Moore ousted as Chief Justice

[Guest JMA]

MONTGOMERY, Alabama (CNN) -- Alabama's judicial ethics panel removed Chief Justice Roy Moore from office Thursday for defying a federal judge's order to move a stone Ten Commandments monument from the state Supreme Court building.

 

The nine-member Court of the Judiciary issued its unanimous decision after a one-day trial Wednesday. The panel, which includes judges, lawyers and non-lawyers, could have reprimanded Moore, continued his suspension or cleared him.

 

Moore said he was not surprised by the decision, which he called a step toward "prohibiting the public worship of God."

 

"I have absolutely no regrets," he said. "I have done what I was sworn to do. I have said repeatedly that unless we can acknowledge God, we can not uphold the oath of our office."

 

A federal judge in Montgomery ruled the 2.6-ton granite monument was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and ordered Moore to move it from the rotunda of the state judicial building in August. Moore refused, but was overruled by his eight colleagues on the state Supreme Court. (Full story)

 

The U.S. Supreme Court on November 3 refused to hear Moore's appeal in the case. (Full story)

 

"In defying that order, the chief justice placed himself above the law," said Judge William Thompson, head of the Court of the Judiciary.

 

The panel also found that Moore "showed no signs of contrition for his actions."

 

Moore said he would discuss the possibility of an appeal with his lawyers and could ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review his removal, arguing that it violates the Constitution's ban on religious tests as a qualification for office.

 

Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor had filed the ethics charges against Moore after the chief justice refused U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson's order to remove the monument. Thompson ruled the monument was an unconstitutional promotion of religion by government in violation of the First Amendment.

 

Moore had demanded a televised trial in a larger venue than the Supreme Court courtroom, and said Wednesday's proceedings amounted to a closed hearing.

 

After Thursday's decision, he criticized the court for not opening the hearing and suggested that Pryor had changed his position on the issue for political gain.

 

Moore read comments Pryor made in 1997, defending Moore for displaying the Ten Commandments in his courtroom as a northeast Alabama circuit judge.

 

He pointed out that Pryor has been nominated to a seat on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

First Amendment debate

Moore's case has become a magnet for religious conservatives around the country.

 

He and his supporters say that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of the U.S. legal system and that forbidding the acknowledgment of the Judeo-Christian God violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free exercise of religion. (Moore interview with CNN)

 

But a lawsuit filed after the monument's installation argued the massive stone marker constituted a government endorsement of Christianity.

 

The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... ."

 

With Thompson threatening to fine the state $5,000 a day for defying his order, Pryor and Gov. Bob Riley refused to support Moore.

 

Both men are Republicans and self-professed conservative Christians who supported the monument's installation, but they said Moore was bound to obey Thompson's order.

 

Moore was a circuit judge in Etowah County, northeast of Birmingham, in the late 1990s when he fought a lawsuit seeking to remove a wooden plaque depicting the commandments from his courtroom.

 

The legal battle propelled him to statewide office in 2000, when the Republican jurist was elected chief justice after campaigning as the "Ten Commandments Judge."

 

As an Alabamian (and a supporter of strict separation of church and state), this makes me VERY happy.

[TSA09 0]

And what do you still swear on when you go to court? This shit is just too funny.

[NoCalMike 0]

you never HAD to swear on the bible in the first place.

[Guest SP-1]

I liked what he had to say in a more extended article I read on AOL. It's good to see someone keeping on task for their convictions instead of buckling in.

[Justice 0]

Personally, JMA, I don't think this a victory for strict seperation of Religion and Government like you are taking it. Moreso it is an idiotic judge getting what is coming to him because he took his stuff too far.

[Guest JMA]

I liked what he had to say in a more extended article I read on AOL. It's good to see someone keeping on task for their convictions instead of buckling in.

Or he could just want to be seen as a martyr. If he had any real faith he wouldn't be concerned about a statue. Unless he's an idolater.

[Guest JMA]

Personally, JMA, I don't think this a victory for strict seperation of Religion and Government like you are taking it. Moreso it is an idiotic judge getting what is coming to him because he took his stuff too far.

Perhaps. Either way, it's all good.

[Firestarter 0]

I liked what he had to say in a more extended article I read on AOL.  It's good to see someone keeping on task for their convictions instead of buckling in.

Or he could just want to be seen as a martyr. If he had any real faith he wouldn't be concerned about a statue. Unless he's an idolater.

