Per this article in Salon I was wondering if he could lose his judgeship if he continues refusing to comply with the order to remove the Ten Commandments monument? Just how much rope does he get on this issue?
Judge Moore is an elected official. I don’t know if Alabama has recall provisions ala California, or if the legislature has the power to impeach judges, but absent that I think his job is probably safe, at least until the next election.
OTOH, the Alabama state bar’s ethics board could certainly (and should) yank his law license, preventing him from practicing law once he’s off the bench. Most states also have a judicial ethics board for brining ethical complaints against judges, though I’m not sure if they have the power to remove an elected official from the bench.
From what I’ve read, though, none of that matters. Moore has his eyes on the governor’s mansion, and this latest is just a big publicity stunt towards that end. It worked in elevating him from an obscure trial court judge to the Chief Justiceship, so I guess he’s figuring it will work again.
Just saw something on TV about how he could lose his law license and thus his job for refusing to comply w/ a court order & being in contempt of court. Which makes plenty of sense to me.
From the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:
Quibble of order - I’m not sure about the law in Alabama, but absent explicit law, one does not need a law license to be a judge.
Sua
In the history of the US from the point that lawyers had to be licensed to practice (whenever that was), has there ever been a sitting, practicing Judge who did not have a license to practice law?
Also, as a side note, how did they certify people to practice law in days of old. Could anyone hang a shingle out as a “lawyer” and argue before a court? Who controlled whether you could call yourself a lawyer?
Loads of them, astro. As of the time I left state government, late in the last millennium, the overwhelming majority of the Town Justices and Village Justices in New York State were were not lawyers – and those who were not, following their election, had to take a short course from the state in how to be a judge, before they could sit on their first court case. I’m reasonably certain the Magistrates of the North Carolina court system are not required to be lawyers either.
Several fairly famous judges and justices have been law professors appointed to the bench; while obviously trained in the law, they did not necessarily have to be admitted to the bar.
The standard practice in the Middle Ages and until the 20th Century was to “read law” – study with a practicing lawyer, paying for your training by doing what’d now be considered paralelgal work for him. Law schools replaced this starting in the 1800s. In either case, passing a bar examination and being certified by, presumably, the bar association entitled you to practice.
Lawyers: is “reading law” still an acceptable option anywhere?
Thanks, minty
By my reading of the Alabama statute, Justice Moore could retain his position even if his license is revoked (ignoring the egregious violations of the Canons of Judicial Ethics). With or without the license, he went to law school and is therefore “learned in the law”
Sua
I hope so!
If yahoo’s like this take over,we are all in deep
compost.It’s back to the dark ages.
FrankoFirst of all, let me say that I think Judge Moore should be forced to step down. I’m not concerned, as is Franko, that this will drive us back to the dark ages. But I don’t think that judges should be permitted to ignore the mandates of superior courts. Stare decisis, the rule of law, and the hierarchy of courts are too important to discard on the basis of a single judge’s conscience, especially when their conscience is likely motivated by political aspirations (as I think is the case here).
However, in the interests of fairness, I think Doctor Johnson does a good job of framing Judge Moore’s position here. This post is followed by a thoughtful post by Bricker on the next page. All that I’d add to Bricker’s post is that I’m fairly certain that the Supreme Court has already found that the Establishment Clause applies to the states through the 5th and 14th Amendments.
In the interests of full disclosure, it seems to me that it’s pretty well established that placing religious symbols like the 10 Commandments on state property violates the Establishment Clause, but if I was writing an opinion piece on the history of the Establishment Clause, I would argue against prevailing law.
Minty G., your research program apparently gives you access to the Alabama statutes. Mine does not. I’m too cheap to sign up for “all states.” Will you tell us what the Alabama statutes say about removing a judge or a justice of the state supreme court. Since it is an elective office (as opposed to an appointed-and-stand-for-retention office), it might take action by the legislature in the nature of impeachment. If the statutory requirements do not mandate a license to practice, if simply being “learned” is sufficient, just losing his license (being disbarred) may not be sufficient. I am concerned that it may take a new election to obliterate this blot and that is far from certain. Surely disbarment would require action by the Alabama supremes and Justice Moore may be in a position to block or delay that.
If you would be so kind as to do a little pro bono research it would be, in the words of my favorite Texan, ‘preciated.
Well, Fox just reported that the judge has been suspended. That sounds like he’s out, at least temporarliy.
[Bo Duke]Yeeehaw![/BD]
Polycarp, seven states allow you to sit for the Bar Exam after “reading the law”
To build on Polycarp’s post (if it’s possible for me to build on a post by someone with superior knowlede and eloquence), Justices of the Peace in Texas frequently do not have legal training (they’re roughly equivalent to small claims court judges). And if memory serves me correctly, at least one United States Supreme Court Justice was never a lawyer.
Apparently, Moore could be removed from the bench. He’s already been suspended. I’d say his master plan to become governor is right on track.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/22/ten.commandments/index.html
This quote from the above link spells out exactly why no religous symbols should be allowed.
There goes religous equality.