Chief Justice Moore refuses to remove 10 commandments

Bob Blaylock said:
I've long thought it to be one of the more bizarre creations of the Left that the First Amendment somehow requires or justifies censorship and suppression of religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
Considering that's not what transpires, "the Left" might wonder if you are a little too chummy with "bizarre creations."
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I've long thought it to be one of the more bizarre creations of the Left that the First Amendment somehow requires or justifies censorship and suppression of religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
"...of the Government." I'm sure you meant to include that.

It explicitly prevents the Government, of which Moore was specifically representing at that time in his capacity as Chief Justice, from endorsing any particular religion.

To play of DavidJames's remarks, "the Left" in this case could also refer to the Founding Fathers.
 
pgwenthold said:
Brown - if this went to the Supremes (although as you say, it won't) how would Clarence Thomas rule? Would he buy the judge's argument that it is just a matter of free speech, and none of this Lemon test stuff matters?
Click to expand...

To bastardize a famous quote:

"When picturing Thomas, think of a judge and then eliminate reason and accountability."
 
Brown said:
(By the way, earlier in this thread, you may see something astonishing: When Roy Moore announced that he was not going to obey a federal order, I pointed out that such conduct could--even ought to--subject him to discipline on ethical grounds... which is exactly what happened! Too bad I didn't put in a claim for the million bucks, since that prediction was better than any that I've seen from any self-proclaimed psychics.)

Another possible avenue of pursuit is legal ethics, which is generally more encompassing than judicial ethics. All practicing lawyers are licensed by one or more states, and each state can discipline lawyers for ethical violations. Proceedings were instituted against President Bill Clinton in Arkansas, you may recall, and Clinton no longer has his license to practice. Judges that hold law licenses can usually be disciplined, too, and if they need to have a law license to practice, then loss of that license can disqualify them from the bench.

Curiously, there is one judgeship in the US for which a law license is not required: The US Supreme Court. Thus, if someone were to initiate a state ethics complaint against (to pick a completely random justice) Clarence Thomas for (to pick a completely fanciful infraction) repeatedly lying about his wife's income on his 2003-07 Supreme Court financial disclosure forms, discipline against this individual that affected his law license would not disqualify him from sitting on the High Court.
Click to expand...
I'm starting to think pretty seriously about making an application for the JREF million dollar prize, since it appears that I may be about to see another prediction realized.

Ethics complaints are being planned in which the state of Missouri may suspend or revoke Clarence Thomas's license to practice law because he repeatedly lied about his wife's income on his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms, an infraction which he has basically admitted doing.

The bad news about this is that (according to one report) the complaints are being submitted by politicians rather than by "ordinary citizens." Ordinary citizens--such as taxpayers who are well aware that THEY might be criminally on the hook if THEY lie about their own income, albeit in a different context--ought to be complaining to the state ethics investigators.

It is possible that ordinary citizens have filed or will file their own complaints, but those complaints have not made news. Ethics investigations are usually done VERY low-key, to protect the reputation of the practitioner in the event the complaint is spurious. So if others have filed complaints, it is unlikely there would be any public disclosure about them. In addition, it is possible the state ethics investigators have begun an investigation proactively, without being asked to begin one. In the states having some of the best lawyers, the ethics investigators indeed do act proactively.

In the event Thomas is formally disciplined--and discipline may include something less than disbarment, such as a temporary suspension or a formal reprimand--Thomas would not be automatically disqualified from sitting on the Court. But such discipline may serve as a springboard for impeachment proceedings.
 
Justice Thomas seems to have found some additional ethical trouble. The New York Times (and others) report the latest controversy.

The congressman who had been pushing for an ethics investigation--one Anthony Weiner--is now out of the Congress.
 
Brown said:
The congressman who had been pushing for an ethics investigation--one Anthony Weiner--is now out of the Congress.
Click to expand...

Which may have been one of the sludge monster's primary goals in creating the uproar over Weiner's hobby.
 
Brown said:
Justice Thomas seems to have found some additional ethical trouble. The New York Times (and others) report the latest controversy.

The congressman who had been pushing for an ethics investigation--one Anthony Weiner--is now out of the Congress.
Click to expand...
The newest development: A group has called for a federal investigation into allegations Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas violated the Ethics in Government Act by failing to report his wife's income. A letter calling for an investigation was sent to the U.S. Judicial Conference, and was signed by 20 members of the House, all Democrats.
 
Brown said:
And then there is this disturbing paragraph, which I find quite shocking:
Either way, Mr. Moore can run for chief justice again. The panel that removed Mr. Moore lacks the authority to permanently keep a judge off the bench.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Moore is running again for Chief Justice and as of this writing, is the leading Republican candidate. He hopes to win the primary (held yesterday) without a runoff.

Shame, shame, shame.
 
Brown said:
Moore is running again for Chief Justice and as of this writing, is the leading Republican candidate. He hopes to win the primary (held yesterday) without a runoff.

Shame, shame, shame.
Click to expand...
The latest word is that Moore has received enough votes to avoid the runoff and is "heavily favored" to win in the general election.

If wins, and if he misbehaves again, he should be kicked off again ... AND subjected to further discipline, including (if appropriate) being disbarred.
 
Man, I love a good zombie thread, especially one I've posted in. I don't remember writing some of this stuff, but I still agree with it.

/derail

It was nconstitutional then, it's unconstitutional now. If he tries to breach the wall of separation again, he'll get more of the same. Hopefully more.
 
You gotta remember, this is the state that elected George Wallace three times. Four times if you count the year he ran his dying wife as a proxy.
 
Moore's base is the same as Santorum's.

I keep in touch with a few folks I knew while attending high school in Alabama. Can't wait to see what they think if and when he's elected again.
 
Tmy said:
Cheese n crackers!!! The whole reason we have such a big controling Fed Govt is because of the actions of these loser hick states. Somebody has to regulate Cletus n' company cause they cant control themsleves.
Click to expand...


Just a side question. Has anyone ever been actually named Cletus? If so, do you think it's been used in the last 10 years? I think it deserves a comeback. Also, do you think if some Tom Brady looking quarterback was named Cletus the name would take off?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom