Panel Rules Justice Moore Failed to Respect & Comply with Law; Judge removed from Supreme Court

[ppaul]

Attorney General Bill Pryor Prosecutes Chief Justice Moore

Attorney General Bill Pryor Prosecutes Chief Justice Moore and Claims the Chief Justice is “Unrepentant” for Acknowledging God Notwithstanding Court Orders to the Contrary.

Q: And if you resume your duties as Chief Justice after this proceeding, you will continue to acknowledge God as you have testified that you would today?

A: That's right.

Q: No matter what any official says?

A: Absolutely.

The following is a partial transcript from yesterday’s trial of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore. Like Luther standing before the tribunal at the Diet of Worms, Chief Justice Roy Moore was explicitly condemned for being “unrepentant “ in his unwillingness to submit to a federal order prohibiting him from acknowledging God as a state official. Attorney General Bill Pryor demanded the Court of the Judiciary to immediately remove him from office for his refusal to deny God and for “inciting the public to support his misconduct.”

It must be stressed, that Attorney General Pryor did not cross-examine Chief Justice Moore on his future position towards Ten Commandment monuments, but only the issue of the acknowledgment of God as a public official. The following is a partial transcript of the concluding questions in the cross-examination of Chief Justice Moore by Attorney General Bill Pryor.

Q: Mr. Chief Justice? And your understanding is that the federal court ordered that you could not acknowledge God; isn’t that right?

A: Yes.

Q: And if you resume your duties as Chief Justice after this proceeding, you will continue to acknowledge God as you have testified that you would today?

A: That’s right.

Q: No matter what any official says?

A: Absolutely. Without – let me clarify that. Without an acknowledgement of God, I cannot do my duties. I must acknowledge God. It says so in the constitution of Alabama. It says so in the first amendment to the United States Constitution. It says so in everything I have read. So - -

Q: The only point I’m trying to clarify, Mr. Chief Justice, is not why, but only that, in fact, if you do resume your duties as Chief Justice, you will continue to do that [acknowledge God] without regard to what any other official says; isn’t that right?

A: Well, I’ll do the same thing this court did with starting a prayer; that’s an acknowledgement of God. Now, we did the same say thing that justices do when they place their hand on the Bible and say, “So help me God.” It’s an acknowledgement of God. The Alabama Supreme Court opened with, “God save the State and this Honorable Court.” It’s an acknowledgement of God. In my opinion, which I have written many opinions, acknowledging God is the source – a moral source of law. I think you must.

[Fawnn]

I think at least 50% of 'Evangelical Christians' are Christians out of hope of seeing their fellow man suffer in hell, not love of God or mankind. They are haters as vicious as the Spanish Inquisition or the KGB. They would happily burn every single person who doesn't worship at their church at the stake and toast marchmallows over the coals.

You are a sad, misguided man.... (And the more you talk, the more liberal you sound.)

... Besides, everybody knows that marshmallows absorb flavors, so careful consideration goes into what's burned at those stakes. ;)

[John Doe]

Bravo.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Meaningless symbolism and sops to tradition, nothing more. Wouldn't change a thing to be rid of them, you know.

Roy wanted to go beyond that, however.

[John Doe]

What law? Cite it please.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

he has been disbarred... he is now DONE with his legal career.

Perhaps as an attorney, but unless the reports I've heard are mistaken, the good people of Alabama can elect whomever they choose to be their judge. My guess is that this episode hasn't hurt him with this electorate.

[smith288]

read my posts please...

[Modernman]

Why, just because the law is written in gobbly gook so the average hi school grad from the 1950's can't understand it, that makes a lawyer superior some how.

The law isn't written as gobbly gook- it's written in a technical language, much like medical textbooks have their own language, accountants have their own set of terms etc. It can be a little dense, granted.

A judge needs to be proficient in a whole host of aspects of the law- evidence, procedure, substantive law. All judges have years of legal practice on top of their three years of legal education. A non-lawyer would be starting from scratch and would have to learn as he went. You think you've seen bad decisions from judges now? Imagine what it would be like if laymen sat on the bench and decided cases. Would you hire a layman to peform surgery on you, or a layman to design buildings?

[dts32041]

If a law can't be written in 25 words or less, it doesn't need to be written. If longer than 25 words, it is gobbly gook.

[xzins]

Meaningless symbolism and sops to tradition, nothing more. Wouldn't change a thing to be rid of them, you know.

I hear you saying, "Yes, they are acknowledgments of God."

I also hear you saying that we should stop putting "In God we Trust" on our money? Am I hearing you correctly?

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Do the words "meaningless tradition" have any meaning to you? Its like wigs in English courts.

And yes, you could remove "In God We Trust" from the money - I can't say as having it on there particularly adds to its value.

[Modernman]

If a law can't be written in 25 words or less, it doesn't need to be written. If longer than 25 words, it is gobbly gook.

Try writing complex securities law in 25 words or less, or do you think stocks sold on the NYSE can be regulated in 25 words or less? Try drafting a bancruptcy code that protects the interests of the debtor, creditor and third-parties in 25 words or less. Or do you think we don't need those laws?

Keep in mind, the shorter the text of a codified law, the more discretion you give judges to interpret the law.

[dts32041]

Yes to all, if the language is concise, no interpatiation allowed.

WE have over complicated our lives and lawyers are to blame.

[Modernman]

Yes to all, if the language is concise, no interpatiation allowed.

What you're proposing is impossible. As an experiment, try drafting, in 25 words or less, a bancruptcy law. Or, to be less esoteric, try writing a law outlawing murder in 25 words or less.

WE have over complicated our lives and lawyers are to blame.

Our society and economy has gotten more complicated. It's only natural that we're going to have a more complex legal system.

[xzins]

CP, My deepest commendation on being consistent. Many will not say, "Yep, let's clean it all out or let it all in."

You are on the "clean it all out" side. At least you're intellectually honest and don't deny the presence of the elephant in the room.

However, acknowledgment that it should be cleaned out is also acknowledgment that there IS "God talk" in official places/documents/instrumentalities of the U.S. Government.

[CobaltBlue]

Moore's case wasn't about his right to acknowledge God.

It was about his right to force everybody else in Alabama to acknowledge God as he saw fit.

[xzins]

I think it was about his right to acknowledge God.

The money says, "In God we Trust." The courts begin with "God save the court." People put their hands on bibles and swear, "so help me God." All of this is by design and encouragment of the government.

It's insane logic that tries to say these are not official acknowledgements of God by the government.

At least Chancellor Palpatine is consistent. He says, "Get rid of it all."

[lugsoul]

This guy has some serious demagogue mojo going on:

"In North Georgia's Barrow County, where another Ten Commandments controversy simmers, Moore is a hero to people such as Nancy Currin. Currin showed up with her lawn chair Monday night for a protest meeting aimed at keeping a Commandments plaque in the Barrow County Courthouse. The ACLU has sued to force that plaque's removal. If Moore ran for any office in Georgia, Currin said, he'd get her vote. "I'd crawl and go down there and vote for him," Currin said. "He needs to get in the Republican Party and run. If he ran as a Democrat, I'd vote for him. I'd hate to do it, but I would."

[John Doe]

Cite the law please.