Source: http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/14/alabama.tencommandments/index.html
Hmmm.
Has a sitting state Chief Justice ever defied a federal court order?
Will Ashcroft follow the directions of the federal court (if instructed) and issue the order to jail the Chief Justice for the State of Alabama for contempt?
If this is appealed to the SCOTUS, will DOJ support the State or sit on the sidelines?
I know it’s been established that a State cannot secede from the Union, but, just this once, could the Union secede from a State? :rolleyes:
I listened to the judge give his little speech over the radio today to a roomful of cheering supporters, and it just sickened me.
With apologies to all Alabamans (Alabammese?), this is truly an instance where an Alabaman needs to be housebroken.
BTW, I dont think Adolf Ashcroft will do a damn thing about it. State’s Rights. Take it to the Supreme Court. My guess is it will be 5-4 to take the thing down, with a “fiery dissent” from Scalia.
No pun inteded.
From the Ten Commandments:
From the Constitution of Alabama, Article 1 (“Declaration of Rights”), Section 3 (“Religious freedom”):
I listened to the Atty Gen of Alabama speaking on how he was appealing it to the Supreme Court & (if I’m correct) filing an injunction against enforcing the federal court order & I thought “Rock on!”
You approve of this?
Sweet, merciful Buddha on a pogo stick, why?
Why are you surprised? Have you forgotten that a substantial fraction of the audience on the Tonight Show actually cheered when Arnold announced that he was going to run for Governor?
What does that have to do with the Commandments monument and the Attorney General of Alabama?
It shows we don’t have a shortage of stupid people?
Eh. Arnold would probably be better than Ronald.
And if we must elect incompetents to public office, I’d prefer one who can pretend to competence to one who can’t.
Anyone catch Bush’s power outage speech?
As if anybody ever took him or his ancestors out of Egypt. That sentence alone should disqualify his statement regarding foundations of justice systems - unless Alabama happens to have an extremely large Jewish population.
While there are certain parts of the Union I would be tempted to kick out, I know attractive girls from each of them. In the case of alabama, she’s a brunnette, 19, about 5 5, curves in all the right proportions, and a mind just as impressive. The one I knew from Texas graduated last year, so i’m in favor of the reestablishment of the Lone Star Republic.
On a more serious note, the SCOTUS decision won’t be 5-4 if the judge keeps this up. The SC is very protective of its powers and those of the federal judiciary. A simple, “Our dicks are bigger than yours” in favor of removal might get 7-2 and will at least
reach 6-3. Also, the Attorney general of Alabama, whose office will probably be handling this case if it gets that far, is our old friend Bill Pryor. He called the Supreme Court a collection of octogenarians, has repeatedly denouced them as undemocratic, and prayed that Republicans nominate “no more Souters” (Justice Souter is still on the bench). The situation seems ripe for a “reassertion of Judicial power and the constitutionally derived supremacy of the federal courts over those at the state level,” translation, an ass whopping.
Examples of the “Our Dicks are Bigger” Jurisprudence
CITY OF BOERNE v. FLORES, ARCHBISHOP OF SAN ANTONIO, et al.
No congress, you can’t tell the SC how to do its job…
And Cooper v Aaron
A per curiam opinion signed by every Justice to my knowledge the only such ruling.
Of course it sounds much more elegant in Norman French.
A law school acquaintance of mine was clerking for one of the Alabama Supreme Court justices when Moore was elected. She said that reports of his assheadedness are entirely well-founded. Also said that his supporters who showed up on innauguration day were entertaining in a completely terifying sort of way.
I’m glad to see this kind of resistance to an incorrect series of court rulings, even though I expect the Supreme Court to have its way eventually. It’s just silly to eqate a formal state religion with a few monuments in government buildings.
Nobody is equating “a formal state religion” with “a few monuments.” It’s a petty offense, but one intrusive on First Amendment rights. If Judge Moore wants to erect the Ten Commandments on a plaque on his own front lawn, nobody has the right to stop him. To do so using public funds in a public structure means that he’s using the tax money of people who may not agree with him to foster his own (religious) belief that the Ten Commandments are the basis of Alabama law – which is partially supported by the State constitution, BTW.
Put it this way, december – recalling that you’re an agnostic or atheist of Jewish heritage – would you feel the same way if what was on that plaque were Jesus’s Summary of the Law, or a quote from the Book of Romans on the applicability of Torah to Christians?
Me too.
Asshole zealot state official + Armed federal agents = Big fun!
Yes. It’s a matter of principle.
The Constitution prohibits the establishment of a state religion. People who oppose religion have re-written the constitution as if it opposed all religion in government. They have pretty much won this battle, but I don’t like to see the Constitution and the court system misused to forward an agenda.
How many monuments add up to a state religion?
ISTM that the number of monuments is a crucial part of the argument. Suppose every government building in America posated the Ten Cs. One could make a stronger argument that this was part of a state religions. OTOH suppose only one or a few courtrooms posted the 10 Cs. A handful of monuments cannot add up to a full state religion. It’s just a part of pluralism. At least, that’s how I see it.
I find it ironic that they put a monument saying “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery” IN the land of slavery!
I was born there and visited recently. A poll taken by the Mobile Press Register (a terribly thin newspaper) indicated that a majority of Alabamians (or Abalamians as they like to be called) support the display. BUT a VAST majority do not wish to see public funds used to defend the case and a comfortable majority oppose the Chief violating a court order.
As for the SCOTUS, I don’t see them issuing cert. I think they’ll let the lower court ruling stand and I think Bush will call some favors in Alabama so as to not be forced into a standoff. He doesn’t want the courts to be powerless, but he doesn’t want to be the guy who arrest the “TEN COMMANDMENTS” judge.
I think this will end quietly.
Re-read what the Constitution of Alabama–which Roy Moore allegedly esteems so highly–says about religion and the state:
Not just “no official State Church”. “[N]o religion shall be established by law” and “no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship”. (No “mode of worship” vs. “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.” Which Sabbath day? Saturday? Sunday? Some other day? What about people who don’t believe in keeping any special day of worship?)
People who oppose religion in government oppose all religion in government. Whether they are atheists who in fact philosophically oppose all religion, or devout believers in one faith or another, people who oppose religion in government mainly do so because they oppose tyranny and support freedom.
What if the Ten Commandments were posted in 99% of all government buildings in America? Or 99.9% of all government buildings? Or in every government building in America but one? What if they were posted in exactly half the government buildings in America? What if they were posted in exactly half the government buildings in America, plus one? What if they were posted in all the government buildings in one particular state, but not in government buildings in other states? Or all the government buildings in one particular county?
It strikes me as a lot easier to stick with the principle of the separation of church and state than to try and come up with some sort of formula for what number of religious monuments in government buildings “adds up to a full state religion”.
And in practical terms, will an atheist or a pagan (or even a Seventh-Day Adventist, considered–quite unfairly–by much of the population to be a “Sabbath-breaker”) receive a fair trial in a courthouse which proclaims to every juror that one particular God and one particular mode of worship is endorsed by the state? ("[T]he civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.") Should a public school proclaim to the children of Buddhist or Hindu parents that their mother and father are “idolaters” who worship “false gods”?
“I am the LORD your God…You shall have no other gods before me.”
What business does the government of a free country have telling its citizens what God they should worship?
“*t is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution.” – James Madison