fromtheright

Rufus,

While I have pointed out previously in this thread and another my disagreement with you guys about the brick, I agree with you re the above, which I pointed out in the recent thread on Christian principles in the Constitution. It is Bartonesque claptrap.

RufusAtticus

Thank you. I had to call up the spirit of QoS to do it properly.

Spoken like a man that has bothered to read both his Bible and the Constitution.

Stephen Maturin

There was a <a href="http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/NEWS/StoryAlabamacopymooreon19.htm" target="_blank">hearing</a> today at which Judge Thompson issued a permanent injunction ordering that the monument be removed by January 3, 2003. Chief Justice Moore testified at the hearing and predictably shot himself in the foot yet again:

Moore has requested that Judge Thompson stay the injunction pending an appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. Thompson will rule on the request Monday. I rather doubt that he'll be eager to grant a stay after hearing lunacy like this:

There you have it: (1) the Alabama Constitution trumps the U.S. Constitution; and (2) Moore's personal understanding of the constitution trumps a federal district court judge's order.

atheist_in_foxhole

ROFLMAO

beejay

Isn't this almost a predictable result of having the Chief Justice elected?

And especially in Alabama?

I hope the taxpayers of Alabama enjoy paying the $704,000 (+) legal bill that Moore is going to stick them with.

Grizzly

The deadline for removal is coming (Jan 3rd). That is less than a week away. Any word of what is going to happen?

Stephen Maturin

Judge Thompson stayed the removal order pending an appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. For the time being, then, the monument stays right where it is. Here's the story.

In another development, plaintiffs' counsel are requesting that that Moore's lawyers be sanctioned for allegedly unethical conduct.

fromtheright

While I still see no establishment clause problems with the monument I believe Judge Moore should follow the judge's order. He has no reasonable objection to doing so. Even if it were an available defense, the judge is not ordering him to do anything wrong or immoral. While I believe he is wrong about the monument Judge Thompson is within his authority and should be obeyed. Moore might be vindicated if this goes to the Supreme Court but he should take it one step at a time.

I would like to predict that Alabamians will tire of Moore's antics but I can only hope.

Jamie_L

Ah, Huntsville. The starting locale for my journey in this strange world, and home of my family. It's a shame Alabama is most known for its raving lunatics and not for the more decent folk who live there.

Speaking of which... What has bugged me most about Moore in this whole business is that he's basically gone on record as seeking to use his office to further his religion.

As for the monument, it seems to me that strict c-s separation, regardless of whether it was the intent of all the founder or not, is a good thing in today's pluraistic U.S. society. The founders, in their wisdom, gave us the tools to adapt our government to the demands of our time. A First Amendment interpretation that excludes the monument from the court house is an interpretation that protects the interests of the most people, and adheres to the spirit of the Constitution in that it protects the rights of the minority from the trampling of an over-zealous majority.

Jamie

Feather

How exactly does posting a monument to a specific religion by an elected government official not violate the establishment clause?

What would it take for the establishment clause to be broken, given this kind of "thought?!"