Why Alabama Judge Roy Moore should have been Removed.

[lawrocket 3]

I've seen and read the arguments about the Ten Commandments issue with the Alabama courthouse. Personally, I don't have a problem with the Ten Commandments being there.

But, Judge Moore violated one of the fundamental rules of law that this nation - the "Collateral Bar Rule."

What this rule means is that one should not bypass judicial review of an injunction before disobeying it. In other words, you cannot defy an order, even if later found Unconstitutional. You comply with the order and challenge it.

The US Supreme Court has held that "no man can be judge in his own case, however exalted his station, however righteous his motives, and irrespective of his race, color, politics, or religion." Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969).

In Walker v. Birmingham, the Court explained that courts must preserve their abilities to direct the methods for challenging judicial orders to ensure that individuals do not become the judges in their own cases. The opinion is routinely cited as authority for the collateral bar rule, as well as inherent judicial authority to enforce judicial orders. In that case, the court upheld sentences for refusing to obey a court order later found Unconstitutional.

Serving a sentence in solitary confinement for violating this order was Martin Luther King, Jr. "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" was written while he was serving his time for violating the collateral bar rule.

Here, Roy Moore undoubtedly knew better than anyone about the colleral bar rule and how it works. What would Moore do if someone disobeyed his Order, stating it was Unconstitutional?

Moore's disrespect of the system is what I cannot agree with. It breeds contempt, and eventually the contempt would be viewed against him. "Gee, Judge Moore, I'm only doing what you did. I didn't like your order, so I am ignoring it."

He's gone, and I hope he isn't a judge again.

And kudos to William Pryor, the conservative Alabama Attorney General, for his duty at great political risk and prosecuting Judge Moore whether Pryor liked it or not.

Edited to add: "We are a government of laws and not of men," Pryor said. "This is not a matter about the Ten Commandments or states' rights."

Exactly.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Nightingale 0]

I would have no problem with his monument, had he built it on private property. Blatanty religious works such as that do not belong in public courthouses. I'd be saying that whether it was a christian, jewish, muslim, hindu, or whatever, kind of monument.

I'm very pleased with the results of this case. Justice has been done.

-Kris
**who, contrary to popular belief, is NOT an athiest**

[lawrocket 3]

I disagree. I think that religious speech is protected anywhere, so long as it doesn't amount to "establishment" of religion or "excessive entanglement" with religion.

But, he ignored a court order. That is intolerable. Hence, he should be given the boot.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[TheAnvil 0]

Good summary dude. I agree with you on both counts.

I almost wish that a Writ of Certiorari had been granted for Judge Moore's case though. It would have been nice to see how the Supremes dealt with it given that an inscription of the ten commandments is on the wall behind them.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Nightingale 0]

religious speech is protected anywhere....

but so is the rights of people not to have their TAX DOLLARS used to erect and maintain a monument on land that their tax dollars pay to maintain, to a religion they may or may not agree with.

I would have no problem if the judge wanted to stand in that spot all day and read the bible (as long as anyone of any other religion had the same freedom). Spending taxpayer money to promote a religion violates the separation of church and state.

Promote religion all you want... just don't do it on my buck.

[GARYC24 3]

The whole issue of the removale to me is a "bad" reason..not a "good" reason.
I don't know how it got there in the first place.
The same thing is being allowed in Texas..

And the guy that helped get him removed also commended him when he put it up..he now is just covering his "ass"..
This is just a step to remove "God" from the world as far as I concern...
They'll probably remove it from all the currency before the day I die..
Anyway..this was not a "good" thing a something America should be proud of!
Just more reason to me that the world is in a bunch of shit.

[Nightingale 0]

Gary,

If he'd built a monument to the pillars of islam, would you feel any differently?

[lawrocket 3]

Gary:

That prosecutor commended him for putting it up, but they guy actually did his fucking job, despite his personal views. He committed political suicide by doing it, too. I want that guy to work for me.

Nightingale:

Seems to be that Moore DID use his own money for the thing, which is why he was ordered to remove it.


Point again - Moore ignored a court order. HE deserved to get booted for it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Nightingale 0]

he may have used his own money to put it up...

but its taxpayer money that maintains the facility that he put it in, and taxpayer money that owns the floor its standing on, and taxpayer money that goes to keep the thing clean and in good condition. If he wanted to place a monument on property he or another private party owned, I would have no problem with it at all.

[SBS 0]

Here, Roy Moore undoubtedly knew better than anyone about the colleral bar rule and how it works.

----------

THIS is what I find most ironic about this case.

Whether or not the monument itsself was legal, what he did was absolutely not. He represents our legal system, and his arguement goes against the very establishment and principles that he has sworn to uphold. I heard his attorney say something to the effect that they believe that the law is the constitution, not how a few people interpret it...isn't that exactly what we paid him to do??? What an ass.

-S

_____________
I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness...

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Gary,

If he'd built a monument to the pillars of islam, would you feel any differently?

