Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RufusAtticus · 11-18-2002, 01:22 PM

This is being discussed on BaptistBoard.

hezekiah jones · 11-18-2002, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Maturin:
[Y]ou can download the opinion and judgment entry in PDF (all 78 pages!) <a href="http://www.almd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Glassroth%20v%20Moore.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>.

That is some funny shit, and Moore's shenanigans must represent one of most (if not the most) egregious and wilful violations of the establishment clause in American history.

Moore refused an "atheist group" that requested to display a sculpture of "an atom." Haha. And Moore argued that one of the plaintiffs should have been able to handle the 10Cs "display," since she is thick-skinned, and is known as "the tiny tiger." Even unindicted co-conspirator D. James Kennedy's Coral Ridge Ministries make a cameo appearance. It's great to see stuff like that in these opinions.

Poor Judge Roy. Practically every precedent he cited is distinguishable from the present case. The accomodationists may complain that current establishment clause jurisprudence is a disaster, but when you fail all three prongs of the Lemon Test, and the endorsement and coercion tests, you know you're fucked. Even Scalia says you're fucked.

Have a nice day, Judge Roy!

RufusAtticus · 11-18-2002, 03:03 PM

I posted abut 20 quotes from the discision in the other thread. Funny stuff.

hezekiah jones · 11-18-2002, 03:14 PM

Yeah, I see that now. Good picks. I love this:

Quote:

For example, the court cannot fully accept the Chief Justice's argument that his speech unveiling the monument shows his "purpose" (because he was wearing his Chief Justice "hat" during that speech), while an interview he gave just over one month later with Dr. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries shows his "intent" (because he was wearing his individual "hat" during that interview). Surely, the Chief Justice (and, in particular, when he is acting as Chief Justice Moore, the legal and administrative head of the State of Alabama) does not think that speeches are not a part of his duties as a Justice. To accept such a distinction would raise many difficult line-drawing issues as to when, exactly, a government actor is speaking in his individual capacity and when he is speaking in his professional capacity. For example, when the Chief Justice helped to install the monument on the night of July 31, 2001, was he doing so in his individual capacity or his capacity as Chief Justice? This distinction is complicated by the fact that the Chief Justice suggested at trial that Moore, the individual, gave the monument to Moore, the Chief Justice.

Hahaha, that's priceless. What a clown this guy is. Not fit for traffic court, as was said above.

hezekiah jones · 11-18-2002, 03:20 PM

And how can any litigant be so braindead as to rely heavily on his own dissenting opinion, irrelevant dicta no less, in some other totally unrelated case! That's some real persuasive stare decisis, Roy. This guy should be disbarred.

fromtheright · 11-18-2002, 03:28 PM

pug846,quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by fromtheright:
Though I stand on the opposite side of this issue from most of you...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm curious, how would you hold that the Government displaying something that is so fundamental to one religion doesn't violate the spirit of the establishment clause?

pug,

I won't be dragged into a discussion of that issue as that wasn't the point of my post, except to say that I don't think that it is anything close to an establishment of religion in anything approaching the meaning of that term when the Constitution was written.

[ November 18, 2002: Message edited by: fromtheright ]</p>

hezekiah jones · 11-18-2002, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fromtheright:
I don't think that it is anything close to an establishment of religion ...

Respecting an establishment of religion.

RufusAtticus · 11-18-2002, 04:40 PM

fromtheright,

All such questions were handled by the Federal Courts opinion. I suggest that if you disagree with it that you read it and present where you think they went wrong. It took me less than an hour to read the entire opinion.

Stephen Maturin · 11-18-2002, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hezekiah jones:
<strong>

The accomodationists may complain that current establishment clause jurisprudence is a disaster, but when you fail all three prongs of the Lemon Test, and the endorsement and coercion tests, you know you're fucked. Even Scalia says you're fucked.

Have a nice day, Judge Roy!</strong>

LMGDAO. Whoever made the decision to try this one (Morris Dees, I suppose) is a goddamned genius. The depo transcripts and other "paper" evidence would have made fine summary judgment fodder, but having Moore give in-person testimony sealed the deal. Moore said so much patently loony shit that he's effectively rendered the ruling bulletproof.

Hell, this EC violation was so egregious that Judge Thompson came close to ruling in the plaintiffs' favor on an issue they didn't even raise:

Quote:

While not argued by the plaintiffs, the court is concerned that Chief Justice Moore's involvement with Coral Ridge Ministries, a Christian media outlet, violates the third, entanglement prong of the Lemon test. Aside from its being the only media outlet to record the night-time placement of the monument in the Alabama State Judicial Building, Coral Ridge has used the Chief Justice's name and his installation of the Ten Commandments monument to raise funds for not only his defense but also its own evangelical purposes. * * *

* * *

In a real sense, therefore, the installation of the monument can be viewed as a joint venture between the Chief Justice and Coral Ridge, as both parties have a direct interest in its continued presence in the rotunda.

Honk on that awhile, Kennedy! Why do the words "hoist" and "petard" come to mind?

FWIW, I agree completely with SLD's prediction in the other thread. The 11th Circuit will affirm and the Supreme Court will refuse to hear the case.

11-19-2002, 08:46 AM

According to the <a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/791820/posts?page=1,50" target="_blank">fundies</a> Moore just held a press conference and said that he will NEVER remove the 10C display. He basically told the federal judge to go screw himself.

Ah, it's just like the good ole days! George Wallace would be proud.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-18-2002, 01:22 PM	#11
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	This is being discussed on BaptistBoard.

11-18-2002, 03:03 PM	#13
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	I posted abut 20 quotes from the discision in the other thread. Funny stuff.

11-18-2002, 03:20 PM	#15
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	And how can any litigant be so braindead as to rely heavily on his own dissenting* opinion,* irrelevant dicta no less, in some other totally unrelated case! That's some real persuasive stare decisis, Roy. This guy should be disbarred.

11-18-2002, 03:28 PM	#16
fromtheright Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 633	pug846,quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by fromtheright: Though I stand on the opposite side of this issue from most of you... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm curious, how would you hold that the Government displaying something that is so fundamental to one religion doesn't violate the spirit of the establishment clause? pug, I won't be dragged into a discussion of that issue as that wasn't the point of my post, except to say that I don't think that it is anything close to an establishment of religion in anything approaching the meaning of that term when the Constitution was written. [ November 18, 2002: Message edited by: fromtheright ]</p>

11-18-2002, 04:40 PM	#18
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	fromtheright, All such questions were handled by the Federal Courts opinion. I suggest that if you disagree with it that you read it and present where you think they went wrong. It took me less than an hour to read the entire opinion.

11-19-2002, 08:46 AM	#20
atheist_in_foxhole Guest Posts: n/a	According to the <a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/791820/posts?page=1,50" target="_blank">fundies</a> Moore just held a press conference and said that he will NEVER remove the 10C display. He basically told the federal judge to go screw himself. Ah, it's just like the good ole days! George Wallace would be proud.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.