rambling rants and ravings from me to no one

[Proud Eagle]

Brace yourselves for your daily break from reality.

 

 

------------------------------

 

 

As I am certain most of you know, the chief justice of the Alabama supreme court was removed for violations of the code of judicial cannons. I find this case to be an interesting one. I think the outcome was entirely predictable, and the appeal will find the same outcome.

 

I do have pitty for Judge Moore. It is rare that someone is punished in this country for doing what they truelly believe to be right. I happen to believe that the Judge does believe he did the right thing. He may very well have a point. His oath of office is to uphold the Constitution of the State of Alabama. That constitution makes clear reference to God and His role in our system of government. So it seems the judge was damned if he did or damned if didn't in this case. If he had followed the federal court ruling he would have violated his oath of office by denying the role of God in government. In this case, he refused to follow the order and was punished for violating a federal court order. (Actually he was punished by an unusual state court for violation of judicial ethics. [does anyone know if those cannons even have the full force of law?])

 

While we could debate the proper role of God in government until the proverbial cows come home, that would seem to be a waste of time. I base that assesment on old threads and the attitutes (mostly hopelessly stuborn, unable to even see opposing views) shown in those threads. Though that same assesment tells me that won't stop anyone from going there.

 

We could also debate the issue of federal supremecy over the states. However, that issue would likely end up just as stuck as that over God. Though I imagine that won't hold anyone back.

 

So, what I would instead like to discuss, is the issue as it relates to Judge Moore. Given his views, did he do the right thing? Would any of us be so compelled by an Oath as he was? Is someone with his views capable of acting as a judge, or even a lawyer? Can anyone of true faith be a judge? Does acknowledging, and attempting to follow, a law higher than that of any government create a conflict with the current goverment in the nation? What does it say about a nation created by those who wished to be able to hold the beliefs of their choosing, becomes a nation where some beliefs cannot be expressed if one wished to be one of the ultimate arbitars of worldly law and justice in this land?

 

I think the verdict in this case was well timed. At the same time it was released, the US Senate was in a 30 hour session over Judges. It seems the role of God is also related to the Senate's current gridlock. So the role of God, the courts, and judges seems to be a paramount issue at the moment. Yet, most people seem to be ignoring these issues. Do people not realise the importance of the debates going on and the decisions being made? The very future of the nation is decided by such things.

 

I think if people realised the implications of all that is going on there could very well be an uprising of sorts. The last great battles over federalism, state's rights, the role of religion in society, the rule of law v. the rule of man, the balance of power in the goverment, and the origin of our laws are all being fought one small overlookable skirmish at a time. If the populace realised where the battle lines are, and the stakes involved in victory or defeat, I think it would be both great and terrible what would then happen. (That assumes people still care. Most seem to have been coaxed into appathy, the most destructive of all feelings.)

 

 

There is cold war going on in this country. It is a war between two religions, two cultures, two societies, and two types of politics. It is fought not by the zealots of each side, but rather by the vast army of moderates who have been convinced to champion one cause or another. Then as soon as that battle is won, that verdict issued, that law passed, another cause will be promoted by another of the proxy warriors in this cold war. Most of these moderate proxies for the polar opposite cultures that are warring don't even know the full aims of the hard liners on their side.

 

So far history shows a general, but very slow trend towards, one side. That side to me appears to be the known by such myriad and conflicting titles as:

leftists, liberals, socialists, secularists, ultramodernists, globalists, social-anarchists, centralizers, environmentalists, animal-rights groups, class warriors, judicial activists, fascists, communists, moral-relativists, non-traditionalists, aethists, agnostics, special interests,

 

Perhaps there is no single guiding motive of these groups. Though they all seem to share in common one element. They all wish to chip away at, or destroy, or remake what we have into something we do not have now, nor have we ever had before. None wish to hold to traditions. Most are willing to sacrifice some of what is good about the past for some percieved better in the present, with no thought of the future.

 

There are days I truelly wonder if there is anyone left in goverment that is using reason, and common sense. Everyone seems to have their agendas. Some to create protected little special groups with extra protections. Some want to keep their neighbors from parking an RV in their own driveway. Some want central control of this, that, or the other program. Others wish the goverment would get rid of its laws because it interfears with their right to have drug fuled orgies while their children are home. Yet others think that all would be well if they could just stop pollution, no matter the social and economic costs. Some want to turn our schools into madrassas. Others want to tear apart even the war memorials to remove God from the public square. There are those who think that judicial ethics or cannons of conduct for lawyers are more important than the law itself. (There has been at least one case of a lawyer who was disbarred for reporting child abuse as required by law, but in breach of attorney client privlidge.)

 

Why is it that so many people want to turn this house we live in upside down, or inside out, or repaint it, or add an extra room, or tear it down and build a new one? It seems to me we have a pretty good house.

 

Maybe I am just a nut. Perhaps I am the only person with my views. I don't fit into any of the nice neat little political molds that society has crafted. I am neither a true Republican or Democrat. I don't think I hold any extreme views, but then someone goes and says only radicals think such and such way.

 

Yes, there would be advantages to being king. Then you would wouldn't have to worry what new idea all the lunatics would come up with. Instead, everyone else would have to worry about what you came up with.

 

Or, maybe it would be better if we just all had our own little islands, so we wouldn't have to worry about it.

 

 

 

 

 

-----------------------------------

 

 

OK. You can send the nice men with the white coat to take me away to the nice soft room now.(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

[Hunt]

I read an article the other day which made the argument that conservatives and Republicans are currently winning the "culture wars," and that they are beginning to admit it. CBS' decision to back down on the Reagan telebio was given as a prime example.

The amazing thing about the Judge Moore story is that so many people have come to his defense, when it has been clearly obvious for decades to anybody with any knowledge of the law that his actions were unlawful. He must have known this as well,and was deliberately acting as a provocateur, so he could cast himself as a victim of the liberals. I hope his efforts have backfired, when even conservatives realized that you can't flout the law.

While I do see some of the conflicts you describe, I don't buy the right's constant claim of victimhood.

[evmori]

What law did Judge Roy Moore violate?

[Rooster7]

...when it has been clearly obvious for decades to anybody with any knowledge of the law that his actions were unlawful.

 

Sorry, that dog don't hunt! ;-) Like you've never heard that before - eh?

 

Hunt,

 

It's not clear or obvious. In fact, if anything, I feel the clear and obvious stance is quite the opposite. Prior to the 1950's, our Supreme Court had an entirely different point of view. Since that time, there has always been a large contingent (if not a majority) of Americans that believe the current thinking that inspired the distorted mantra of "separation of church and state" (and the rulings of some previous Courts) is un-Constitutional. There is a huge distinction between the state forcing the practice of religion upon a willing citizenry and public references to God or even to a particular faith.

 

[Twocubdad]

Moore violated an order of the Federal court which required him to remove the monument from the courthouse. He refused to do so and the monument (and Moore) were ultimately removed by order of the other justices. I don't know the precise verbage, but he was charged with six different violations.

 

Richard Prior is the Alabama Attorney General who prosecutied Moore. He is also one of Bush's conservative judicial nominees the Senate Republicans "philabustered" over yesterday -- fairly high-level conservative credentials. He believes Moore should have been removed from office for refusing the Federal court order.

 

If the Chief Justice of the state supreme court can ignore a court order, what chance is there that anyone else will? You can debate the merits of the Moore's position, but if we can't count on a supreme court judge to follow the rules, then who?

[Be_Prepared]

Roy Moore has every right to acknowledge God, but no right to put himself above the law. The rule of law dictates that a losing party in a lawsuit follow court orders.

 

This was not about a public display of the Ten Commandments, but was about the state of Alabama's chief judicial officer's willful and public defiance of a court order.

[NJCubScouter]

Judge Moore was removed from office for intentionally violating a court order after being given numerous opportunities to obey it. The decision of the court that removed him is here:

 

http://www.judicial.state.al.us/documents/final.pdf

 

The final paragraph of that document makes clear what the issue was:

 

This court has found that Chief Justice Moore not only

willfully and publicly defied the orders of a United States

district court, but upon direct questioning by the court he

also gave the court no assurances that he would follow that

order or any similar order in the future. In fact, he

affirmed his earlier statements in which he said he would do

the same. Under these circumstances, there is no penalty

short of removal from office that would resolve this issue.

Anything short of removal would only serve to set up another

confrontation that would ultimately bring us back to where we

are today. This court unanimously concludes that Chief

Justice Moore should be removed from the office of Chief

Justice.

 

(Now back to me.)

 

I think that makes the issue clear. The Ten Commandments were not the issue. The issue was that a state official was ordered by a federal court to do something, and refused to do it. He appealed, the court of appeals agreed with the lower court, and the official still refused to do what he had been ordered to do. He tried to appeal to the Supreme Court, which decided not to hear the case.. The official continued in his defiance and announced that he would continue to do so. In plain language, he committed contempt of court. An ordinary citizen in a similar position would probably have found himself in jail.

 

I understand that Ed and Rooster and others do not agree with the basis of the court orders that Judge Moore defied. You have a right not to believe that what the federal courts say is the law, is the law. Judge Moore had, and still has, the right not to believe that as well. What he didn't have the right to do was to disobey the final order of a court with proper jurisdiction over the case.

 

[evmori]

But what law did judge Roy Moore violate by placing the 10 Commandments?

[Hunt]

He violated the Establishment Clause--as he well knew, evidenced by the fact that he brought the monument in under cover of night. Now he--and others--may disagree with interpretations of the Establishment Clause rendered by the federal courts in recent years, but this was an easy case. The monument was clearly installed for a religious purpose--something Moore didn't really try to deny.

You can certainly support Moore's actions as a form of civil disobedience, if you like

[NJCubScouter]

Ed, here is a link to the decision of the Court of Appeals:

 

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216708.pdf

 

It explains the whole thing, in 50 pages. There's no point in trying to summarize it.

[acco40]

I don't think a judge has the legal right to place a religious (or any other multi-ton statuary) on public property, in the middle of the night, for the express purpose promoting religion as he sees it.

 

[evmori]

The establishment of religion? How does placing the 10 Commandments in a public building establish a religion? What religion does it establish?

 

NJ,

I read this before but thabks for the link.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[SR540Beaver]

As a government official, he used his position to endorse his particualr religious views in a monument on government property and say that it was an official stance of the government. He violated the constitutions prohibition of officially recognizing a particular faith as part of the government. Hey, I'm a devout evangelical Christian just like Moore, but I'll call a spade a spade. My church wouldn't like me passing out literature for a political candidate in the halls between Sunday School and the Worship Service either. I'm not prohibited by the constitution like Moore was, but most churches choose to teach their doctrines and then let people develop their political stances as they see fit. They don't preach political philosophy and let you campaign on church grounds. Moore was very public in pushing his beliefs in the courthouse as part of his official capacity.

[NJCubScouter]

Ed, if you read the document, it answers your questions.

 

I myself have tried to answer the same questions from you about five different times, but you don't like my answers, so I'm not going to bother with it again. Anyway, I think SR540Beaver explained it well.

[evmori]

So by placing the 10 Commandments in the courthouse, he established a religion? Don't think so. What about his right to free speech & freedom of religion as defined under the 1st Ammendment? Wasn't that violated? And if not, why? And what religion did he establish? The Jewish religion? And by me signing my posts the way I do, am I establishing a religion?

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10