I find it very interesting that Gary felt compelled to answer this question via private message instead of in the public forum where the question was asked...

I wonder why.

[lawrocket 3]

Nightingale:

If that is the case, no priest may travel on public roads while in uniform. No person may display a crucifix on public land. No prayer may occur on public land. Why? Because public mony is used to maintain it, keep it clean, builds the pavement, and owns it.

Your rule is too strict. And, the Constitutional standard is not "zero entanglement." The standard is, "Excessive entanglement." Of course, one may view excessive as any reference whatsoever to religion as "excessive entanglement" if done on govt. property.

I disagree. May do. I find "excessive" to be a pretty high threshhold.

But, it is a hijack to this thread. My point was that Moore, right or wrong about the Ten Commandments issue, was dead wrong to disobey a court order.

Edited to add: Well said, SBS

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[GARYC24 3]

Because I felt like..

[Nightingale 0]

what it comes down to is that if they let the christians put a monument there, they have to let everyone else put one there too, or the government would be promoting a particular religion by showing it favor over others...

First Ammendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

the government will not endorse or oppose any particular religious viewpoint (or religion generally), and will not interfere with the right of citizens to practice their faith. As Thomas Jefferson put it, the American people created a "wall of separation between church and state."

By leaving the monument, the government could be said to be promoting christianity, since the monument was placed in a government building.

The priest can wear his collar the same as the leaders of other religions can wear their religious symbols... the law is the SAME for everyone. not so in the case of this courthouse.

Let everyone do it or no one. but keep it fair.

[lawrocket 3]

Well, can you see how there is ambiguity in your quoted stanza. That second part about "prohibiting free exercise thereof?"

Sure, every religion has a right to post some of its stuff. I don't have a problem with that. Perhaps some symbolic "Don't trust God" stuff would be allowed, too. I'm all for it.

Does is not seem to you that free-exercise is being abridged here? His money, his monument, the people's courthouse.

Yes, you make valid points. But, do you think that there may be, at least in theory, a prohibition on the free-exercise of religion?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Nightingale 0]

nope.

the government doesn't stop people from talking about their religion or attending the church of their choice.

the thing with the courthouse is that if you allow one monument in, you have to allow monuments to other religions in as well. The courthouse simply doesn't have room. It isn't practical. Since the government CANNOT reasonably permit EVERY religion equal access to space for monuments, therefore, the only fair decision is to not allow monuments in that courthouse at all. By only letting certain religions have monuments, they are showing favoritism towards those religions, which is unconstitutional.

All religions must be treated equally under the constitution. If one is permitted to do something, all must be permitted. if one is denied permission, all must be denied. I don't care which religion. Applies equally to all.

[lawrocket 3]

Correct. THat is a policy consideration that there is not enough room to let all religions do it. I agree with you.

But, it is disingenuous to state that not allowing persons to exercise their religions there is not a restraint on the exercise of it. It's like saying, "It is a restraint, but not REALLY a restraint."

Unfortunately, credibility is lost when the obvious is not admitted. Clearly, Moore's free exercise of religion in that courthouse is being impaired, even if that impairment is de minimus.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Nightingale 0]

Moore's free exercise of religion ends when it impedes others having equal opportunity to exercise their religion.

better?

[lawrocket 3]

Isn't that called "prohibiting free exercise" of religion?

Even if that means not everyone will get their chance?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,466]

>If that is the case, no priest may travel on public roads while in
> uniform. No person may display a crucifix on public land. No prayer
> may occur on public land. Why? Because public mony is used to
> maintain it, keep it clean, builds the pavement, and owns it.

The law makes a very clear distinction between the right to one's personal freedom and the right to use public property. There are very, very few laws describing what you can or cannot wear, say, read or sing. There are a great many public laws describing what you can or cannot do with skateboards, cars, airplanes, boom boxes, alcohol, monuments etc on public property. The two are not equivalent.

[lawrocket 3]

You are correct, bill. And the key distinction here is that it was a monument. I was merely pointing out that, if the rule were as she proposed, then it would be so broad and reaching so as to disallow those stated activities.

My statements were not a reflection of my understanding of the rules governing same. Rather, it provided examples of what would be prohibited under Nightingale's proposal.

That is all. It's why I started it with, "If that is the case."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,672]

Quote

>If that is the case, no priest may travel on public roads while in
> uniform. No person may display a crucifix on public land. No prayer
> may occur on public land. Why? Because public mony is used to
> maintain it, keep it clean, builds the pavement, and owns it.

The law makes a very clear distinction between the right to one's personal freedom and the right to use public property. There are very, very few laws describing what you can or cannot wear, say, read or sing. There are a great many public laws describing what you can or cannot do with skateboards, cars, airplanes, boom boxes, alcohol, monuments etc on public property. The two are not equivalent.

At what point do rollerblades become just shoes?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.