August 23, 2003
Alabama Chief Justice Suspended
From FOXNews.com
MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who has defied a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the state's Judicial Building, was suspended Friday by a judicial ethics panel.
A federal judge had decided the 5,300-pound granite marker violated the Constitution's ban on government promotion of a religious doctrine.
Moore was automatically suspended with pay when the nine-member Judicial Inquiry Commission referred the ethics complaint against him to the Court of the Judiciary, which holds trial-like proceedings and can discipline and remove judges.
• Raw Data: Complaint Against Moore (pdf)
Ruby Crowe, an assistant clerk working with the court, said Moore would have 30 days to respond.
The Commandments monument "will be taken out very soon," said state Attorney General Bill Pryor on Fox News' "DaySide." "We have an obligation to uphold the rule of law."
Moore met with the commission early Friday as about 100 of his supporters, several blocks away at the federal courthouse, ripped and burned a copy of U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson's order for the monument's removal.
Moore said he told the commission that he upheld his oath of office by acknowledging God. Moore has said Thompson has no authority to tell the state's chief justice to remove the monument.
"What this federal judge has said is that we cannot acknowledge God," Moore told Fox News Friday. "My battle is not with the justices of the court, my colleagues, my battle is with the federal government, who has come in and told us how to think, who we can believe in."
Moore had no immediate comment after his suspension was announced. His spokesman, Tom Parker, said Moore's attorneys would respond to the complaint Monday.
• Video: Interview With Roy Moore
Pryor said the public corruption and white collar crime unit in his office would handle the prosecution of Moore, who cannot perform any judicial duties while disqualified. Pryor said senior Associate Justice Gorman Houston would perform the chief justice's duties.
"I'm not happy we have to deal with these matters, but it is part of our duties and we will continue to do so," said Pryor.
Thompson ruled last year that the monument, installed by Moore in a highly visible public spot in the Alabama Judicial Building, violates the Constitution's ban on government promotion of a religious doctrine, but added that it could be moved to a private place in the building.
Thompson had ordered the monument removed by Wednesday — the same day the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Moore's appeal for an emergency stay. Moore has said he plans to file a formal appeal with the high court.
"I respect whatever it is that they (the ethics panel) do," said Stephen Glassroth, the Montgomery lawyer who filed the complaint against Moore.
The Court of the Judiciary, currently made up of four judges, three lawyers and two non-lawyers, has handled numerous judicial ethics cases.
Meanwhile, attorneys who sued to get the monument out of the rotunda put their contempt filing against Moore on hold, now that Alabama Supreme Court associate justices have agreed to move the marker.
Moore supporters' around-the-clock vigil near the monument continued in downtown Montgomery. They have prayed, sung hymns, preached and kept an eye on the monument through the building's glass doors since Wednesday's deadline.
On Friday, about 100 protesters moved from the steps of the judicial building to a sidewalk in front of the federal courthouse, where Thompson works. Some ripped a copy of Thompson's ruling to pieces and burned it. Demonstrators also held a mock trial, in which Thompson was charged with breaking the law of God.
"We hold you, Judge Thompson, and the United States Supreme Court in contempt of God's law," said Flip Benham, director of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue.
Inside the state judicial building, court officials were trying to determine where the monument would go and when it would be moved.
Ayesha Khan, an attorney for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, one of the groups seeking removal of the monument, said Thompson told the parties in a conference call Friday that he would schedule another conference call for late next week. She said plaintiffs would drop their request to hold Moore in contempt, or fine the state, if the monument was moved by then.
"Our concern all along has been compliance with the Constitution. Once the monument has been removed, our concerns will have been addressed," she said.
Khan said Pryor, speaking for the eight associate justices who overruled Moore, told Thompson that building officials were looking for the best location for the monument and considering security problems that might occur because of the ongoing demonstrations.
Thompson's order gave the option of moving the monument to Moore's office. But Khan said she asked Moore during a deposition about moving it to his office and he said the monument was too heavy.
An organizer of pro-Moore demonstrations, Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition, said Friday the demonstrations would continue.
He said five protesters would kneel in front of each of the two building exits in order to prevent the monument from being removed.
