I analyze Judge Moore's statements as deceptive and misleading (his description of the Reynolds litigation is so inaccurate as to suggest that he is either incompetent or dishonest) and contrary to Walker v. City of Birmingham. He deliberately refrained from seeking a stay of the mandate of the court of appeals pending the filing of a certiorari petition, a stay the court of appeals probably would have granted. He has not sought a stay of the enforcement order from judge Thompson pending the filing of certiorari petition. Instead, he has chosen to ignore the order, and to invite other state officials to ignore the order.
Whatever comfort he takes from his misrepresentation of Reynolds ignores who wrote Reynolds -- Judge Carnes, the same judge who wrote the opinion for the Court of Appeals holding that the monument must go, and that the order to that effect will be enforced. I give him an A for political theater and an F for constitutional law; Alabama should be disbar him and remove him from office (an ethics complaint has been filed per http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030815/APN/308150553 ). Other Justices of the Alabama Supreme Court are getting nervous; the ethics complaint article also states: "Moore's action also apparently did not sit well with some fellow members of the Supreme Court. Justice Gorman Houston, the senior associate justice, said he was convening a conference of the associate justices Thursday afternoon "to assure that the state of Alabama is `a government of laws and not of men,' as our Constitution requires." He said he also wanted to ensure that Moore's failure to obey the federal order would not make it difficult for state courts to enforce federal court orders." Would be member of the Eleventh Circuit Bill Pryor's statement is also instructive: "The U. S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama recently served me, as Attorney General, with a certified copy of the injunction against Chief Justice Moore in the Ten Commandments case. Like others, I have awaited the announcement of the Chief Justice regarding his compliance with the injunction. Today the Chief Justice announced that he will not obey the injunction. Although I believe the Ten Commandments are the cornerstone of our legal heritage and that they can be displayed constitutionally as they are in the U. S. Supreme Court building, I will not violate nor assist any person in the violation of this injunction. As Attorney General, I have a duty to obey all orders of courts even when I disagree with those orders. In this controversy, I will strive to uphold the rule of law. We have a government of laws, not of men. I will exercise any authority provided to me, under Alabama law, to bring the State into compliance with the injunction of the federal court, unless and until the Supreme Court of the United States rules in favor of Chief Justice Moore." http://www.ago.state.al.us/news_template.cfm?Record_ID=766 Michael R. Masinter 3305 College Avenue Nova Southeastern University Fort Lauderdale, Fl. 33314 Shepard Broad Law Center (954) 262-6151 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chair, ACLU of Florida Legal Panel On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Parry, John wrote: > With all of this discussion of the difference between nullifying a > statute and refusing to give effect to it, I wonder how list members > analyze Alabama Chief Justice Moore's announcement that he will not obey > a federal court order requiring removal of a ten commandments monument? > The federal courts have engaged in judicial review (of an essentially > administrative order or regulation, not a statute) but are unable to > "nullify" Judge Moore's conduct on their own. (Anyone expect President > Bush to offer assistance?) > > > > > > John T. Parry > > Associate Professor of Law > > University of Pittsburgh School of Law > > 3900 Forbes Avenue > > Pittsburgh, PA 15260 > > 412-648-7006 > > > >
