"Judge" Moore SHITCANNED

[Patrick Degan]

Linky

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) A stand-in Supreme Court on Friday unanimously rejected Roy Moore's bid to be reinstated as Alabama's chief justice, the latest legal chapter in the saga surrounding his fight to keep a Ten Commandments monument in a courthouse rotunda.

In a 7-0 decision, the court dismissed each of Moore's reasons for overturning his ouster by an ethics panel last year. The written opinion was released Friday afternoon.

''Chief Justice Moore cites no authority that provides an exception to the rule of law that one must obey a court order or that would allow disobedience to a court order on the basis of one's religious beliefs,'' the court wrote.

The justices also denied Moore's request to lessen his punishment.

I wonder how much it took for the judges to not laugh through the hearing.

[Howedar]

*clunk*

Nice to know that SCOTUS can occasionally do something right.

[DPDarkPrimus]

I wonder if they quoted the Alabama constitution at him?

[Darth Wong]

Actually, they quoted the US Constitution at him, since the Alabama Constitution expressly recognizes God as the foundation of all law (don't tell me you're surprised), which was part of Moore's argument. The court expressly quoted the amendments clearly specifying that the federal constitution overrides all state laws. See for yourself at http://www.judicial.state.al.us/special ... pinion.pdf

Our review is also guided by the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const., art. VI, cl. 2.

A nice little bitchslap for Moore's argument that Alabama's state Constitution should allow him to ignore the Establishment clause. Some other choice quotes from the court's ruling:

The order of the federal district court provides, in part:

"The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, made binding upon the States through the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that government 'shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.' The question presented to this court is whether the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court violated the Establishment Clause when he placed a slightly over two-and-a-half ton monument –- engraved with the Ten Commandments and other references to God –- in the Alabama State Judicial Building with the specific purpose and effect, as the court finds from the evidence, of acknowledging the Judeo-Christian God as the moral foundation of our laws. ... [T]his court holds that the evidence is overwhelming and the law is clear that the Chief Justice violated the Establishment Clause."

229 F. Supp. 2d at 1293.

And

"I didn't say I would defy the court order. I said I wouldn't move the monument." Chief Justice Moore's statement to the Judicial Inquiry Commission on August 22, 2003.

Amazing how he can contradict himself with a straight face, eh? And:

The Judicial Inquiry Commission quotes Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940):

"The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect. On the one hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship. Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose cannot be restricted by law. On the other hand, it safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion."

The Cantwell Court noted that the First Amendment "embraces two concepts, -- freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society."

And:

We quote with approval the following from the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, affirming the order of the federal district court:

"The clear implication of Chief Justice Moore's argument is that no government official who heads one of the three branches of any state or of the federal government, and takes an oath of office to defend the Constitution, as all of them do, is subject to the order of any court, at least not of any federal court below the Supreme Court. In the regime he champions, each high government official can decide whether the Constitution requires or permits a federal court order and can act accordingly.

That, of course, is the same position taken by those southern governors who attempted to defy federal court orders during an earlier era. See generally, e.g., Meredith v. Fair, 328 F. 2d 586, 589-90 (5th Cir. 1962)(en banc)...; Williams v. Wallace, 240 F. Supp. 100 (M.D.Ala. 1965) ... (Johnson, J.,) ...; cf. United States v. Barnett, 376 U.S. 681 ... (1964).

All men Moore worshipped in his youth, no doubt.

[DPDarkPrimus]

I was talking about Section 3 of the Alabama state constitution, specifically.

SECTION 3

Religious freedom.

That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Nevermind, I misread that.

[TrailerParkJawa]

[NELSON LAUGH] HA HA [/NELSON LAUGH]

Strike a blow for justice this does!