"Our message is clear. We are going to peacefully block the way if they try to move it," Mahoney said.
One of the demonstrators, retired Birmingham schoolteacher Murray Phillips, said she knows the monument will probably be gone from the rotunda soon.
"I'm upset, but I'm not surprised. At least I am going to be able to say to my grandchildren that at least I tried to do something," Phillips said.
Posted by Muddy at August 23, 2003 03:38 AM | TrackBackSince when does the National Government tell the states how to decorate their State Government Buildings???
This is total BS and must be stopped. If a state deems it fit to have the 10 commandments in their rotunda than so be it. If the state says we think there should be a ying/yang symbol there, so be it.
I fully believe in what our founders had in mind when they setup the Federal government to protect the Nation, and the States to run themselves.
Once again big brother and his special interest groups have stepped in to reduce the states power.
I think a revolution is looking more and more like an option we should consider in this country. The Feds think they run the country as a whole, in fact it's by design that the states run the country and the Feds protect it.
Posted by: muddy at August 23, 2003 03:47 AMI agree that the State has a right to have the 10 commandments on display, in fact the 10 commandments are on display at the Supreme Court in DC as well... along with depictions of Hammurabi, Buddha, The magna carta etc... The differece here is that in DC the art is an educational depiction of the many influences our law comes from. In DC the art is inclusive of many cultures. In alabama, only the 10 commandments are shown, this implies exclusive endorsement of a particular religion and the federal government is obliged to seperate church and law. I would suggest that instead of remaving the 10 commandments, more monuments should be added to Alabams court to add diversity. It is diversity that gives america its strength after all. Unfortunately the Chief Justice in Alabama has stated that the 10 commandments is the true law and he rejects the notion of diversity.
Posted by: Bennyhill1978 at August 23, 2003 10:38 PMYeah... That was a nice move from the federal government. It protects diversity of belief. Next thing they should do is force the administration to give fair trial to those people who've been unfairly put in jail about 2 years now, with no trial, no lawyer...
But this time will come.
Bennyhill1978: 1st off, if I'm reading the 10th Amendment of the Constitution right which states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
I believe I am to assume that the when the states make their laws then basically the Federal government stayes the heck out of it. Now, I may be reading that wrong, but I don't think I am.
Now, I don't know who put the 10 Commandments plaque in the State building down in Alabama but I will assume the state themselves did it. If that is the case then since when does the Federal Gov. have jurisdiction. Now, I Do know (because I read it) that in Section 35 of Article 1 of Alabama's Bill of rights of 1901, it states:
" That the sole object and only legitimate end of gov. is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression."
2ndly:
You stated:
"....the federal government is obliged to seperate church and law" Where in the Constitution does it actually SAY "separation of church and state"?
Don't say the 1st amendment because it's not there. As a matter of fact, it's not in OUR constitution at all. Maybe you can INTERPRET it in that way....but in actuality, the only time "...the separation of church and state was EVER mentioned was in a LETTER that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Conn. shortly after he became President. The Baptists (of whom he was Not associated with) where "anti-federal gov." as was Thomas Jefferson himself. He wrote them and told them what the 1st amendment said and that it secured a "wall" so to speak between church and state so that the Federal Gov. would have No room to tell the states what to do expecially with the way they worship. Which was one of the many reasons they all left England at that time.
Now, I don't know (like I said) exactly who put that 10 commandment plaque in Alabama's house but I don't even think (though I could be wrong) that you could even used the 1st amendment for that. However, I do believe you can use the 10th amendment.
By the way, do you know what Constitution actually SAYS "separation of church/state"?.....It's in the constitution of the former Soviet Union: "The Church in the USSR is separated from the state and the school from the church." but that's irrelevent here. Interresting, huh?
This whole debate is very interresting.
Posted by: mrs. muddy at August 24, 2003 03:47 PMHammurabi's Code of Law and Buddha we're of no consideration when our founders created this country. If they were I'd be delighted if you would so enlighten me to where I can read up on it.
