Sorry, Roy

Everyone's favorite idol worshipper, Judge Roy Moore, is sorely vexed to learn that his case for keeping a monument to the 10 Commandments on public property is so patently bereft of legal merit that the Supreme Court has refused to even grant cert. A hearing mid-month will determine whether Moore's defiance of repeated court orders to remove the monument is enough to lose him his chief justiceship on the Alabama Supreme Court. If so, add one more martyr bullet point to his campaign for whatever political office he seeks next.

Comments

[Stephen Fetchet]

Julian, your comment that Moore's claims are "so patently bereft of legal merit that the Supreme Court has refused to even grant cert" is assinine.

The Supreme Court gets around 6,000 to 8,000 petitions for certiorari each year. It only grants cert in 80 to 100 cases annually. This doesn?t mean that the other 7,900 appellants have claims that are ?patently devoid of legal merit.? It merely means that the Supreme Court doesn?t think the question is important enough to merit answering, or it?s not an interesting legal question, or the case isn?t in a good posture that would permit effective treatment by an appellate court; or maybe the court is trying to preserve it's scarcest resource, docket spaces.

Yeah, it?s possible that Moore?s claims are legally meritless and the court felt that way, but the denial of cert doesn?t say that, and can?t be cited as proof of a lack of merit.

To interpret the denial of cert as conclusive evidence of frivolity is patently wrong. For a mag named Reason...

[Anonymous]

Fetchet:

You mean asinine.

And are you arguing that Moore's petition DOES have legal merit, or just trying to bust Julian's chops for interpreting Scotus?

[thoreau]

I recall seeing a Supreme Court Justice on CSPAN say that one of his biggest criteria (but not his only criterion) for voting to hear a case is whether or not different appellate courts are issuing conflicting verdicts on something. If all the lower courts seem to be interpreting the law the same way, he said he's inclined to leave it alone (with some exceptions, of course). If there's a problem with the common interpretation the legislative branch can always change the law.

Since religious displays on public grounds have not fared well in many courts (rightly or wrongly), it seems unlikely that the Supreme Court would want to wade into it. On the other hand, the pledge of allegiance ruling is (rightly or wrongly) a significant departure from a common practice, so it makes sense that the Supreme Court would want to sort out the question one way or another.

One might disagree or agree with particular rulings, but the notion that a court of last resort should save most of its resources for controversies where lower courts have no consensus seems to be a good one.

[D.A. Ridgely]

The *only* thing the Supreme Court's failure to grant a petition for a writ of certiorari *ever* means is that the petition didn't get four votes.

[Jean Bart]

Stephen Fetchet,

Well it certainly didn't have enough legal merit to survive the Supreme Court's vetting process; in other words, if the Supreme Court really cared about this issue, they would have taken it on. Clearly those cases accepted have more legal merit than the case dropped; if they don't, can you think up another explanation for their adoption over Moore's case? Or are you going to merely complain that the US Supreme Court is full of venom and bias toward Moore's claim?

[Diego]

The "so patently bereft of legal merit" comment is so patently wrong that I felt obligated to comment myself. I'm glad to see Stephen Fetchet was already there and he is right on. A denial of cert. is not a comment on the legal merit of the issue.

I'm repeatedly disappointed at reporters and pundits who insist on implying that a denial of cert. is somehow an endorsement of the lower court's opinion. It isn't.

[mak_nas]

while i understand with dispassion the court's refusal to review this case as an acknowledgement of existing case law as clear and unconflicting, i will be more interested in watching proceedings surrounding moore's removal from the alabama supreme court.

regardless of his religious irrationality, moore did in fact repeatedly refuse to obey the law as he so certainly knows it to be interpreted, as well as binding court orders intended to get him to comply with that law. can any such person be trusted with any aspect of law enforcement in an non-theocratic government? i should say not -- but this will clearly be a test of the power of the religious right in the deep south to influence and intimidate a government of laws.

[Mark Fox]

Beneath Moore's wacky froth there must be some merit. Beyond Sanchez's reporting or comprehension of the legal system, it seems more significant to watch a cross-bearing justice move from the honored dignity of the court into electoral proselytizing. That others see merit enough to vote for him is certainly fodder for debate.

[John Q.]

Wow, based on the number of commmenters that are gleefully attacking Julian over his interpretation of the Court's denial of cert, it appears that Judge Roy has a lot of fans here at the Reason site. Yep, he's a good ol' libertarian, that's right.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Judge Roy Moore sounds like a good name for WWF wrester.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Or should I have said "rassler."

[Julian Sanchez]

Look, I know the Court has only a limited number of spots on the docket and has to 86 plenty of petitions. But I can't help but think that a case this high-profile could've mustered four votes if there was a sense that the lower courts had deviated in some significant way from well-established SC precedent.

[matt]

Well i guess federalism is on its last leg here. It saddens that supposed libertarians can't see the danger in a federal judiciary increasingly usurping more and more power. Its the same thing with the sodomy case in Texas. I don't support the sodomy law or the 10 Commandments in the courhouse, but what I fear more than any misguided sodomy law or silly 10 Commandments monument is a federal judiciary that feels it can do whatever it wants. Sure, when they rule in a way that's agreeable to libertarians then its all good. But what about when they strike down medicinal marijuana laws and such?

[The Late Eugene ("Bull") Conno]

I tell you, I'm turning over in my grave at the behavior of this Roy Moore guy. Judge Moore reminds me of that damned negro troublemaker Martin Luther King, whose legal arguments were very similar to Moore's.

You see, back in April 1963, this King fellow wanted to have a demonstration in Birmingham, Alabama, in support of having the whites and the coloreds sit together in restaurants and a bunch of other foolishness. I was the political boss of Birmingham at the time, and I wasn't about to allow that kind of demonstration.

We had a municipal ordinance in Birmingham saying that you couldn't have a parade in Birmingham without a permit from the city government. In practice, that meant a permit from *me.* Since I wasn't about to give King and his people a permit, any demonstration by him would violate the ordinance. But I knew that if we just arrested them for defying the ordinance, King would make a lot of fancy legal arguments about freedom of expression and all that crap.

But I found a way to use that ordinance against King anyway. You see, I got a local court to issue an order requiring King and his associates to obey the ordinance. When King, et. al. went ahead and demonstrated anyway, they were not just violating the ordinance, they were violating a court order, so I had them charged with contempt of court. This was the arrest that prompted King's famous "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," where he talked about civil disobediance to unjust laws, blah blah blah. He also whined that our city ordinance was unconstitutional.

Later, the U. S. Supreme Court said that our ordinance was, indeed, unconstitutional, because I'd been using it to discriminate against people like King (well, duh!). The Supreme Court also said, however, that King and his pals had to go to prison for disobeying the court order requiring him to obey the ordinance. So the ordinance was unconstitutional, but a court order requiring obediance to that ordinance was constitutional. It all makes perfect sense.

(see *Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham,* 394 U. S. 147, 1969. *Walker v. Birmingham,* 388 U. S. 307
(1967) *Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham,* 394 U. S. 147, 1969).

I nailed King for doing exactly what Roy Moore did - disobeying a court order which he deemed to be unconstitutional. Just like King said that the court order against him violated the First Amendment, this Judge Moore fellow says that the court order against *him* violated the Tenth Amendment (reserved powers of the states). Well, I'm all for states' rights when it comes to beating up negroes, but Judge Moore seems to be taking states' rights a little too seriously.

Back when I was putting King in jail, all the un-American traitors were putting up a big howl about how King shouldn't be punished for disobeying an unconstitutional court order. Fortunately, these people have now come to their senses. In the case of Judge Moore, they have discovered what I knew all along: You can't disobey a court order just because the court order violates some provision of the Bill of Rights. No, you gotta obey the order no matter what. You gotta say, "thank you, sir, may I have another?"

King disobeyed a court order requiring him to give up his First Amendment rights. Moore disobeyed a court order requiring him to give up his Tenth Amendment prerogatives as a state official. They mocked me when I put King in prison (for just five days, alas). Now that Moore is threatened with losing his job, the same sort of people who opposed me are finally endorsing my arguments. Sweet vindication! Maybe now they'll abolish King's holiday and make a federal holiday for *me.*

[thoreau]

Matt-

Why is it that defenders of federalism are most vocal about federalism when state officials are ordered to respect individual liberty (e.g. sodomy laws) or stop mixing religion and public functions (e.g. Roy Moore)? A person who wants a smaller federal government can find plenty of good market-based arguments against, say, the EPA.

But when a federal court does something like overturn sodomy laws, there's only one half-way respectable argument, and that's federalism. And to be honest, I don't see federalism as very compelling in such cases. My priorities go something like this:

1) Individual rights
2) Keep government officials at all levels on a short leash
3) Protect the prerogatives of local government rather than the federal government.

If federalist concerns conflict with individual liberty, federalism takes a back seat as far as I'm concerned.

So I guess I fit your stereotype: I only care about federalism when it advances libertarian concerns (i.e. individual liberty). Individual rights should always take priority over the state and local government.

[Anonymous]

The Supreme Court also said, however, that King and his pals had to go to prison for disobeying the court order requiring him to obey the ordinance.

which is, of course, the best reason of all to see moore and anyone else who puts personal interests ahead of law expelled from the judiciary.

[Ratherworried]

A little legal edjukashun can be dangerous. Failure by an appellate court to accept a case on Certiorari is not a decision on the legal merits of the case. Not even this one.

[Stephen Fetchet]

Actually, my reason for commenting is not that I like Judge Moore. It's that I can't stand snarky posing passing itself off as legal commentary. As to the merits of Julian's "legal analysis", D.A. Ridgely, above, summed up the Supreme Court's cert denial process best:

The *only* thing the Supreme Court's failure to grant a petition for a writ of certiorari *ever* means is that the petition didn't get four votes.

That's more concise than I could have put it. Anything beyond that conclusion is conjecture at best.

As to my feelings about Moore, he's a jackass and a crummy judge & lawyer. All that we in the legal profession have is fidelity to the law; once we lose that, we aren't lawyers any more, just loudmouths with an opinion. Any judge who substitutes his judgement for the judgments of higher courts is no judge or lawyer. He's just another jackass with an opinion. Moore's politics are irrelevant to me, as is his religion; his small numbers of wingnut supporters are irrelevant to me. What matters to me is that his infidelity to the law makes him just as bad as the most activist left wing statist judge out there, and he gives any person of the right - conservative or right-leaning libertarian - a bad name. Never mind the damage he has wrought to the millions of God-fearing, but law abiding Christians, whom the media joyously conflates with Lawless Roy's followers.

Should Moore have just given up without a fight on this issue? Well, not necessarily. His argument wasn't good, but it wasn't entirely without merit. It's okay to make a non-frivolous argument in an attempt to change the law, and it's okay to raise a claim like Moore's claim, even when it looks like a cut & dried issue, so long as the case isn't identical to another case raised and disposed of in a court with jurisdiction over your claim. Arguing that the traditions of the country (tradition at the time of the enactment of the Constitution being a valid basis for interpretation) is a fair argument, even if you know you are going to lose.

But it is a flat out violation of the law to thumb one's nose at court orders, and Moore deserves whatever professional sanction comes his way. If I was sitting on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and he defied me, his holy rolling ass would be rotting in an Atlanta hoosegow on contempt charges.

I don't think there's no federalism issue here either. The First Amendment is binding on the states, and the federal courts have the jurisdiction, per the Constitution and Congress' lawful acts granting jurisdiction, to hear federal question cases. Would I feel better if federal courts had a tougher time ordering state judges around? Well, actually, they do have a tough time with it, and it's pretty uncommon to see a federal court interfering with ongoing state court proceedings, thanks to a variety of excruciatingly boring federal jurisdictional doctrines. Those doctrines aren't implicated here, however, and Moore isn't being ordered around inside his courtroom - so the 11th Circuit isn't substituting it's judgement for state court discretion. Instead, Justice Moore is being ordered around for his actions outside the courtroom, where he isn't a judge, but just another state official who has run afoul of federal law.

As for the legal merits of Moore's case, I think he's probably wrong because he elevates the display of the 10 Commandments over other displays of the law. There's pretty clear case law on point saying that you can have religious imagery like the 10 Commandments in the court room, so long as it is used for (1) solemnizing (think about testimony after an oath on the bible or the Baliff's "God save this honorable court"); or (2) part of an array of things relating to the law, such as the Supreme Court's own frieze which depicts Hamurabbi's code, the 10 Commandments, the Justinian Code and other historical (and occasionally religious) legal icons.

What is prohibited is an establishment of religion, a state showing of favoritism of one religion over the others. Moore's granite rock could have been made Constitutional were there other similar displays of the law in that rotunda - even religiously based law displays. Put out a 6,200 pound block with the Justinian Code, another similar block with some of the code of the original Roman Republic, and you just might get away with it. But putting the 10 Commandments on a single monolith, with nothing else, is pretty likely unconstitutional.

And Jean Bart, you are simply talking out the ass about Supreme Court procedures. The Court rejects thousands of cases that have plenty of merit; they just don't have the resources to take on many more cases than they already have.
And frankly, I don't think the Court cares either way about Moore, except perhaps to view him as an embarassment to the judiciary, but they probably aren't alone in that. Three or four of them likely agree with Moore on the policy point, that the 10 Commandments ought to be displayed in courthouses; but I would bet that his contempt of the 11th Circuit doomed his case to failure, regardless of the merits. The Supreme Court simply can't support a state supreme court justice who defies federal judges. This has nothing to do with merits, and everything to do with judicial decorum and ethics.

[Mark Bahner]

"Wow, based on the number of commmenters that are gleefully attacking Julian over his interpretation of the Court's denial of cert, it appears that Judge Roy has a lot of fans here at the Reason site. Yep, he's a good ol' libertarian, that's right."

It's got nothing to do with Judge Roy being a libertarian...or not.

It has to do with whether Julian's characterization is accurate or not. Julian wrote that Moore's case was "so patently bereft of legal merit that the Supreme Court has refused to even grant cert."

Several commenters have made *very* strong arguments that Julian's characterization is simply wrong...that failing to grant cert has almost nothing to do with merit.

Julian's characterization was either right or wrong. The fact that he's a libertarian doesn't make his characterization more right (or more wrong).

[Julian Sanchez]

Stephen:
I'm well aware that technically a denial of cert doesn't constitute a ruling on the legal merit of the case. But the assessment of the merits of the case isn't wholly separable from the cert question either. One of the things that's supposed to dispose them to grant cert, for instance, is if the lower court is deviating in some signifcant way from SC precedent. A denial of cert at least implicitly suggests that (at least six of) the justices considered this not to be such a case. It's not necessarily the case, but I'd be surprised if they didn't hear the case if the lower courts had been way the hell out in left field.

[Anonymous]

"I tell you, I'm turning over in my grave at the behavior of this Roy Moore guy. Judge Moore reminds me of that damned negro troublemaker Martin Luther King, whose legal arguments were very similar to Moore's."

There is a HUGE difference between Martin Luther King, and Judge Roy Moore. Martin Luther King was a private citizen. Judge Roy Moore was (is) an Officer of the Court.

Judge Roy Moore took an oath to follow the U.S. Constitution. If he ever felt that he could no longer faithfully follow that oath, he should have resigned.

Private citizens can break the law, with the idea that they are following a "higher law." Someone who takes an *oath* to follow the Constitution does *not* have that luxury.

