Alabama Supreme Court

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Courts are to adminster the law.

And, according to the SCOTUS in 1980, the posting of the Ten Commandments on government buildings is illegal. Good thing the rest of Moore's court is following the law by opposing him.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by mrmitchell


Remember...part of the big reason why foreigners (some of them) say "I want to go to America and become a fat lazy capitalist pig" is because we have rules to protect our minorities...and not just racial minorities. Minorities by creed, gender, race, ethnic group, whatever, should be equal citizens in the eyes of the law. If the law (the judge in this case pretty much equals the law, if you want me to simplify like that) endorses even a majority group, it distorts the law's vision, or opens up the possibility for this.

I dont have time for a long reply to this. You dont have to look very far to see that all laws oppress someone who has a different opinion.

[Berzerker]

Asher -

Did you not comprehend it when I said morality is a very stupid thing to ask permission about, especially on a web forum?

Of course, that's why we're debating whether or not it is actually stupid to place morality above the law.

People who ask strangers online if it's "okay" to disobey laws in the moral sense is screwed in the head.

Why? All you've said is that people have different morals and I asked if it was moral for the people running the Underground Railroad, etc., to defy the law and you didn't respond.

I suppose I was giving him too much credit by assuming he meant legal way to ignore the ruling...

Hmm...I thought it was just you not comprehending what he said.

[SpencerH]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Alabama Supreme Court

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Irrelevant, since his actions are illegal and unconstitutional. The majority opinion simply doesn't matter when it comes to violations of the establishment clause.

That's still to be determined. Last time I looked the Supremes were the final arbiter of that.

[Boris Godunov]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Alabama Supreme Court

Originally posted by SpencerH
That's still to be determined. Last time I looked the Supremes were the final arbiter of that.

They arbitrated on it in 1980, so there's no question, which is why (IMO) they dismissed his emergency request so easily.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Odin
As an atheist, I wish I cold smack that judge so hard for his bigotry.

The bigots are the atheist who can't tolerate even a stone monument because it has a religious aspect to it.

[SpencerH]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Alabama Supreme Court

Originally posted by molly bloom

Same goes for women. Take their damned votes away!
Never trust anything that bleeds for days and won't die!

Halellueua (**** I dont know how to spell it)!

We've got a convert to the dark side. I knew someone would come around.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The diplomat
The bigots are the atheist who can't tolerate even a stone monument because it has a religious aspect to it.

It's disingenuous to pretend this is an atheist vs. Christian issue, since the 8 justices who stood up to Moore are all Christians.

It's also disingenuous to maintain that it is just a religious "aspect." Moore has openly stated the fundamental purpose of the monument is religious, plain and simple.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Berzerker
MtG -

The word "law" in the 1st Amendment refers to congressional legislation as the words "Congress shall make no law" indicates, not "administrative" actions that have no force of law on others.

So apparently it's optional for employees of the state supreme court to pay attention to directives of the chief justice as the administrative head of the state judiciary, because his directives have no force of law? Ok, then, problem solved.

Would that mean every politician who mentioned God throughout US history was passing a law in violation of the establishment clause?

So let's see, for your argument, "law" is to be construed as narrowly as possible, and only apply Establishment Clause restrictions to one branch of the Federal government, (oh and let's not forget the Fourteenth Amendment's application to the states here), but now an administrative order to erect a prominent monument in a public area of a state government building, made by a senior official in connection executing his official duties is to be equated to any abstract "mention" of God by any politician? Sorry, I'm not playing those kind of definition games all night. Maybe Ming or somebody's up for MP civ. Maybe if Congress calls it an "act" instead of a law, they can join the other two branches of government in immunity from the Establishment Clause?

How about all those religious sentiments on monuments dotting the Washington landscape?

Historical monuments in parks do not have the same impact as an announced intention to make "acknowledging God" a part of the mission of the highest judicial court in a given jurisdiction.

If there was a public park or mall outside the court building, and Judge Moore wanted his monument there, I'd have no problem with it. Hell, if he wanted it exactly where it is, but took the position that it relates to legal history and foundation, rather than proclaiming that he's going to make acknowledging God (as he interprets God) part of the mission of the Alabama Supreme Court, then the intent behind the action is squarely in violation of the Establishment Clause.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Moore has every right to practice his beliefs in private, but none to use government time or resources to impress his views on his citizens. It is an abuse of his position of authority to allow it to continue. Judges are appointed to be judges, not religious demogogues.

So the message is, "You can be a Christian, just not in public where we can see you."?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Alabama Supreme Court

Originally posted by SpencerH


Halellueua (**** I dont know how to spell it)!

We've got a convert to the dark side. I knew someone would come around.

Hallelujah, BTW.

[SpencerH]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Alabama Supreme Court

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

They arbitrated on it in 1980, so there's no question, which is why (IMO) they dismissed his emergency request so easily.

They dismissed this particular stay but this question isnt over. Moore is a looney (IMO) but just like the tree huggers he puts the question out there so that it cant be ignored.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

It's disingenuous to pretend this is an atheist vs. Christian issue, since the 8 justices who stood up to Moore are all Christians.

It's also disingenuous to maintain that it is just a religious "aspect." Moore has openly stated the fundamental purpose of the monument is religious, plain and simple.

Diplomat needs to get his head out of Jerry Falwell's ass. Same with the whole Bible Belt.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The diplomat
So the message is, "You can be a Christian, just not in public where we can see you."?

How is his imposing a monument on a public building required of him in order to profess his Christianity? You're dodging the issue, which is that he has superceded his authority by illegally placing a personal statement of religious faith in a public government space.

He can profess to be Christian all he likes to anyone he likes. He cannot use government property to display his religious creed in this manner.

[Odin]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Alabama Supreme Court

Originally posted by SpencerH


They dismissed this particular stay but this question isnt over. Moore is a looney (IMO) but just like the tree huggers he puts the question out there so that it cant be ignored.

HEY! don't compare that moron with us tree huggers!