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.

[pollywog]

hmmmmmmm what about the Daniel being told he could not pray to his God, and thus being thrown into the lion's den because he WENT AHEAD and DID IT??......hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. There comes a time when God's LAWS SUPERCEDE mans' laws.

[apackof2]

Then what's the point of resisting the inevitable?

Because no one knows the date of the ineviable, you continue to do the right thing

[PFKEY]

And what is God's law concerning this piece of marble?

[Bluntpoint]

Go on.

[apackof2]

AC 5:29 Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men!

[apackof2]

And what is God's law concerning this piece of marble?

Now your being ridiculous, you know its not the piece of marble but what is represents

[PFKEY]

Now your being ridiculous, you know its not the piece of marble but what is represents.

Matt.24
[35] Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

I don't think we should be concerned too much about whether the 10 commandments are displayed in a courtroom of some town in the south.

[First Amendment]

I am afraid you are right. People don't understand what it means anymore to fight Tyranny. These people condem Judge Moore, but they do nothing about it themselves.

I have been surprised that so many FR folks are vehemently opposed to Moore and his position. I notice that a lot of the same people who supported the SCOTUS sodomy decision are supporting removal of the 10 C's. It's pretty amazing that they can't see that their supposed libertarian love of "freedom" is being eroded very, very quickly by such judicial tyranny.

My conclusion can only be that God gives everyone what they want, tempered by what they deserve. So if someone wants to see black as white, they get to. But if someone wants to see the truth - God's truth (the only one)- He will open such a person's inner eye.

That's why logical arguments and rationality make no dent in these people. Their hearts are closed to truth because of their attachment to the very things the 10 C's tell us not to do.

[Liberty Wins]

Thank you for pointing this out.

[First Amendment]

No. But we are asking that the government not endorse religion.

Please quote the part of the Constitution which states that government cannot "endorse" religion. If no aspect of government can have the slightest scent of any religion - up to and inlcuding city parks having creches and manorahs, Christmas carol singing in schools, Boy Scouts using public parks (since they do not permit homosexual scout leaders they are too "religious" for the San Diego black robed oracles), voluntary mention of God in graduation speeches, etc etc etc - then this is establishment of secularism. Establishment of secularism is not the meaning, intent or statement in the Constitution. These judges have been wringing and twisting out false meanings for a generation or two. And now some people have had enough of this lie.

[itsahoot]

I gone done bought me a whole lotta lottery tickets so that He could show how pleased He truly is with my singin, and my clappin and my vi-o-la-tin' the Rule of Law and such like.

You are sick one for sure.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

Claim: "The single greatest error of libertarians is to fail to recognize that limiting the power of the Federal government is far more important than using that power to restrict the power of state governments to regulate individuals."

Argument: "By defending Federal arrogations of power that, in the short run, appear to advance individual liberties [...] they [1] alienate natural allies and [2] bring about less freedom in the long run."

This is an interesting argument, and it's made in clear, articulate prose. It's a pleasure to read.

However I disagree.

Re [1] -- The people I'm alienating want the States to use their power to promote religion. They are most certainly _not_ my natural allies. IF people were saying "The very thought of States using their powers to promote religion makes me want to puke, but nonetheless this not an issue governed by the Constitution, then there's no need for them to feel alienated. We can work together to crush any state politician, including the Chief Justice of Alabamba.

Re [2] -- Why so? Federal powers to limit state powers does not translate into greater federal powers over individuals. Just the opposite. The less states can do, the more liberty we have.

I think that the single greatest error of conservatives is to fail to recognize that increasing the power of States to legislate erodes individual liberties and alienates natural allies.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"this is establishment of secularism."

Non sequitur.

A government establishing secularism would shut down churches and forbidding people to attend services. See for instance the secular governments of the Soviet Republics or even Iraq for the past 30 years.

The State of Alabamba is simply taking no position on the matter one way or another.

Illustration: Cocoa Cola and General Motors aren't putting the Ten Commandments on display, but that doesn't mean they're out to promote secularism.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"I have been surprised that so many FR folks are vehemently opposed to Moore and his position [...] Logical arguments and rationality make no dent in these people. Their hearts are closed to truth because of their attachment to the very things the 10 C's tell us not to do."

At some point, when you're done with self-serving moralizing about the character of your opposition, will you have a moment to engage the arguments being made on the other side?

Example: I'm still waiting to hear what you have to say about posts #113 and #117.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"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."

I think it's important, VERY important, that people are free to hold and express any belief whatsoever on matters of religion.

But I truly do not understand why anyone would think they needed the government to endorse their religious views in order to grow spiritually or get closer to God.

If you're willing to educate me on this point, I'll listen respectfully. I think this is the nub of the issue for many people, but you're the only one who's been courageous enough to embrace the view and I'm hoping you can shed some light on it for the sake of everyone else who's reading along.

Peace.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

I missed this one:

"you see the government on a search and destroy mission, eradicating any vestige of religious expression anywhere except in the privacy of one's own closet as a LIMITED ROLE???"

You're describing the Soviet Republics which outlawed religious expression and worship, or at least put serious limitations on both.

You're not describing the position held by myself and others who object to the display of the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court of Alabama.

To get a grip on the difference consider the ACLU, which is one of the plaintiffs in this case. The ACLU has no interest in limiting religious expression anywhere except in the privacy of one's own closet. The ACLU has been the leading advocate for, and defender of, freedom of religious expression. If you're unaware of the case law and willing to learn, I'd be happy to educate you.

If anyone wants to buy a huge parking lot in downtown Birmingham and put the Ten Commandments on display (a huge monument even), they're most welcome to do so. Heck, it would be more visible that way. And if anyone tried to stop you, the ACLU would leap to your defense.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"Some how I suspect there is going to be some bad electrical storms over Alabama tonight."

Did your prediction turn out to be accurate or inaccurate?

[Non-Sequitur]

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...

Yeah but he isn't. He's in the 11th District. What have you got against them.

[wgeorge2001]

Exo 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.


"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13:1-2"

Texas Dawg,
How about other scriptures that declare the wicked ruler as one who is hell bound?
15. As a roaring lion, and a ranging bear; so is a wicked ruler over the poor people.
16. The prince that wanteth understanding is also a great oppressor: but he that hateth covetousness shall prolong his days.
17. A man that doeth violence to the blood of any person shall flee to the pit; let no man stay him.
18. Whoso walketh uprightly shall be saved: but he that is perverse in his ways shall fall at once.
19. He that tilleth his land shall have plenty of bread: but he that followeth after vain persons shall have poverty enough.
20. A faithful man shall abound with blessings: but he that maketh haste to be rich shall not be innocent.
21. To have respect of persons is not good: for for a piece of bread that man will transgress.
22. He that hasteth to be rich hath an evil eye, and considereth not that poverty shall come upon him.
23. He that rebuketh a man afterwards shall find more favour than he that flattereth with the tongue.
24. Whoso robbeth his father or his mother, and saith, It is no transgression; the same is the companion of a destroyer.
25. He that is of a proud heart stirreth up strife: but he that putteth his trust in the Lord shall be made fat.
26. He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.
27. He that giveth unto the poor shall not lack: but he that hideth his eyes shall have many a curse.
28. When the wicked rise, men hide themselves: but when they perish, the righteous increase.
Proverbs 28:15-28

Deep in the heart of texas!

"

[rebel]

You are wrong on both points:

1. We are not promoting religion. That has been debunked so cleanly that only someone with a religious axe to grind can still throw it out there.

Cite one time the government required someone to be christian to do something. If Judge Moore is sooooo scary it should be easy to find the instance when he forced some one to accept his religion.

Sorry, walking past a monument doesn't do that. I've walked past statues of Budda but I didn't become a Buddist.

If the government was going to establish a religion they would have done it when christianity was far more accepted than today. Say in the early 1800's.

This argument is a straw man.

2. It is idiocy to think that less state power means more freedom. The Founders surely didn't think so thats why the states are a check on fed power per the 10th Amendment. I thought libertarians considered the Founders important.

The reason we have states is because they are closer to the people. It is far easier to influence state govertment than the federal. Therefore, it is far easier to hold them accountable.

I see the state reps and senators all the time. It's a first name basis. And I have attacked one mercilessly. State officals can't hide and can be held to account more easily.

Not so with the feds. Federal officals take months to even reply with a form letter to your correspondence. They have such power it takes million of dollars to defeat them at the pools. The difference is obvious.

And FEDERAL JUDGES! JUDGES are nearly invincible! A corrupt judge or court is almost invincible. It is extremely hard to them to account in any realistic way.

IF you do not like your state government you can move. There are some states I will not even visit. Can't do that with the feds!

So you are wrong on both counts.