He's a single-issue publicity whore; a few years ago, he pulled exactly the same shit in order to divide people both as Christians and as citizens, and to get his name in the paper. Faith has nothing to do with it; Moore is purely and simply an ambitious, unscrupulous, and deceitful opportunist. A man of faith would have resigned rather than follow an order he truly considered illegal, but Moore set himself up above the law and used the issue to hurl himself onto the national stage. Faith? Don't give me that. He's a cheap scam artist and nothing more. It's not surprising that SP appreciates his bullshit.

[Cherry Blossom Viscount 0]

Of course if this was a case of Gay and Lesbian rights at stake he'd be a hero for losing his job for such a "worthy" cause. Of course, the fact that he lost his job would be a crock of shit in the first place.

[Ace309 0]

I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around how, exactly, the case could be recreated in a gay/lesbian rights context.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Of course if this was a case of Gay and Lesbian rights at stake he'd be a hero for losing his job for such a "worthy" cause.

How in the hell can you equate that?

 

He placed a spiritual marker in the middle of the building and then proceeded to shoot himself in the foot constantly by saying that it was not merely a symbol of justice, but a symbol of our nation appearantly being founded and beholden to the Judeo-Christian god.

 

 

 

How can you relate that with gay rights at all?

[Firestarter 0]

I have no idea what FBP was trying to say.

[Guest JMA]

I have no idea what FBP was trying to say.

I second that.

[Cherry Blossom Viscount 0]

I'm not relating the actual situation to gay rights. What I'm trying to say is, if someone who felt strongly about Gay Rights demonstrated their resolve in a similar way as Moore, people would be outraged at the loss of a job, and would consider that person as a hero. It's not just Gay Rights, if it was a racial issue, or women's issue as well.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

if someone who felt strongly about Gay Rights demonstrated their resolve in a similar way as Moore,

 

...

 

It's not just Gay Rights, if it was a racial issue, or women's issue as well.

I still don't get it. If someone built a 4-ton concrete penis for gay rights in the middle of a courthouse people would be upset to see it go? I'd call that a victory for good taste myself.

 

The complaint isn't what he wants to believe it's how he chooses to express it. If that General Boykin guy was delivering his "our god has a bigger cock than their god" speech on the battlefield instead of in the church (the only place you could argue where it belongs) then I'm pretty sure he'd be reorganized into a different duty in a jiffy.

[Guest Cerebus]

I still don't get it. If someone built a 4-ton concrete penis for gay rights in the middle of a courthouse people would be upset to see it go? I'd call that a victory for good taste myself.

 

Unless you appreciated modern "art."

[Guest Anglesault]

To be honest, if you found a way to cover up Commandments 1-3, I would see no real problem with it being up there.

 

Of course, I never had a problem with it up there, but I see why some people are upset.

[Guest SP-1]

Because everyone who stands up for their beliefs = martyr. . .

 

Or not.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Because everyone who stands up for their beliefs = martyr. . .

 

Or not.

There are times when it is and is not appropriate. Judges are expected to respect their country first and foremost.

 

 

Also, there are people who proclaim their beliefs where it's not appropriate because they wish to be a martyr. Weird, but true.

[Vyce 0]

I tend to agree with Marney on this.

 

Personally, I had NO problem at all with the monument being there (that's probably where Marney & I differ).

 

But I don't think this is Moore being a martyr for his beliefs. I don't even think this is a *real* issue of the separation of church v. state. I think it's more about Moore manipulating the situation to the very max in order to gain politically.

 

It wouldn't shock me at all to see him run for governor when the time comes - and run on a platform as a man who stands by his beliefs / morals to the bitter end.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

It wouldn't shock me at all to see him run for governor

Oh shit....

 

[Guest JMA]

It wouldn't shock me at all to see him run for governor

Oh shit....

 

I'm the one who should be saying that. I live in Alabama...

[Highland 0]

Good, I'm glad he was ousted; if judges won't follow the rule of law except when it doesn't interfere with their personal beliefs and opinions then who will?

The rule of law is the foundation for every democratic society and I'm glad to see he can't flaunt it with impunity.

[Firestarter 0]

Because everyone who stands up for their beliefs = martyr. . .

 

Or not.

Oh good Lord, here we go again.

 

HEY LOOK EVERYONE, MARNEY ATTACKED A CHRISTIAN!

 

You're missing the point. As expected. Moore's beliefs are not the issue. The issue is a series of facts:

1) Moore used this exact same controversy to promote himself politically in 1995. He is doing the same thing now. He has a well-established and well-documented history of doing precisely this.

2) Whether or not Moore felt that the order to remove the monument was morally correct is irrelevant. "Pro-life" judges allow abortions every day. Judges who decry mandatory minimums still follow federal sentencing guidelines. Why? Because

3) Judges are bound to follow the law. Judges do not legislate from the bench. Judges interpret, apply, and strike down laws; they do NOT write them. In short, a judge's personal beliefs DO NOT MATTER. A decent judge would understand this. Moore is not a decent judge. He is a showman and a shameless self-promoting political hack who is prostituting a loud, belligerent, graceless faith for fifteen minutes of fame.

 

One more time:

 

If Moore felt the order to remove the monument was morally wrong or incompatible with his faith he would have been within his rights to resign or appeal (the latter of which he did, and he was rejected). He was NOT within his rights to refuse to obey a lawful order. His personal beliefs have no bearing on his duty to uphold the law as defined by the Constitution and by Congress.

 

Do you get it now?

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Judges do not legislate from the bench.

*The Ninth Circuit says, "Huh?"*

[Firestarter 0]

...which is about as coherent as the 9th Circuit ever gets.

[Ace309 0]

I'm not relating the actual situation to gay rights. What I'm trying to say is, if someone who felt strongly about Gay Rights demonstrated their resolve in a similar way as Moore, people would be outraged at the loss of a job, and would consider that person as a hero. It's not just Gay Rights, if it was a racial issue, or women's issue as well.

 

And that's not relevant to the case at hand at all, because the only justification for the monument being in the courthouse was Moore's statement that the 10 Commandments are the foundation of modern law. It wouldn't happen that way with gay rights or women's rights, and that's why your post is so incoherent.

 

I mean, I guess if you wanted to say that Plato's philosophy was one of the foundations of modern law... and that pederasty was common in Greece at the time, as evidenced by the conversations in the Symposium... and you wanted to honour Plato for his contribution by erecting (Ha!) a statue of Socrates buggering a little boy, that's getting close, but...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

EDITED TO SAY: More important than the governor thing, I'm /STILL/ waiting for FBP to elaborate. I get the feeling he never will.

[Ace309 0]

Well, JOTW, what he's trying to do is get us to stop and look at what he perceives as a double standard. He's trying to say that if Moore were standing up for a cause we believed in, we would back him... which is obvious, of course.

 

The problem is that he's apparently trying to relate the two situations; basically, he's saying that we see people who support causes we support as martyrs when they lose their jobs for standing up for what they believe in, and then draws some unintelligible conclusion from there. He seems to imply that this is a double standard, but of course it's clear that we back the causes we perceive as just. It would be an outrage for a judge to lose his job for supporting gay rights within the confines of the law he's sworn to uphold; it would be good business for a judge to lose his job for supporting gay rights going above and beyond the confines of the law he's sworn to uphold.

 

He seems to understand that the cases are completely different, but insists on drawing a tenuous analogy anyway.

[Firestarter 0]

And that's not relevant to the case at hand at all, because the only justification for the monument being in the courthouse was Moore's statement that the 10 Commandments are the foundation of modern law. It wouldn't happen that way with gay rights or women's rights, and that's why your post is so incoherent.

Thanks Ace309; I was trying to figure out why FBP's attempt at an argument made no sense but it was so off-base I couldn't even get that far.

 

Well, JOTW, what he's trying to do is get us to stop and look at what he perceives as a double standard. He's trying to say that if Moore were standing up for a cause we believed in, we would back him... which is obvious, of course.

 

The problem is that he's apparently trying to relate the two situations; basically, he's saying that we see people who support causes we support as martyrs when they lose their jobs for standing up for what they believe in, and then draws some unintelligible conclusion from there.

Unintelligible, yes. Wrong, too. If someone defended something I believed in in an illegal manner I'd be just as critical of his procedural ethics. Again, the vast majority of criticism directed at Moore is not based on his apparent desire to establish Christianity as the law of the land. It is not based on his faith. That is not why he was dismissed. He was dismissed - unanimously - because he refused to uphold the law, because he betrayed his oath of office, and because he defied a lawful order from a federal judge.