd think Roy would have consulted someone on how to display the 10 Commandments properly, wouldn't you?

This is about Roy Moore, and Roy Moore's view of Christianity and his disdain for every other form of religious expression.

[Bluntpoint]

Well, filing appeals, then stating that if the appeal process does not go your way you are going to continue to go your own way, is not following standard operating procedure and I can assure Judge Moore would not countenance such from lower courts concerning his findings of law.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Moore was elected by the people of the state; it's his courthouse.

The federal government has no business telling him the Ten Commandments have no place in his courthouse.

God and the people see who falls on what side.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"And did you read the ACLU's email stating that they are GOING OUT OF THEIR WAY - hunting and searching - trying to find a lost 10 Commandments memorial so they can start (yet another) lawsuit?"

Good for them. Anyone who put such a memorial on public display in a government building is violating the Rule of Law. Thank goodness someone is standing tall to protect the Rule of Law.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"The guys who wrote the original documents of the US would have been outraged at the decisions that the courts make now concerning religious freedom of expression."

You raise an interesting and important issue. But I think you draw the wrong conclusion. Consider: A boss has a son who is applying for a job with his company. The boss tells the director of HR "Hire the best qualified applicant". The boss _believes_ (incorrectly) that his son will be the best qualified applicant. The HR director hires someone better qualifed. The Boss might be outraged -- the decision is clearly not what he would have expected, but the director of HR has done what she was told.

Moral: we can't make inferences from original expectations concerning the application of the Constitution to conclusions about its original meaning.

[Conservative til I die]

Please make it a little clkearer that you despise Christians.

[Conservative til I die]

There are Christians all over Europe who manage to be devout in their faith

Christianity is dead in Europe. Get with the program. Countries with 8% Mass attendance are not devout.

[Theodore R.]

The summer of 2003 will go down as the Dark Age of conservatism -- we have lost battles on every front, even with nominally Republican control of the "government."

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"Since the 10 Commandments are accepted by every variety of Christian as well as Jews, how is this a sectarian thing? Even if Moore is a believer in some specific brand, the 10 Commandments monument is not a member of any particular church."


This argument frequently comes up but I don't think it's well-grounded.

Consider first that on your reading a government declaring that we must attend services of either sect A or sect B of Christianity would be constitutionally valid, because it doesn't promote a particular church.

Consider second the actual text of the first amendment. In paricular, compare and contrast:

(1) "establishment of a religion"

(2) "establishment of religion"

Even if you were right (and remember, for the reason above I think it would involve an extremely uncharitable interpretation of the text), on your view one would expect the text to include phrase (1). But it doesn't include that phrase. It includes phrase (2).

[sfRummygirl]

Sure, if you like churches that are sterilized, Europe is great. If you don't want to really grow at all, or actually try to get close to God, they are fine.

[sfRummygirl]

See, the next thing that is coming is going to be one huge step closer to the end, though. Did you hear on Savage how the Universalist church is now saying that churches should take down the public displays of crosses, ON THEIR PROPERTY?
Get it?

[Bluntpoint]

Would the errection of a statute of Mary in front of the Courthouse meet the standards of the founding fathers?

Would you still be supporting Judge Moore from all his accusers here who would be calling him a "Papist?"