As for the Magna Carta if you re-read it's nothing more than grievances against the King, not really principles of law. As for your statement of Diversity, I guess one could look at it like that. However history and the Bible which our founders believed in and lived by would conclude that this "diversity" you speak of is rather a reality of Godlessness that our country is sadly becoming. (that is a whole other discussion) I was raised with the belief that the separation was put in to keep the government out of the church's business. However in recent weeks as I've looked deeper into this I'm considering (to my dismay) that it may be the opposite.
I will study this further and shall report my findings in due time.
Julie, I went out to various websites that contain the constitution and you are right, NO WHERE is mentioning the separation of church and state. NO WHERE! This disturbs me a great deal. That I started to go down the road of thinking that is the case and sure enought, it is not. We are more like sheep than I originally thought. Accepting everything that is displayed on the news (or from liberal mantra).
That stops now.
Thanks for opening my eyes!
Jason
Posted by: Undermidnight at August 25, 2003 08:53 AMHey, dude....sad but true. There are times when we ARE like sheep. Of course, Anything, including the constitution can be (to a degree) seen and interpreted to a certain point of view...but I personally believe the ACLU (God help us) love to use that phrase (mostly because I personally hear them use it alot) and I wonder if THEY know where they're getting it from:)
P.S. On a personal note, if I EVER need "help" from the ACLU for ANYTHING, I will then know ALL hope is gone and my life isn't worth much going on with.....but that's MY perspective :)
Posted by: mrs. muddy at August 25, 2003 09:39 AMAs for your statement of Diversity, I guess one could look at it like that. However history and the Bible which our founders believed in and lived by would conclude that this "diversity" you speak of is rather a reality of Godlessness that our country is sadly becoming.
There's many gods people believe in. christians jewish and muslim alike aknowledge the 10 commandments. But the you have the indhis, natives who are animists, chinese shintoists... They have no business with the 10 commandments.
Amendment I says
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; (...)
This ammendment is exactly the opposite of the first of the ten commandments.
You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments
there fore the 10 commandments are unconstitutionnal. And shall not be applied in the USA..
Lol.
Yeah any way the bible is not to be believed and the christian god is but one of the representation of whatever you call god.
Posted by: DF at August 26, 2003 05:42 PMDF, I am truely sad for you.
Posted by: muddy at August 26, 2003 06:15 PMand DF is but one of the representatives of STUPID.
Posted by: cwilli at August 26, 2003 11:52 PMThe First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
The point that states may be able to do so on their own is a good one, but case law in the US has proven otherwise. States have also ruled in kind that the state, as well as the federal government cannot appear to endorce any specific religion.
Until the courts of the country are all flooded with people who will overturn those verdicts and continue to hold those seats for long enough to establish a new standard, we have the present standard to live by.
So, if you feel strongly one way or the other, make sure you cast your vote for judges who support the view you hold.
Posted by: Baker at August 27, 2003 09:20 AMOk, I have a question and if anyone can answer it...Please let me know. I've tried to look it up and so far can't find it. Question is: Did the STATE of Alabama vote to put this monument in there and if not, why don't they. I mean, if the majority (of Alabama) rules to allow it to stay, then it stays. If they vote to have it removed then fine. Even then though, they could even ask ( on a ballot) if the people of Alabama would like to have other forms of symbols of faith displayed.
My point is it should be totally up to the State of Alabama ONLY of what they should do. So if anyone knows whether or not they ever even had something close to a vote on it, I would be curious to know. In the mean time, I will try to continue my search as well :)
Just curious :)
Posted by: mrs. muddy at August 27, 2003 11:27 AMMrs Muddy: If memory serves me this was placed by there by an Alabama judge who has also fought and won a supreme court battle to keep a plaque of the 10 commmandments in his office at the same state house.
Posted by: cwilli at August 27, 2003 12:26 PMcwilli: Ah. I do vaguely remember hearing about that one. It would be interresting to see how the Fed. would behave if the People of Alabama actually voted that they wanted it to stay. I'd like to see the Feds. reaction to that.
Thanks by the way:)
The judge who put it there did so in the middle of the night without permission or previous notification of his plans.
Putting it to a vote of the people would be dangerous. Wouldn't that say that anything that you have installed without permission would then be up to the voters to remove?