[matt]

thoreau,

Very few states today protect individual rights to the extent I think most libertarians would like, but the feds have the potential to do much worse. Once you give the feds the opportunity to start overturning every state law they see fit then I think you have a real problem. I look past minor absurdities like the sodomy law and 10 Commandments and try to see the bigger picture. Once the federal courts are given the power to basically overturn whatever state law they want what protection do we have left against the State? Sure, some state laws may be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights (I don't believe the Bill of Rights applies to the states but that's another argument I guess), but if one state becomes to tyrannical you can move to another state. Where do you go once the federal govenment becomes to tyrannical? Canada?

I agree individual rights should triumph all other rights, but in the interest of liberty states rights should also provide a check on the feds. In the current environment states rights I believe are more important than ever.

[R. C. Dean]

Julian, the Court takes a lot of factors into consideration when looking at whether to take cert. I wouldn't be bit surprised if they turned this one down because it is so high profile, in fact. The Justices are very canny about protecting the prerogatives and position of the judiciary, and I can see them wanting this one to just go away.

But, who knows why they denied cert? It is not unknown for the same issue to come up year after year, only to be turned away until it comes up in just the right kind of procedural or factual setting. Do you have any idea how many segregation cases were turned down by the Court before Brown v. Board of Education? Actually, I don't know either, but I would be very, very surprised to learn that Brown was the first case on that topic.

[Mark Bahner]

"King disobeyed a court order requiring him to give up his First Amendment rights. Moore disobeyed a court order requiring him to give up his Tenth Amendment prerogatives as a state official."

The problem is that Moore is not allowed to pick and choose amendments that he wishes to follow, and amendments that he does not. Virtually all legal opinion now holds that the 14th Amendment prevents state laws from establishing religion.

[Mark Bahner]

Oops. I posted the 5:29 PM comment that officials who take an oath to follow the Constitution don't have the luxury to later decide not to follow it, if the Constitution seems immoral to them.

[Mark Bahner]

"The First Amendment is binding on the states, and the federal courts have the jurisdiction, per the Constitution..."

Whoa! You seem to be implying that the First Amendment per se is binding on the states. It clearly was *not*...at least until the 14th Amendment was passed.

Some states actually had state-established religions, after the Constitution had been ratified.

[Eugene ("Bull") Connor, Deceas]

I don't see why people have to defend that guy Martin Luther King by saying he's better than Judge Moore. King, like Moore, said that the parade ordinance was contrary to the U. S. Constitution. When the U. S. Supreme Court upheld his conviction, he criticized the decision as contrary to law. In other words, he was spouting off about the Constitution, just like Moore, and, just like Moore, he claimed that his acts were legal, based on some technical gobbledegook about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

"Judge Roy Moore took an oath to follow the U.S. Constitution. If he ever felt that he could no longer faithfully follow that oath, he should have resigned."

If you want to get all technical, Judge Moore was *following* his oath to defend the Constitution when he stood up for the Tenth Amendment.

However, I'm not one of those fellows who harps on the Constitution. I am (at least I *was*) a man of action, and I never let some damned Constitution get in the way of what I wanted. When I ruled Birmingham, *I* was the law. In defying me, King broke this basic, fundamental law. I am glad to see that this tradition of dictatorial rule survives in the federal courts. Judge Moore, by preferring the Constitution to the edicts of the federal courts, was showing contempt for the principles of arbitrary rule that people like me and the federal judges embody.

As for letting King off the hook because he was a private citizen, King never stopped prating about his obligation to uphold the Constitution. He was always complaining about the Constitution this, the Constitution that, knowing full well that a strict enforcement of the Constitution would mean equal rights for coloreds, fair trials, free expression, and all that other Communist junk.

And King was a minister, claiming that his actions were justified by his religion. A clear breach of the separation of church and state! Thank God that sort of thing is frowned on today. Moore won't be allowed to get away with it like King did.

[Eugene Connor, RIP]

Yeah, and another thing - the vote on the Supreme Court to let King go to prison was 5-4. Many people, including lawyers and public officials, said that King had a right to disobey that court order. Here are some of the people who said King's behavior was legally defensible: Chief Justice Earl Warren, Associate Justice Abe Fortas, Associate Justice William Brennan, Associate Justice William Douglas, Solicitor General (and later Justice) Thurgood Marshall, Justice Department lawyer John Doar . . . you get the picture? The same gang of Communists who wanted to integrate *my* city.

