That’s exactly the point, Echo. You go to a courthouse and the first thing you see is a list of laws that are not laws in the eyes of that very court.
The supporters of the plaque could be accused of unconstitutionally attempting to implement laws without going throught the proper legislative procedure.
Speaking as a non-USian, I have to say that this is one of the issues that always makes me go “WTF?” I just don’t understand why secular judges are trying to put religious symbols into court rooms.
The jurisdiction’s coat of arms, national and provincial flags, I can understand; even a nice picture of Liz all dolled up.
But a religious symbol? I just don’t get it.
I believe that the Ten Commandments should be put up as a historical landmark on one condition:
If it’s a landmark claim that is being made, then only the original tablets will do. 
Well, I don’t have a Time Travelling Mind Ray. We do have a number of quotations by prominent Founding Fathers, which speak in some cases not only of separating church from state but even of the importance of separating religion from government. Of course, the Founding Fathers of this country were not a Hive Mind. George Washington may well have had different opinions on the matter than James Madison did.
How old are these courthouse Ten Commandments monuments, anyway? This one goes back to, what, the 1920’s? There seems to be no question that there has been a sharp upswing of political piety in the U.S. beginning sometime in the 19th Century, after the Constiutional era (there is probably no way any later generation of American politicians would have written an entire Constitution without any invocation whatsoever of God). My impression is that most of these religious graffiti in the halls of state really don’t go back that far–at least not as far back as the revered “Founding Fathers”.
There have been many recent instances where this has become an issue.
from http://www.cnn.com/US/9704/12/briefs/rally.html
I’m sure he doesn’t appeal to many.
This Judge, who was appointed in 2001 to the Alabama Supreme Court, is the one who put the “monument” of the 10 Commandments in the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building without telling anyone he was going to do it.
from http://www.christiantimes.com/Articles/Articles%20Sep01/Art_Sep01_11.html
And yet, this special piece of work has the temerity to do this:
from http://www.dailyhome.com/opinion/2001/dh-editorials-0918-editorials-1i17v2606.htm
I find this narrow minded man to be vile. More than his record, which is appalling at best(IMHO), he tramples over the rights and freedoms of others in his vainglorious and egomaniacal drive to force others to his point of view.
I was thinking that others would bring this up…
What are the thoughts on this?
Actually, he was elected Chief Justice in a statewide election.
I meant to type elected but in the heat of teh moment, mistyped and made an inadvertently incorrect statement.
Mea culpa.
Er, not really. I don’t think he would have some sort of Constitutional right to put up giant religious monoliths in the middle of the courthouse if he would just allow every other religious sect and philosophical school of thought the same freedom; I think he just doesn’t have the right to erect giant religious monoliths in the middle of the courthouse.
If he wants to put up a religious monolith on his front lawn, or attend a church with a religious monolith on its front lawn, or if he wants to put up a religious monolith in front of his private law practice, that’s all well and good. But free speech hardly means that anyone has the right to put up religious or non-religious monoliths anywhere they want. Roy Moore does not own the courthouse; it has merely been entrusted to him for the time being, on behalf of all the citizens of Alabama (some of whom, I can personally attest, are quite militant atheists).
And Roy Moore is not “the highest legal authority in the state”. A higher legal authority than Roy Moore states
And an even higher legal authority than that says that
Are you implying that the US Constitution applies to Alabama?
There’s this little thing called the Fourteenth Amendment, see…
Which is in the US Constitution, right? So my question stands.
I think that’s a whoosh. He’s implying the Alabama isn’t really part of the US.
Hon. MEBuckner said:
Far be it for me to contradict a Mod, but it is my understanding that the Alabama Supreme Court building actually does belong to the Supreme Court Chief Justice in some strange legal way and he could put up a nude statue of Janet Reno if he so desired, without any prior approval or input of the citizens of the wonderful state of Alabama. The next Supreme Court Chief Justice can take out all the statuary and put in his (or her, hah!) own decorations. I can’t tell you how I know this because of confidentiality issues, but I will try to find the law on this.
As a native Alabamian, I resent the portrayal of my home state as a backwards society ruled by Fundamentalist bigots. On the other hand, I happen to completely agree with the portrayal, so the two feelings cancel each other out.
Roy Moore, Last-Law-West-of-the-Euphrates and the same Chief Mullah of the Alabama Supreme Court who placed the multi-ton “washing machine sized” 10 Commandments Statue in the lobby of the new (and palatial) Supreme Court building is the same one who delivered a 35 page rant citing Scripture and canon law as the basis for not allowing a lesbian to adopt (never mind that the case wasn’t even heard due to a legal technicality sufficient to dismiss it). So much for the “just because the 10 Commandments is there doesn’t mean that I won’t honor secular law” statements he made at the time. His most recent action is the suspension of juries in civil trials due to budget cuts. I think currently he’s chairing a panel to decide if spectral evidence should be allowed in divorce proceedings.
My apologies for the above- I didn’t mean to say “to adopt”, but rather " to retain custody of her children". Synaptic flatulence, don’t ya know.
Holy crap. And I thought the bit abouth Alabama not being part of the US was just an old joke.
December, are you suggesting that those who seek to remove declarations of state-sponsored religious dogma from government buildings are the equivalent of the Taliban? If so, I have to say it’s a completely ludicrous analogy. The Taliban weren’t removing Buddhist religious symbols from government buildings; they were obliterating Buddhist religious statues at the site of a pre-Islamic Buddhist temple complex. The analogy will only hold water the day secularists begin invading Christian churches and Christian-owned business and private homes and tearing down Christian religious symbols there.
Well I couldn’t find anything in the Alabama Code about ownership of the Supreme Court Building. Judge Moore, however, apparently is the lessee of the building by virtue of being Chief Justice, and it is his (and the Christian coalition which is paying all his attorney fees in this dispute) contention that that gives him the right to put whatever statuary he wants in the building.
As a thrown bone to the “blacks,” he put in a Martin Luther King, Jr., plaque or statue, but it is way off in the corner, whereas the 10CC monument is this huge monstrosity right in front of these huge plate glass windows on the other side of the Rotunda. You can’t miss it.
Also, apparently there are more than a few Circuit Courts in Alabama which proudly display the 10CCs.
Personally, I don’t really care what statuary is in the building, even though my tax dollars helped build it. If I were to have a case before the Supreme Court (god forbid) I don’t think I would be afraid I wouldn’t get a “fair shake” because I’m not a Christian; how the heck would they know what religion I am or am not? So that argument is specious.
That being said, Judge Moore is an a**.
Now that is the sort of thing I was referring to in the Pit thread when I spoke of how you can bring a unique perspective to an issue. Beautiful irony! Thank you --sincerely.