"Let the people of Alabama decide if my black velvet Elvis and Jesus painting should be removed from my courtroom, not some ACLU weenies!"
Posted by: Baker at August 27, 2003 03:45 PMBaker: "The judge who put it there did so in the middle of the night...."
Are you talking of the plaque in his office or the one in the center of controversy?
My whole point to "putting it to a vote" is just my curious minds way of wondering if since alot of groups: such as the ACLU (which are indeed "weenies") are the one who are saying that the 10 Commandments only represent one group of people (among hundreds of other loads of crap they spew) then that just let me to think:
"Hey, if they're trying to do the thinking and speaking for the people, why don't we see what the PEOPLE have to say for THEMSELVES".
Like I said...just a thought. Besides, who said anything about a "velvet Elvis" gross:-)
Constitutions have precisely been designed to prevent mindless voters to be manipulated by fanatics. Hitler has been elected by the german people, so according to you he had the right to do about anything he said.
So you start with putting the ten commandments, then you ban abortion on religious ground, then you force women to have veil inside churches, ban sodomy, and have mandatory christian religion courses inside the schools.
But it's true that if the voters had chosen to have these 10 amendments there it would have been different. Fact is they ve not. So all you got is a religious judge that's been taught the constitution.
Let's go weenies let's go !
We weenies we'll overturn you fanatics because we are the future, the hope the progress and everything ...
How can any democrat support the first and second commandment ? These cannot be the rule for a pluralist country. That's the point. People have a right to choose the god they believe in. And those who want to deprive people from this right are called terrorist, and there's a war against them that's been launched recently.
lol.
DF:"We weenies we'll overturn you fanatics because we are the future"
Dude your not a part of this. Your a frenchman and this has nothing to do with "you" and you are not a part of any "we" that has anything to do with this country. Basically put, mind your own business. While you at it find a french website to spout your idiotic remarks. Nobody in this country cares about what you french think.
Mrs Muddy and Baker: It is true that this judge had this statue of the Ten Commandments installed in the middle of the night without any permission. My opinion is that he did this on purpose because he knew that he would be told to remove it and would have another fight before the supreme court. I think that this is part of his plan to prove a point. In other words I think that he knew exactly what he was doing when he did this. I appload him for it. I think that it is sad that if this would have been a statue of the muslim Koran it would still be there. Christianity in this country is currently under attack as well as family values. Fasten your seatbelts folks we are in for a long bumpy ride.
Posted by: cwilli at August 27, 2003 08:00 PMFirst, the last line in my post with the quotes around it was supposed to be a joke. An exaggeration of the circumstances and a quote from the person hanging it. From what I read in response to it, I don't think I got that across right.
Ok, onto the other stuff:
Mrs. M - The large monument was what he had installed under cover of darkness. As cwilli wrote, and has been discussed in the media, it was intentionally done to try to get this issue in the spotlight, again.
I understand the thought behind putting things to votes and I have no problem with that. It's just doing it this way is such a blatent abuse of power and is too manipulative. If the people want to pass a law about something then the legal process of the state should be followed, as with any other public concern.
cwilli - if it were the Koran or some other religion's display it wouldn't have been nearly as big a story. This is a continuation of oficial recognition of the Christian God in some parts of government, but not all. "In God We Trust", "One Nation Under God", prayer in schoole, and so on and so on...
I really don't see any type of organized movement from non-Christian groups to display religious symbols in state or federal institutions. I guess The Man is keeping them down...
Posted by: Baker at August 28, 2003 11:11 AMYour a frenchman and this has nothing to do with "you" and you are not a part of any "we" that has anything to do with this country.
And there you go wrong again ... I am part of amnesty international, share a lot with the people of ACLU... AND your country is not anymore able to rule its own laws outside of world scrutiny.
THE WORLD IS WATCHING.
Remember seattle. And boy how it is annoyous for you to have clever french men pointing at your fanatism. AH AH AH
But in a way you're right. This is none of my business. I'm just staying around till I can see you whine about Bush not being reelected, No WMD found in 5 years of occupation and you unable to admit that you were wrong. + I have a 50 dollar bet going on. july 2007.
