Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The Other Michael · 11-19-2002, 09:22 AM

They'll probably have a 24x7 protective vigil around the display, with all attending issued axe handles at the door.

cheers,
Michael

beejay · 11-19-2002, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by atheist_in_foxhole:
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.

Have you ever read a court ruling when the Federal judge thinks they are being screwed with?

When Bedford, Indiana erected the 10C monument that had been ruled unconstitutional in Indianapolis, the Federal judge made it perfectly clear how unhappy she was and what the consequences would be if the 10C wasn't removed within two days.

It would almost be too delicious to have Moore fined or imprisoned for failing to obey a court order.

fromtheright · 11-19-2002, 11:25 AM

Rufus,
I will definitely read it, printed it out yesterday and started on it. I'm a slow reader. I do hope that if he refuses to obey the final decision in this (assuming this one is affirmed and I agree with my friend SLD's prediction) that they throw his ass in jail. Again, I disagree with the outcome (will read the opinion) but he should go to jail for contempt and lose his license if he disobeys the order. Of course, he'll use the outcome as fuel for a gubernatorial run down the road.

RobertE · 11-19-2002, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hezekiah jones:
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.

Just which law school did hizzonner graduate from? The University of Okiboji? I don't know of any (except perhaps Falwell's Liberty Univ or Bob Jones) that would seriously teach the canard that the bibble is the basis of American jurisprudence.

I guess that sort of thing plays well down in Alabama, but sheez!

[ November 19, 2002: Message edited by: RobertE ]

scombrid · 11-19-2002, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fromtheright:
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.

His collusion with D. James Kennedy, a known reconstructionist (A really irritating one at that), belies his intent of establishment.

He's definitely going to use this to advance his politics. His open defiance will win him hard support in fundie land. Of course it will also harden the opposition. It will be interesting to watch the public response when good ole boy Roy fights the man.

Toto · 11-19-2002, 12:28 PM

<a href="http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/NEWS/StoryOpinionedvoice1119web.htm" target="_blank">Morris Dees weighs in</a>

Quote:

Moore's fellow justices were keenly aware that he had recently defeated a well-qualified jurist by campaigning on his Ten Commandments stand. Only one courageous justice spoke out against this "movement to govern in the name of God." It is highly unlikely that the others agreed with Moore's illegal actions, but they remained silent. Had all eight justices promptly opposed Moore, public opinion might have turned against his use of religion for personal gain.

Gov. Don Siegelman and Attorney General Bill Pryor could have added their voices in opposition, probably eliminating the need for our suit. Instead, both stood with Moore.

When we sued the Young Men's Christian Association in 1968 for refusing to allow two black boys admission to its summer camp, I got a first-hand view of how local politicians and so-called business leaders were willing to ignore their responsibilities. Mayor Earl James and 40 civic leaders on the Central Y's board were committed to keeping the YMCA's vast recreational programs segregated.

None of these community leaders had the interest or the courage to end this shameful un-Christian activity. Judge Frank Johnson ruled that the YMCA had taken over a city recreation function and ordered it integrated.

RufusAtticus · 11-19-2002, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fromtheright:
Rufus,
I will definitely read it, printed it out yesterday and started on it. I'm a slow reader.

Good. Just like with the Pledge ruling, conservatives are calling this "wrong-headed" and "out-of-touch," yet never provide specifics of where the opinion went wrong. If after you've read the ruling and have certain problems with the Judge's findings, please feel free to share the specifics with us.

Quote:

I do hope that if he refuses to obey the final decision in this (assuming this one is affirmed and I agree with my friend SLD's prediction) that they throw his ass in jail. Again, I disagree with the outcome (will read the opinion) but he should go to jail for contempt and lose his license if he disobeys the order. Of course, he'll use the outcome as fuel for a gubernatorial run down the road.

Well, Moore has thirty days to volentarially remove it. If it isn't removed by then, the judge will order its immediate removial and will cite Moore for contempt if he doesn't comply with a week.

Basically, Moore has a month and a half to drag his feet on the issue.

~~RvFvS~~

beejay · 11-19-2002, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:


Basically, Moore has a month and a half to drag his feet on the issue.

~~RvFvS~~

Moore will certainly ask the Appeals Court to stay the ruling until they hear the appeal. This may give him more time to drag his feet.

But the Appeals Court could rule (as the Sixth Court of Appeals did today in the Adams County Ohio case) that the continuing offense to the Constitution outweighs the chance that the display will eventually be found to be constitutional.

11-19-2002, 04:20 PM

I apologize if this is a dumb question, but how, exactly, can a federal court enforce its rulings? Will John Ashcroft be involved in this matter?

11-19-2002, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by atheist_in_foxhole:
I apologize if this is a dumb question, but how, exactly, can a federal court enforce its rulings? Will John Ashcroft be involved in this matter?

Good question,
a- Fed Judges send the US Marshall Service when all the paper swapping is over,
b- Ashcroft may be involved only if it goes to the US Supreme Court, ( assuming he is not too busy reading all the new wiretap transcripts etc )

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

11-19-2002, 09:22 AM	#21
The Other Michael Honorary Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In the fog of San Francisco Posts: 12,631	They'll probably have a 24x7 protective vigil around the display, with all attending issued axe handles at the door. cheers, Michael

11-19-2002, 11:25 AM	#23
fromtheright Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 633	Rufus, I will definitely read it, printed it out yesterday and started on it. I'm a slow reader. I do hope that if he refuses to obey the final decision in this (assuming this one is affirmed and I agree with my friend SLD's prediction) that they throw his ass in jail. Again, I disagree with the outcome (will read the opinion) but he should go to jail for contempt and lose his license if he disobeys the order. Of course, he'll use the outcome as fuel for a gubernatorial run down the road.

11-19-2002, 04:20 PM	#29
atheist_in_foxhole Guest Posts: n/a	I apologize if this is a dumb question, but how, exactly, can a federal court enforce its rulings? Will John Ashcroft be involved in this matter?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.