Today, however, these Communists are showing some glimpses of sanity. When Judge Moores' case is concerned, they've finally come around to my view - that arbitrary power must be unconditionally respected and obeyed. If only they had upheld that principle back in my day, we could have stopped that King fellow.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have some mouldering to do.

[Xrlq]

"I'm well aware that technically a denial of cert doesn't constitute a ruling on the legal merit of the case. But the assessment of the merits of the case isn't wholly separable from the cert question either."

That's technically true to a point, but only to a point. The bottom line is that in any given year, only a tiny fraction of the cases brought to the SC's attention can or will be heard. Plenty can be inferred from the fact that cert is granted in any given case. All that should be inferred from the fact that it is denied is the possibility that the court didn't think the issue raised was quite as important as the elite few in which cert was granted. And sometimes it doesn't even mean that; it could simply mean that the court doesn't want to deal with that issue right now, and would rather wait for a case that presents its pet issue more squarely.

IOW, Julian, your best bet is to quit trying to explain away your asinine remark, admit you screwed up, and do better next time around.

[Anonymous]

Among other valid criticisms already posted, there is a world of difference between a legal case that 'is patently devoid of legal merit," and one that is so clearly correct that a contrary result would "deviate in some significant way from well-established SC precedent." Julian's not a legal expert, and he should be gracious about this little mistake instead of backpeddling.

[Mona]

I read only a handful of posts in this thread and want to strongly endorse what several others have already pointed out: a denial of cert means NOTHING about the merits of the case. SCOTUS necessarily practices a form of judicial triage, since it could not possibly hear all the cases petitioned to be heard. As has been noted, a split in the circuits on a reasonably important issue creates the best odds for a petition being granted. I've made these same points (which I first learned in law school) to right-wingers who crow when some federal circuit has upheld their position and the Supremes have declined to review the matter: that means NOTHING as to how the High Court views the merits.

[Julian Sanchez]

Goodness, what a bizarre avalanche. I may not be a legal expert, but nothing above is news to me, so nothing above inclines me to back off the original post. The court refrains from hearing cases for many reasons. But this case seems in every other way like a natural: It certainly seems at least as good a candidate, and probably a better one, than the Nedow case they've agreed to hear. So I don't buy six-plus justices taking a pass, except because they thought it pretty clear that Moore was spitting into the wind.

[s.w.]

At this point I gotta think Roy is just trolling, and my oh my is it ever working. gg Judge Moore.

[Mark Bahner]

"I don't see why people have to defend that guy Martin Luther King by saying he's better than Judge Moore."

No one said that. I said that Martin Luther King was a private citizen, whereas Judge Moore is an Officer of the Court. Judge Moore therefore presumably takes an oath to follow the U.S. Constitution, whereas a private citizen does not.

"If you want to get all technical, Judge Moore was *following* his oath to defend the Constitution when he stood up for the Tenth Amendment."

Like I wrote, his oath was to follow the ENTIRE Constitution, not just the amendments he is fond of. That includes the Fourteenth, as well as the Tenth Amendment. As I wrote, virtually all legal opinion holds that the Fourteenth Amendment means that *state* governments can no longer establish religion.

Judge Moore may think that he's right, and virtually all legal opinion is wrong. But courts above his beg to differ.

"However, I'm not one of those fellows who harps on the Constitution."

Yes, I'm no expert, but my impression was indeed that Bull Connor was not interested in the Constitution.

"I am (at least I *was*) a man of action, and I never let some damned Constitution get in the way of what I wanted."

Yes, my impression was that Bull Connor didn't care about the Supreme Law of the Land. Every person in government who takes an oath to follow the law, and then violates the Supreme Law of the Land (the Constitution), deserves to be held in contempt.

"When I ruled Birmingham, *I* was the law."

