Alabama Supreme Court

[Ned]

Mordoch, I do not disagree with looking to legislative intent to determine whether a particular law is unconstitutional, what I am asking for is different. Moore stands accussed of believing in God and saying he does. He places the Ten Commandments in the foyer of the Surpreme Court building to demonstrate his beliefs.

1) Are his beliefs unconstitutional?
2) Are his displays of his beliefs unconstitutional?

[Imran Siddiqui]

His believes are not unconstitutional. However, his DISPLAYS are. Especially because he is an agent for the State of Alabama in his official position as Supreme Court Justice and this display is in the public area of the building.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Ned
2) Are his displays of his beliefs unconstitutional?

In a public place in this manner absolutely! Perhaps a more obvious and less arguable example would be if a public school teacher during her first grade classes repeatedly expressed her opinion that all non-Catholics will burn in hellfire and damnation, and the school district for some reason backed her saying these sorts of things and didn't stop or reprimand her in any way, an injunction against this sort of conduct could be granted on constitutional grounds.

The Justice in this case also took action based on his beliefs by placing the monument in the public building. If a justice stated that he was giving the convicted individual a harsher sentance because he believes that the perpetrator was more evil since he was an athiest, (lets assume the crime in no way directly related to religious beliefs) the judge would be in some serious constitutional hot water.

[Ned]

I remember a recent case where a teacher was suspended for wearing a crucifix - or was it a student.

Is this now the law? That public authorities cannot demonstrate their religious beliefs?

How is this in any way different from every president citing God in their speeches and having a prayer before every inauguration?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I remember a recent case where a teacher was suspended for wearing a crucifix

IIRC, it was because she was talking about Christ in the classroom and when she was disciplined, this was her way of protest. A huge cross. It was intended to be insubordinante (since she didn't do it before, IIRC).

How is this in any way different from every president citing God in their speeches and having a prayer before every inauguration?

Citing God in speeches is part of free speech. It's intent isn't to convert or show that the government supports a certain believe. It is known to be personal. Same with prayers before inaugurations.

[Kuciwalker]

This thread is still going?

I know it hasn't reached five hundred, but it's about time for this thing to kick the bucket.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Mordoch

The Justice in this case also took action based on his beliefs by placing the monument in the public building. If a justice stated that he was giving the convicted individual a harsher sentance because he believes that the perpetrator was more evil since he was an athiest, (lets assume the crime in no way directly related to religious beliefs) the judge would be in some serious constitutional hot water.

Ah Ha! Now we are getting to the bottom line, it appears. Suppose Justice Moore ruled against abortion and citied God as the basis for his decision. (I sincerely doubt that Moore would impose a more severe sentence just because the convict was an atheist. That is not the worry of the people who oppose Moore. Abortion and issues like that are their real worry.) If he did this, his opinion would simply be overturned by the Supremes, not so?

[Ned]

Originally posted by skywalker
This thread is still going?

I know it hasn't reached five hundred, but it's about time for this thing to kick the bucket.

I will stop if and when the issues are fully explored, or the other side stops responding.

This case raise a number of interesting legal issues of first impression. I actually think the Supreme Court will take this case.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Ned
Ah Ha! Now we are getting to the bottom line, it appears. Suppose Justice Moore ruled against abortion and citied God as the basis for his decision. (I sincerely doubt that Moore would impose a more severe sentence just because the convict was an atheist. That is not the worry of the people who oppose Moore. Abortion and issues like that are their real worry.) If he did this, his opinion would simply be overturned by the Supremes, not so?

Certainly such a ruling would be increadibly problematic, since not all religions object or argue that abortions are immoral. As a Reform Jew, during confirmation class the Rabbi at our temple advised us that according to his interpretation of passages in the Kabballa, abortions are not objectionable from a religious perspective. The reason for this is when several Rabbis are providing commentary on whether a baby being born can be killed in order to save a mothers life, one Rabbi argues that it is permissible because the baby has no soul until it draws its first breath. Since the key distinction between animals and humans is the posession of a soul, there is therefore no difference between fetuses and animals. Therefore abortions are fine according to Reform Judaism.

Why should judge Moore be allowed to impose his religious beliefs over mine with an abortion ruling? Yes a verdict can be appealed, but it takes many months for the Supreme Court to take appeals. If someone was appealing a ruling in order to get an abortion, it would be too late by the time the Supreme Court ruled on the case. At the very least, the additional delay from Judge Moore giving wacky religiously grounded ruling would do enourmous inconvenience to citizenry in the state of Alabama.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If he did this, his opinion would simply be overturned by the Supremes, not so?

Yes, they would rebuke Judge Moore if he did so. They may not overturn the decision if on a legal issue the person he ruled for was correct, but I'd expect a yelling at Judge Moore.

[Ned]

Take this from a different point of view. How could Moore, by himself, establish Christianity as the sole religion in Alabama?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because of his position as a Supreme Court Justice relying on Christianity in a LEGAL opinion, thereby equating Christianity with the law, is an establishment.

[Nubclear]

The guy violated the law. He should go to jail. Barring that: The guy violated the court of law. He should go to jail.

Issue done, case closed.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Because of his position as a Supreme Court Justice relying on Christianity in a LEGAL opinion, thereby equating Christianity with the law, is an establishment.

A king can establish a religion by edict. A legistlature can establish religion by statute. A supreme court can establish religion by a court order.

But, how can a single judge who has no power himself to issue orders, but only with the concurrence of the majority of a court, establish a religion?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because he has the power to do so. A person of such power, backing religion to such an extent to where you have a religious monument on the steps of a Supreme Court, is definetly an establishment of the Christian religion.

After all, isn't it elevating that religion above others? What about those believes that don't like the 10 Commandments? But you have this religious monument smack in the middle of the body that DECIDES THE LAW!

The only greater establishment of religion would be if the Court declared the official religion of the State of Alabama to be Baptist, and the State would have pay money to that Church.