Monday, August 25, 2003

No Moore

I really don't want this to be what I blog about, but it's the subject that gets me going the most these days. Yes, back to Idiot Roy. The Wall Street Journal, further proving itself to be the natural home of every wing-nut with a vestige of prestige (and some without that vestige, ahem, Mr. den Beste).

On top of my earlier complaints about Idiot Roy, I'm not sure how in the world he's qualified to be a judge. If we step beyond the nonsensical argumentation (He breathlessly moves between the Alabama Constitution and the Federal Constitution as if they were one and the same) all we are left with is hyperbole and demagoguery plain and simple. Let's play his game. Apparently the Alabama Constitution pays heavy reference to g[G]od (I don't know much about the specifics and the tradition and I've seen enough from Roy to know not to take his word on this or any other matter). Roy feels the state constitution and his oath to uphold it compels him to display the Ten Commandments and that the federal order to move it from public display is equivalent of declaring the constitution of the state of Alabama unconstitutional. A few questions come to mind, briefly:
a) There isn't any other possible way to mesh these allegedly competing duties (I say allegedly because the competition of duties is based on trusting Roy)? Nothing less than a 2.5 ton stone monument in the lobby will fulfill his Constitutional duty? I note, the federal judge has ordered the monument only out of public display. In an office, an off wing of the building, some other solution or possibly even a different monument would apparently comply with the federal courts.
b) I assume Roy is not the first Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court to have taken the particular oath (words) to the state constitution. That said, I trust Moore is pushing hard for the Attorney General's office to break breach of duty action against the former occupants of his position. I mean, what the hell were those guys doing, not meeting their sworn oath to recognize g[G]od.

And then we have Idiot Roy's delusion that he is in fact upholding the law rather than breaking it. Put simply, he's wrong as wrong can be. In this country, we don't let the convicted criminal out because he asserts his rights were violated at trial. Rather, he stews in jail until a competent authority agrees. Lacking a stay or injunction (which Roy Boy doesn't have), the law is straightforward and clear. You obey the standing ruling from the competent ruling authority until it is overturned. Anything less is violating a court order. Oh, and in case you were wondering, Roy does know that the Federal court is a competent authority- he cites the Supremacy clause (although, his usage makes it unclear whether or not he actually understands it).

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home