Ala. Judge Loses Ten Commandments Appeal

Washington Post ^ | July 1, 2003 | Associated Press

[Lurking Libertarian]

ATLANTA - A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that a Ten Commandments monument the size of a washing machine must be removed from the Alabama Supreme Court building.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed a ruling by a federal judge who said that the 2 1/2-ton granite monument, placed there by Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

[snip]

Moore put the monument in the rotunda of the courthouse in the middle of the night two summers ago. The monument features tablets bearing the Ten Commandments and historical quotations about the place of God in law.

[click link to read remainder of article]

[inquest]

If Judge Moore can do this, then Judge I.M. Antichrist can put up whatever he wants in the rotunda of his Supreme Court Building.

Constitutionally, he can. Realistically, it's unlikely that Mr. Antichrist will be confirmed as Chief Justice in the first place.

[Dog Gone]

Constitutionally, he can't. That's the point.

[inquest]

You're jumping from your argument in support of your conclusion to the conclusion itself. Why bother stating the argument if you're just going to say "That's the way it is and that's that."?

[jwalsh07]

There was a fellow once who banned all religious symbols from the public square. Do you think that was a good idea?

[Dog Gone]

Well, I thought I had made it earlier in the thread, so I guess I was trying to avoid repeating myself.

Have you read the actual opinion?

[squidly]

Of course you're right, but that doesn't change my point that things are likely to get ugly. Judge Moore isn't going to back down on this. It is his 10 Commandments schtick that got him elected Chief Justice to begin with. Believe it or not, that was the biggest plank in his platform when he ran for the office (welcome to Alabama). You ask me, he's going to ride it all the way to the governor's chair, and the feds are only helping him to get there by making an issue out of it.

[Dog Gone]

There was a fellow once who banned all religious symbols from the public square. Do you think that was a good idea?

Tell me the full facts. While law, even constitutional law, is about principles, facts play a very important role.

Read the opinion here, and you'll see what role they played.

But, as a very preliminary response to your question, I don't think the Constitution requires that.

[jwalsh07]

Tell me the full facts. While law, even constitutional law, is about principles, facts play a very important role.

I'm not sure what facts you need, the question is a simple one.

Is it your understanding that the first amendment prohibits religious displays on public property?

[FReepaholic]

>>...That discussion is accompanied by citations to the court decisions from 1962 and 1963 which forced Governors Wallace and Barnett to obey school desegregation orders...<<

Court decisions didn't force them to obey, the National Guard did, as I recall.

Question is, would George W. Bush call out the National Guard to force a conservative judge to remove the 10 Commandments??

And how would that look during a re-election bid??

[speedy]

As a born and raised Chadds Fordian (now in NYC), I'm glad to know that.

[FReepaholic]

>>...violates the constitutional separation of church and state. ...<<

Somebody show me where this is in the Constitution.

Where does it apply to a soveriegn State??

The First Amendment applies to Congress.

[Dog Gone]

I'm not sure what facts you need, the question is a simple one.

You're the one who mentioned a fellow, so you introduced a fact situation. I'm not sure why you're refusing to expound.

And I did give you an answer. Please read my response again.

[mdmathis6]

No...mr. Antichrist will assume the mantles of chief justic, congress, senate, and president all at once!

[Constantine XIII]

Vote for me! Whoo hoo! :p

[inquest]

Yes, I've read it. The court's lame attempt to distinguish this from the "In God We Trust" on our money is utterly unconvincing. They basically were trying to say that we really don't mean what we say on the money - it's just window dressing. Sounds like an atheist in denial to me.

There is no substantive difference between what appears on our coins and the Decalogue in that rotunda. They both express the exact same worldview.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

Maybe you're just wrong.