Chief Justice Moore refuses to remove 10 commandments

Caper said:
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?
Click to expand...
If anyone still named their kid Cletus and it was born after the Simpsons started airing, well, I feel bad for the kid.
 
Fishstick said:
If anyone still named their kid Cletus and it was born after the Simpsons started airing, well, I feel bad for the kid.
Click to expand...
Yeah, people should give their kids normal names like Bubba, Scooter, or Billy Bob.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
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.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't surprise me if lawyers practicing in Alabama are pretty upset about Moore's return. There is nothing more agonizing (or "Moore agonizing") for a lawyer to have a good case, and realize that the case is at the mercy of a total idiot in a black robe.

Litigants themselves are very sensitive to this. When their lives and livelihoods are on the line, they become nervous wrecks when they realize that the judge is a fool. A judge may think that one particular version of the Ten Commandments is the cat's meow and still be a fool. And since most legal cases DON'T involve the Ten Commandments in any form at all, voting for a judge because of his views about Commandments is not only nonsensical, it represents Alabama voters metaphorically cutting their own throats. When THEIR rights and THEIR money are on the line, the voters with cases in court will be more worried about competence than Commandments... but by then, it will be too late.

One side effect of Moore's election might be an increase in the number of requests for recusal. In the past few years, Moore shot his mouth off and wrote at least one really awful brief on an issue of public concern, and these non-judicial pronouncements might cause litigants to ask him to step out of their litigation.
 
Caper said:
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?
Click to expand...

According to this site, yes. I'm not sure where they get their info, though.
 
The New York Times, in an editorial, opines that Moore's victory "is yet one more reminder that choosing judges in partisan elections, rather than through a system of merit selection, can create a serious problem of quality control."

Election of jugdes and the the injection of enormous amounts of money into judicial races (money that is potentially, if not inherently, corrupting) is not a liberal versus conservative issue. Money-driven judicial elections have been criticized by people all over the political spectrum, especially those who think that judicial power ought to carry a strong degree of independence and dignity.

An appointment-based sysytem has its faults as well. Governors and nominating commissions have been known to move untalented political hacks onto the bench. Even so, the dynamics are different and the interests are different. In an appointment system, people usually don't care who a potential appointee prays to or how a potential appointee feels about abortion or whether a potential appointee will be "activist" (whatever that means) or whether a potential appointee has name recognition. Rather, the concerns tend to be more practical. Is the potential appointee smart and industrious? The judiciary is overworked and understaffed; will the potential appointee pull his/her own weight? Will the potential appointee give all litigants a "fair shake?" Does the potential appointee have the courage and integrity to side with an unpopular litigant, if that litigant is legally in the right? Will the potential appointee add to the quality of the service provided by the judicial branch?
 
Brown said:
It wouldn't surprise me if lawyers practicing in Alabama are pretty upset about Moore's return. There is nothing more agonizing (or "Moore agonizing") for a lawyer to have a good case, and realize that the case is at the mercy of a total idiot in a black robe.

Litigants themselves are very sensitive to this. When their lives and livelihoods are on the line, they become nervous wrecks when they realize that the judge is a fool. A judge may think that one particular version of the Ten Commandments is the cat's meow and still be a fool. And since most legal cases DON'T involve the Ten Commandments in any form at all, voting for a judge because of his views about Commandments is not only nonsensical, it represents Alabama voters metaphorically cutting their own throats. When THEIR rights and THEIR money are on the line, the voters with cases in court will be more worried about competence than Commandments... but by then, it will be too late.

One side effect of Moore's election might be an increase in the number of requests for recusal. In the past few years, Moore shot his mouth off and wrote at least one really awful brief on an issue of public concern, and these non-judicial pronouncements might cause litigants to ask him to step out of their litigation.
Click to expand...
Alabama's 'Ten Commandments judge' retakes seat on high court (from the Los Angeles Times)

Has Judge Idiot--I mean, Moore--learned his lesson?
"I have no doubt this is vindication for what I stood for," Moore told supporters during a televised election speech. "Go home with the knowledge that we’ll stand for the acknowledgment of God."
Click to expand...
This may be no more than a blast of hot air (and methane) from his backside. And speaking of his backside, he'd better be watching it, because there are quite a few others who will be watching it for him. If Moore tries another monument stunt, the result will likely be a swifter removal. And a second serious ethics violation is, for most officers of the court, met with more serious punishment than the first.
 
This is why whenever I hear someone rant about "creeping sharia" in America, I simply laugh a derisive, bitter laugh.

Sigh...
 
Brown said:
An appointment-based sysytem has its faults as well. Governors and nominating commissions have been known to move untalented political hacks onto the bench.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a plug for the Missouri Plan. Justices are appointed but subject to retention votes.

We just rejected a proposal that would have made the appointment process a tad bit more political (would have given the governor 4 rather than 3 appointments to the 7 member commission that actually appoints the judges--and would have allowed him to pick lawyers*).

* <shudder> ;)
 
Apart from Alabama being a part of the country of my nativity, I don't really have much interest in it. I've never been there, and I have no plans ever to visit. I have no business there and no relatives there. Part of me says that if these folks want to put an unethical, ignorant, bottom-of-the-barrel hayseed on their highest court and call him "Your Honor," let them. It will be sheer entertainment for me, and nothing "Moore."

Unfortunately, if Moore decides to waste more time, money and effort with his peurile antics, there is likely to be federal involvement, and then it won't just be Alabama's folly.
 
Brown said:
Apart from Alabama being a part of the country of my nativity, I don't really have much interest in it. I've never been there, and I have no plans ever to visit. I have no business there and no relatives there. Part of me says that if these folks want to put an unethical, ignorant, bottom-of-the-barrel hayseed on their highest court and call him "Your Honor," let them. It will be sheer entertainment for me, and nothing "Moore."
Click to expand...

:(
 
ANTPogo said:
:(
Click to expand...
As I said, "part of me" wants to take a hands-off view, and say that Alabama voters screwed up, they created a big problem for themselves, let them deal with it; and I'll just sit back, watch, point and laugh.

But another part of me holds the federal and state judicial branches, and their officers, to a high professional standard. If there is one person on the bench who is an unctuous loudmouthed fool, it stains the reputations of others on the bench. I would rather not see such a stain form.

There is no guarantee that Moore will be a doofus on his second go around. He might turn out to be one of the most careful, prudent justices in the country. (Although if you've read some of his "legal" writings since he was kicked off the bench, as I have, I'd assess the odds of him demonstrating exceptional jurisprudence as being very, very long.)

In any event, he has earned a right to another try. He ought to have at least enough intelligence to realize that, if he blows it again, the hammer will come down again, and come down harder.
 
Brown said:
Apart from Alabama being a part of the country of my nativity, I don't really have much interest in it. I've never been there, and I have no plans ever to visit. I have no business there and no relatives there. Part of me says that if these folks want to put an unethical, ignorant, bottom-of-the-barrel hayseed on their highest court and call him "Your Honor," let them. It will be sheer entertainment for me, and nothing "Moore."

Unfortunately, if Moore decides to waste more time, money and effort with his peurile antics, there is likely to be federal involvement, and then it won't just be Alabama's folly.
Click to expand...

He won due to straight ticket republican votes, but he also has a following as being a hero for standing up for his religion.

Now I wonder what would happen if he decides to put a Quran up there...

He's a bit old fashioned, and by old fashioned I mean a jerkoff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom