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.

[Bluntpoint]

I know I am going to get flamed here, but, could it be that we have the classic case of the right message but the most absurd and wrong messenger?

[P.O.E.]

I've been called many things in my day, but never a "wrong messenger".

"Bad example", yes, often. "Wrong messenger", no.

Kidding aside, I assume you meant the Justice More? In which case, I guess I'd have to say somebody had to do it.

[rebel]

You wrote, "The devil's crowd always overplays their hand. Persecution is always a pretext for revival."

I agree! All those "christians" who will "enforce the law" no matter what the law is form the "luke warm" church that needs purifing.

This has been a pivotal event for me. Never before has the co-opting of the statist christians been more clear. Never before has our government been more clearly anti-God. They deem themselves supreme and will tolerate no higher authority.

And President Bush is SILENT! He too believes in supreme government!

[Bluntpoint]

Judge Moore could have uses his position to "re-educate" the public on the connection between civil law and God's law.

His in your face, middle of the night ambush, just fed his own self-aggrandizement and hurt his cause.

He can no longer sit on the highest court expecting others to submit to "Ceasar's law" and be an impediment to that same law.

It would have been an appellate nightmare.

For the record, I have no problems with the Commandments. I have practiced in courts for years with similar artifacts.

However, the judges and adminstrators associated with those courts, did not turn the availability of such devices into a tool for their own glory and moral vanity.

[rebel]

The most misunderstood and misused political quote from scripture. What is the "governing authorities" in our political system?

It is not judges and elected officals. All these swear an oath to up hold the ...CONSTITUTION?

THE CONSTITUTION IS THE GOVERNING AUTHORITY OF ROMANS 13.

If they rule unconstitutionally they need not be obeyed. They have over stepped their authority.

When they govern unconstitutionally, as in Judge Moores case, they are governing by brute force. Remember, power flows form the barrel of a gun.

But then what else can God haters act on but force?

[rebel]

You wrote, "I don't understand why people feel their faith is threatened if the State doesn't endorse it. As someone who wants to see the State have less rather than more power, I can't understand why anyone on FR would have a principled reason for wanting the state throw it's weight in one direction or the other."

What is supposed to be the constitutional check on government power? The states. The 10th amendment. Then the people.

You resist states rights, you are endorsing an all powerful central government. If the Mormans in Utah want a monument of some sort that is their right. Pretend some small town of Buddists in Kalifornia want somme sort of monument that is their right.

Want to prevent all powerful government? Support states rights.

[Non-Sequitur]

If they rule unconstitutionally they need not be obeyed. They have over stepped their authority.

So their actions are unconstitutional because you say that they are? What if I say that their actions are constitutional? Does that overrule you?

[Princeliberty]

The federal courts are violating the Rule
of Law by raping the Constitution.
Defying a ruling and illegal order that violate
the Constitution does not violate the Rule of Law
in fact Judge Moore is upholding the Rule of Law
by fighting a lawless federal judge.

[rebel]

So you say that whatever the SC says is LAW and we must sumbit. Like the Dred Scott decision?

If you are serious, you endorse the judical tyranny that has developed.

At some point common sense must rule.

The founders believed that good men would sit on the courts.

Any supposedly educated judge who says that the founders intended to forbid displays of the like this and forbid any reference to the God of the bible in the public arena is LIAR and wants to usurp POWER! It's that simple.

Never in their wildest dreams did the founders intend to prevent what Judge Moore did. This is a federal power grab pure and simple. Bibilical christianity has always opposed tyrannts. The next generation must be de-christianized, or at least statist christians to further their tyrannical desires.

Sadly, too many christians are already statists.

[P.O.E.]

Judge Moore could have uses his position to "re-educate" the public on the connection between civil law and God's law.

I think he's doing exactly that. Although, to your point, perhaps not in the "best" way.

[Bluntpoint]

Judge Moore decided on his own to be part of the system. Now he has to follow the rules of that system (Following higher courts, etc).

Judge Moore is free to fight this ruling, as a private citizen.

He would not permit litigants in front of his bench to pick and choose which court opinions are binding and which court opinions are not binding on them.

It is time that Moore remove his robes and take his fight to the ballot box.

[UncleDudley]

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

Ginsburg and the ACLU would like to change that to the Washington Post. And swear to the memory of Madelyn (sp?) O'Hare.

[Bluntpoint]

Is your first name E.D.G.A.R.?

[Bluntpoint]

Actually, all courts give you a choice not to swear on the bible.

[Bluntpoint]

As an example of how the oath is treated today:

The Ohio Revised Code merely says "a person may be sworn in any form he deems binding on his conscience." No Columbus court — from municipal to federal — uses a Bible, though most still end the oath with "so help me God."

[P.O.E.]

It's a "Dr Strangelove" reference. I can't tell you more without giving the movie away (if you haven't seen it yet).

[Bluntpoint]

But I learned to love the bomb!

[rebel]

That may well be right! It may be that christians SHOULD NOT work for government.

But think of what you are creating. A monlitihic system with absolute power an no defiance allowed or justified. You accecpt the Nuremberg Defence.

When the court acts in a clearly unconstitutional way it ought to be defied by someone in power. It's called interposition. It was right to defy Dred Scott and it is right to defy this.

[FReepaholic]

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

I've never been in court here in Florida, but I have given sworn depostition several times. Each time I was asked only to raise my right hand and swear to tell the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

No bible and no swearing to God.

[Bluntpoint]

Again, not just christians. Anyone in the court system, who relys on the power of precedent and higher court or adimistrative authority, cannot pick and choose when and where to follow such higher authority and then expect his or her authority to be binding on those who find themselve standing in front of his or her bench or panel.