SLD

Judge Myron Thompson ruled this morning, as I predicted on this board a few weeks ago , that Moore's ten commandments monument must go. He's got 30 days. Now we will see if the 11th Circuit will grant a stay pending the inevitable appeal. My guess is that they will, but ultimately rule against Moore again and the Supremes will decide not to take it.

Funny, the sounds of Handel's Messiah has suddenly filled my head: Hallelujah!

SLD

dangin

I have a suggestion for Moore about where he can put his monument. But he seems to be one of those people who wishes no one had an anus, so I don't think he would like my suggestion.

theyeti

Thanks for the report SLD! (You get no points for your prediction though -- I predicted this too .) I wonder if you think that Rudy Roy Moore won't refuse to remove the "monument" as an act of civil disobedience. That would of course show everyone the painful truth: This guy is unfit to serve as shoe-shine boy in traffic court, much less a state Supreme Court justice.

theyeti

joedad

You never know. Moore probably equates civil disobedience with religious obedience.

My day is made!

joe

Peregrine

No wondering is necessary, he will disobey this court order as well as a Supreme Court order as well. He did it before (decalogue on his court room wall) and he will do it again. Heck the last time it got him elected to the state supreme court. This time it might get him elected to the Senate, or a Bush nominee to a federal court.

CaptainDave

Originally posted by Peregrine:

Now isn't THAT a scary thought!

Principia

<applause> for the decision.

Hey, I want to ask about how legal precedence works in regards to all of these decalogue rulings. Suppose someone like Moore gets elected to the bench (not unlikely considering the recent shift of power), and he rules in favor of the decalogues. How do all of these previous rulings affect the validity of such a contrary decision? Does it make it any easier for an appeals to the SCOTUS? What happens if the SC judges also vote on party lines?

Toto

Moore has already gotten elected to the bench, but he is a state court judge. He is sworn to uphold the US Constitution (I'm pretty sure), and the US Supreme Court interprets the US Constition. He would not be in a position to rule definitively on the Decalogue unless he is appointed to the US Supreme Court, which seems unlikely even for Bush.

Grumpy

I don't know if Principia had this in mind, but it brings to mind a hypothetical scenario. Suppose Ol' Roy is well & truly smacked down at every level for this monument flap. Then let's say he's nominated to the federal bench, and is somehow confirmed. Eventually, a case very similar to his own comes up. How does he rule? Following the precedent established in his own case, or following the line of logic that he offered from the witness stand?

Would a judge have to recuse himself from a case if it's too close to one in which he had been a party himself? (Unlikely, given the number of former lawyers on the bench.)

Principia

Hey Grumpy,

Thanks! You've worded my concerns better. I guess the problem, in my view, is that it becomes a matter of trust when: