Chief Justice Moore refuses to remove 10 commandments

[c0rbin]

Originally posted by Tony


The first amendment says" the congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, do you think that means that the state of Alabama has the right, hypothetically, to establish "Christianity," or anything else, as the official religion of Alabama?

Pedantically, Tony is correct. The gray area here is that by placing a monument on state propert, on is not necessarily establishing a religion.

Actions in the court do not discriminate based on religion--as can be inferred by his collegues request for removal.

I do however think it send the wrong message to erect such a monument and creates an atmosphere of intollerance. I would vote to remove it, if asked, and make all the same arguments against it that have been made by myself and others in this thread.

But--hypothetically now--at what point does a community give up its identity or culture to satisfy everyone in the country?

 

[toddjh]

But--hypothetically now--at what point does a community give up its identity or culture to satisfy everyone in the country?

You're conflating the government with the community. No one's asking any community to give up its identity. It's just that the place for expressions of religion is churches and homes, not state buildings.

I see no reason why getting religion entirely out of government has any effect whatsoever on the community or society at large. They can go ahead and pray, erect monuments, and generally do whatever they want on their own time and with their own money.

Jeremy

 

[pgwenthold]

But--hypothetically now--at what point does a community give up its identity or culture to satisfy everyone in the country?

The "community" can do whatever it darn well pleases. However, the community _government_ cannot.

 

[zakur]

I just had someone tell me that Judge Moore is this generation's Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

[c0rbin]

Todd and PG, I agree.

 

[Checkmite]

I believe the Associate Justices' ruling to remove the monuments clears up the technicalities of the case:

Article IV of the Constitution of the United States provides that the Constitution is "the supreme Law of the Land ... and Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary nonwithstanding."

Moore's Ten Commandments monument has been found unconstitutional by a Federal court, therefore, it must be removed - and the Alabama State judges are bound to obey the U.S. Constitution. Now, Moore uses his binding to the Constitution as an excuse for disobeying the Federal court order; he believes the monument is not unconstitutional. The problem is, he does not have the jurisdiction to overrule a Federal court's interpretation of the Constitution - it doesn't matter what he thinks. Therefore, all his appeals to his being "bound by the Constitution to disobey the Federal court ruling" are, in essence, excremental.

 

[Brown]

The associate justices also relied upon Ala. Code sec. 12-5-20, a statute passed by the Alabama legislature, to countermand a decision of the chief justice.

The justices further relied upon sec. 6.11 of Amendment 328 to the Constitution of Alabama.

 

[arcticpenguin]

If I went into the Alabama Supreme Court building and attempted to fasten an American Atheists symbol to the wall, do you think Judge Moore would support my right to practice my religion the same way he does?

 

[Scorpy]

If I went into the Alabama Supreme Court building and attempted to fasten an American Atheists symbol to the wall, do you think Judge Moore would support my right to practice my religion the same way he does?

This nation and its government belong to Christianity, or so these people seem to think.

 

[arcticpenguin]

This nation and its government belong to Christianity, or so these people seem to think.

I trust you see my point in that if Judge Moore tried to stop me, he would be shown up as a hypocrite. If he has the right to express his religion in that public building, so do I. If not, it is not a right at all.

 

[Shinytop]

Precisely, if Judge Moore, and to a certain extend our president and AG have their way we will be living in a Christian version of Afghanistan with every rule being checked on by a minister of the Southern Baptists Is the Only Way religion.

 

[Ladewig]

I just had someone tell me that Judge Moore is this generation's Martin Luther King, Jr.

What was your response?

I would have asked what particular events or beliefs they had in common.
Willing to go to jail for one's beliefs?
Winning a Nobel Peace Prize?
Being part of the largest civil rights demonstration (as of 1963)?
Giving moving speeches that people quote and orators study 40 years after his death?
Being the target of an illegal FBI investigation?

 

[KelvinG]

I trust you see my point in that if Judge Moore tried to stop me, he would be shown up as a hypocrite. If he has the right to express his religion in that public building, so do I. If not, it is not a right at all.