That's the Rule of Men, rather than the Rule of Law. That's tyranny, and every government employee that has that attitude deserves to be held in contempt.

"In defying me, King broke this basic, fundamental law."

There is no such law. The Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land.

"Judge Moore, by preferring the Constitution to the edicts of the federal courts,..."

He did not "prefer the Constitution." The Constitution includes the Fourteenth amendment. Judge Moore's oath included following the Fourteenth amendment.

"As for letting King off the hook because he was a private citizen,..."

Again, no one said anything about "letting King off the hook." It is appropriate for people who break the law to be tried. And if a court determines that they haven't broken the law, it is appropriate that they remain free (or be freed). This same standard applies to elected officials.

The only difference between an elected or appointed official and a private citizen is that the elected or appointed official takes an OATH to follow the law. And, as a matter of law, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. There is none higher. So if an elected official can not, in good conscience, follow the Constitution unswervingly, he or she should resign. Since private citizens don't take such oaths, there is nothing to resign from.

"...King never stopped prating about his obligation to uphold the Constitution."

Bull, you clearly have either forgotten, or never learned, anything about the Constitution. Private citizens do NOT have an "obligation to uphold the Constitution"...because they do NOT take an oath to do so. The Constitution is basically a set of rules for GOVERNMENT (federal mainly, but also states). It's not a set of rules for citizens.

"And King was a minister, claiming that his actions were justified by his religion. A clear breach of the separation of church and state!"

Martin Luther King was NOT an instrument of the State, Bull! But Judge Moore IS. Your death has apparently seriously degraded your mental facilities. 😉

"Yeah, and another thing..."

Why not simply admit you're babbling, and stop wasting bandwidth? 😉

"Many people, including lawyers and public officials, said that King had a right to disobey that court order."

Once again, Martin Luther King was a private citizen. Private citizens make no oaths to follow The Law. Elected and appointed government officials DO take an oath to follow the law. They should do so unswervingly, and without exception. Or they should resign.

Your attempt to analogize Judge Moore to be Martin Luther King, and the courts above Judge Moore's court to be Bull Connor is a complete failure. It's far closer to analogize Judge Moore to be Bull Connor.

"Now if you'll excuse me, I have some mouldering to do."

Or smouldering, as the case may be. :-/

[D.A. Ridgely]

Well, Julian, you asserted an apparently logical inference; namely, that Moore's position "is so patently bereft of legal merit that the Supreme Court has refused to even grant cert." All several of us have done is point out that your conclusion is by no means entailed by your premise. Might you be right? Of course. Is it clear that you are right. No. Is it appropriate to challenge your reasoning? Free minds in the free market of ideas would be inclined to think it is.

[Abu Hamza]

Roy Moore is hated, that's evident. Roy Moore's views and faith are hated, also, that's evident, too. But what Roy Moore is doing is courageous. See, he knows his actions with the 10 Commandments will cost him his career. He's doing it anyway. He's doing what he thinks is right even though it will hurt him. That is called "standing up for your principles," and even if you disagree with those principles, you have to respect that.

Now, on the issue of whether having a 10 Commandments monument in front of the Alabama Supreme Court is an "establishment of religion" in violation of the First Amendment, I don't know. But I do know this: in front of the federal courthouse, just blocks from the Alabama Supreme Court, there is a statue of the Greek goddess of wisdom, Athena. If having Roy's 10 Commandments monument in front of the state courthouse is an unconstitutional establishment of Christianity/Judaism/Monotheism/whatever, then isn't also the statue of Athena in front of the US Courthouse an unconstitutional establishment of greek mythology/paganism/whatever? ANSWER ME THAT, O YE LIBERTARIANS, ATHEISTS, CHRIST-HATERS, ACLU CLONES AND OTHERS. My answer is that neither the statue nor the monument are violations of the first amendment establishment clause. Discuss ....

[Gallers Donna]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://preteen-models.biz
DATE: 01/22/2004 12:08:58
Gratitude is the most exquisite form of courtesy.