4 long years it's gonna be.
"AND your country is not anymore able to rule its own laws outside of world scrutiny."
BWAHAHAHAHA
Thats funny DF because that is the difference between communism and capitalism. With capitalism everything is out in the open. DF, Its been that way since the beginning!!! The world has always been watching the United States. They have watched us go from 13 small colony's to the only superpower left in the world. They have watched us fight each other and save other countries all in just over 200 years. Meanwhile you small toilet of a country is no better off than it was when we started. Your also partially right when you indicate that the ACLU is a plague that has infected our country and it is NO SUPRISE that you consider yourself part of that. But if you think that the ACLU is going to be the downfall of this country then your are again wrong (as usual). This country has been through much worst than that and will take care of itself as usual. The world will also watch that DF.
BTW a "clever french men" is a myth. Much like the unicorn or bigfoot. THEY DONT EXIST.
To prove this here is a link to show how unclever you guys are. Your country is considering give up a holiday (possibly Christmas) just to fix your failed heath care system. It must really suck to have the government tell you what days you will work.
http://www.charleston.net/stories/082803/wor_28france.shtml
How is the weather out there? Hot enough for you?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3179147.stm
May God Bless the souls of those who have passed on. I am just trying to prove a point that you should spend more time with your own affairs then worry about ours. In other words: You should mind your own damn business.
Posted by: cwilli at August 28, 2003 01:26 PM"Hot enough for you?" - Disgusting.
Need you be reminded of the Chicago heatwave that killed over 700 people in 1995?
I have so many negative things to say about your post that I really don't know where to start. Probably best that I don't say anything else then.
I only hope you try that approach yourself sometime.
Posted by: Baker at August 29, 2003 09:14 AMYou totally miss the point Baker. It was to prove a point. I see the things that you have to say also and have held back many times. Can you say 'part of the problem'?
Posted by: cwilli at August 29, 2003 11:06 AMThere's never been a debate about suppressing Christmas... We have plenty of other christian dates. 15 of aougust, paques, 1st of november...
I would choose the 11th of november end of an old war that is now far behind us...
You are outrageous and ridiculous cwili and it's not the first time.
Of course we've seen the rise of the USA, and the fall of europe. Europe destroyed by horrible wars, europe arrogant to the point it wanted to rule the earth...
But be sure that rise lead to fall. and your arrogange is a sure sign the fall is near. I'm not talking only about you Cwili but about those kyoto and doha summit where the USA forbid all progress. I'm talking about all this, for me everything and forget the rest of the world, those that will come after me in a polluted world.
"please don't hurt the US economy".
"It must really suck to have the government tell you what days you will work."
you have it completely wrong. THe government says what days we don't work, and he says so after a democratic debate. THese days off are days to gather and share. 1st of may, working day. 14th july french revolution : democracy. 8th of may end of nazism.
I think the ACLU will save this country from dangerous zealouts like you and that your fall will come from over spending speculation and a sudden credit crunch. Add some litigation to the cake.
US way of life :
booing the government and democraty, having political leaders who are empty communicators in the hands of (rich) interest groups, lots of crime and weapons everywhere, big cars and lots of pollution, litigation from neighbour to neighbour with no self restraint, zero knowledge of history (even 20 years old history from your own country), overconfidence in the country its leaders and its troops, big logos everywhere from big companies trademarks (linux is thorwalds + stallman ever wondered why there's more linux users in europe than in the US), privatisation of everything even the church, money money money ... And no openness for difference a closing on your "landlord of the earth" superiority.
Great. We french men are stupid. Think so. great.
Well at least now we know we have found people more arrogant than we are.
And i believe being humble is the best way to learn and thrive. You had your time.
Now let's see those asian guys.
And for the "save the other countries". Well you'll have to talk to many latino americans who have quite another feeling about that.
I thank you oh Thee mighty US army that can destroy everything on one slap of the fingers, that brings democracy and peace everywhere and in no time, may your protect me from those who pull me away from you, may you ever and ever teach me to love the flag and how to vote.
yeah sure.