A guy like Moore has no interest in anyone who doesn't think like him exercising their rights. He is a massive hypocrite. You can bet if another public building in their town had a monument called the "Atheists Manifesto" in front of it, he would be one of the first ones screaming that it must be removed.

This is a case where the phrase "holier than thou" has never been more appropriate.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

That's what id expect from a bigot like you, but really, this has nothing to do with religion.

Boy, what are you smoking?

 

[Scorpy]

I trust you see my point in that if Judge Moore tried to stop me, he would be shown up as a hypocrite. If he has the right to express his religion in that public building, so do I. If not, it is not a right at all.

I agree.

 

[Tony]

Neither you nor I nor some idiot state judge has the right to decide what is and is not constitutional. That right belongs to the Federal courts, ultimately the Supreme Court. We DO have the right to elect government representatives who will pass laws we want them to pass and who will then appoint Federal judges that will make decisions we agree with.

Ill ignore your appeal to authority, and just point out that you have just described the fundamental flaw with the judicial system. What's stopping the Supreme Court from declaring Islam to be illegal? What’s stopping the Supreme Court from declaring that Jews have no rights, are therefore should be killed and deported?

Nothing!!

As long as the constitution is open to extreme "interpretation", it can be perverted to mean anything. We are beginning to see this with regards to guns.


The great strength of our democracy is that we acknowledge the rule of law.

Ill ignore the fact that you mischaracterized the US as a democracy.

However, I submit to you that americans have a history of ignoring the rule of law and doing what they want. From the Boston tea party, to the whisky rebellion, to the glorification of various outlaws throughout our history, to the 60's riots and protests.

Indeed, the whole idea of the "rule of law" and respect for authority is un-american.

However, the heart of our civilized society is the fact that no one -not even the richest or most powerful - is above the law or can decide what court orders they don't have to obey.

This is just naive.

Judge Moore is a traitor to his robe by refusing to obey the very legal system he has sworn to defend.

The Supreme Court is the traitorous party by perverting the constitution.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Did anyone else notice Flip Benham was standing in the background as Judge Moore gave his "I have a monument" speech? Thankfully something's gotten that loon out of Dallas.

 

[KelvinG]

Indeed, the whole idea of the "rule of law" and respect for authority is un-american.

This would explain the disturbingly high murder rate in the US.

 

[Shinytop]

Tony, I find it hard to believe that you believe all the tripe you post. The SC is enforcing the Constituion. No religion has the right to be state supported. No religion should be endorsed in any shape, fashion, for form. That is protecting the right of the people to worship as they choose.

The SC swings a little left and a little right on the issues depending on who appointed different judges. But though our country's history they have been remarkably even handed.

And with reference to your lawless remarks, I will not dignify them with an answer.

 

[Suddenly]

Ill ignore your appeal to authority, and just point out that you have just described the fundamental flaw with the judicial system. What's stopping the Supreme Court from declaring Islam to be illegal? What’s stopping the Supreme Court from declaring that Jews have no rights, are therefore should be killed and deported?

Nothing!!

As long as the constitution is open to extreme "interpretation", it can be perverted to mean anything. We are beginning to see this with regards to guns.

1) The Supreme Court can only speak to decide a controversy. A simple declaration other than to directly decide a case presented to it would be rightly ignored by those in the executory branch. For the court to make such a decision, there would have to be a case started where such an issue was in play. This is quite an obsticle in this regard. Also, in real life there isn't much the SC could do in this regard except declare a congressional statue valid. Their power is a negative one. They can "void" statutes, but they can't create them.

2) What's stopping Congress from doing the same? Whoops, the Supreme Court's power to find a statute contrary to the constitution and thus void. Other than that not much, plus Congress could cut the court's funding, limit it's jurisdiction, or just start impeaching people.

3) What's stopping the President from just issuing an order and telling the army to enforce it? Nothing. He has the guns.

The SC has no army, no purse power, and can only speak when spoken to. Plus they can be impeached by Congress. That they are the last speaker on issues of Constitutional import is actually quite heartening, as their power is scarcely more than just persuasive. If the President or Congress decided to, they could completely hamstring the Court.