Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore once again suspeneded

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore once again suspeneded

    Good reason not to have elected high level Judges.

    http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/201...y_moor_10.html

    For the second time in his career, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore faces charges before the Alabama Court of the Judiciary and potential removal from office.

    Until that court hears and rules on those charges, Moore will be suspended with pay from his position atop the state's highest court.
    When it receives a complaint, the commission investigates and decides whether to forward charges to the Alabama Court of the Judiciary.

    The process remains secret unless charges are made, as happened Friday evening. Unless Moore reaches a settlement, he will be tried before that court, with the Alabama Attorney General's Office prosecuting.
    So for the second time he'll be tried before the Alabama Court of the Judiciary. The first time resulted in his removal.
    “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
    “To talk of many things:
    Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
    Of cabbages—and kings—
    And why the sea is boiling hot—
    And whether pigs have wings.”
    ― Lewis Carroll

  • #2
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    Good reason not to have elected high level Judges.

    http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/201...y_moor_10.html





    So for the second time he'll be tried before the Alabama Court of the Judiciary. The first time resulted in his removal.
    He is clearly bucking for a new career as TV preacher!
    Give me a fast ship and the wind at my back for I intend to sail in harms way! (John Paul Jones)

    Initiated Chief Petty Officer
    Hard core! Old School! Deal with it!

    Comment


    • #3
      As opposed to appointed ones...

      http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...d.php?t=166239

      The judge is overturned--by justices across the philosophical spectrum--for good reason: His jurisprudence has become increasingly eccentric and sloppy. Of his seven reversals this term, three came on a per curiam basis. This rare procedure signals the agreement of all nine justices that a lower court's ruling is so flawed, there is no need for oral argument. Reinhardt is clearly descending further into the fever swamps. His Ninth Circuit colleague Judge Stephen Trott acknowledges that Reinhardt is "pushing the envelope harder now."
      Or Justice Ginsburg saying she wouldn't use the US Constitution as a model, in essence putting to question if she adheres to it in her court decisions.

      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...-as-model.html

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
        As opposed to appointed ones...

        http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...d.php?t=166239



        Or Justice Ginsburg saying she wouldn't use the US Constitution as a model, in essence putting to question if she adheres to it in her court decisions.

        http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...-as-model.html
        And either of those has what to do with this????
        “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
        “To talk of many things:
        Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
        Of cabbages—and kings—
        And why the sea is boiling hot—
        And whether pigs have wings.”
        ― Lewis Carroll

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
          Good reason not to have elected high level Judges.

          http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/201...y_moor_10.html





          So for the second time he'll be tried before the Alabama Court of the Judiciary. The first time resulted in his removal.
          So he offended the Southern Progressive Law Center?

          Yawn. Next!
          A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
            So he offended the Southern Progressive Law Center?

            Yawn. Next!
            Not a Yawn for him. The States Court of Judicial review has started the process to remove him, as they did in the past. This time he's told old to run for election again. So if he's booted it is for good. Which is a good thing.
            “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
            “To talk of many things:
            Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
            Of cabbages—and kings—
            And why the sea is boiling hot—
            And whether pigs have wings.”
            ― Lewis Carroll

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
              And either of those has what to do with this????
              You argued in your OP:
              Good reason not to have elected high level Judges.
              I was pointing out that appointed ones aren't any better, and often worse.

              What is really needed is "Judicial review." That is, people can vote judges off the bench after appointment and they are on the ballot every two years, just like other high office officials and politicians for review.

              Arizona has this and I always vote to throw everyone of them off the bench. Keeps them honest if they have to worry that their poor decisions will enrage voters and they'll lose their job as a result.

              That means they needn't be elected but they do need to do a good and reasonably fair job or they risk the wrath of voters.

              As for this guy...

              If the SPLC is against him, then I'm rooting for him. The Stupid Peons Liars Club should never be listened to.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                And either of those has what to do with this????
                He was responding to your:

                Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                Good reason not to have elected high level Judges.
                He gave examples of appointed judges......

                Personally, I would rather have a judge responsible to the people, not some political party.
                "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                  He was responding to your:



                  He gave examples of appointed judges......

                  Personally, I would rather have a judge responsible to the people, not some political party.
                  And you get Justiceslike Moore. No thanks.
                  “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                  “To talk of many things:
                  Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                  Of cabbages—and kings—
                  And why the sea is boiling hot—
                  And whether pigs have wings.”
                  ― Lewis Carroll

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                    You argued in your OP:

                    I was pointing out that appointed ones aren't any better, and often worse.

                    What is really needed is "Judicial review." That is, people can vote judges off the bench after appointment and they are on the ballot every two years, just like other high office officials and politicians for review.

                    Arizona has this and I always vote to throw everyone of them off the bench. Keeps them honest if they have to worry that their poor decisions will enrage voters and they'll lose their job as a result.

                    That means they needn't be elected but they do need to do a good and reasonably fair job or they risk the wrath of voters.

                    As for this guy...

                    If the SPLC is against him, then I'm rooting for him. The Stupid Peons Liars Club should never be listened to.
                    Many states do have that system, Missouri does also, nothing wrong with that option.
                    “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                    “To talk of many things:
                    Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                    Of cabbages—and kings—
                    And why the sea is boiling hot—
                    And whether pigs have wings.”
                    ― Lewis Carroll

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                      And you get Justiceslike Moore. No thanks.
                      One out of how many?

                      He hasn't been found guilty yet, no matter what the outcome is....it wouldn't justify silencing a vote.
                      "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                        One out of how many?

                        He hasn't been found guilty yet, no matter what the outcome is....it wouldn't justify silencing a vote.
                        Political Judges running in a partisan race for the high Court, no thanks.
                        “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                        “To talk of many things:
                        Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                        Of cabbages—and kings—
                        And why the sea is boiling hot—
                        And whether pigs have wings.”
                        ― Lewis Carroll

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          What really needs to happen is we codify into law making it illegal for judges to make law. That is they can rule something unconstitutional, illegal, whatever, but they can't substitute something into law in its place.

                          For example, Roe v. Wade could reject in place abortion laws but without legislative action, it wouldn't make abortion legal either. It simply says the law as currently written won't stand.

                          Thus, in the case of gay marriage, the courts couldn't decide the issue. They could reject the various laws against it but that wouldn't make it legal either. A legislative action would still be required.

                          It would eliminate legislating from the bench entirely.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                            What really needs to happen is we codify into law making it illegal for judges to make law. That is they can rule something unconstitutional, illegal, whatever, but they can't substitute something into law in its place.

                            For example, Roe v. Wade could reject in place abortion laws but without legislative action, it wouldn't make abortion legal either. It simply says the law as currently written won't stand.

                            Thus, in the case of gay marriage, the courts couldn't decide the issue. They could reject the various laws against it but that wouldn't make it legal either. A legislative action would still be required.

                            It would eliminate legislating from the bench entirely.
                            Congress and the President do not have that power. Constitution lays out Congresses power over the courts, what you want is not one of those places. Three branches separate and equal.
                            “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                            “To talk of many things:
                            Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                            Of cabbages—and kings—
                            And why the sea is boiling hot—
                            And whether pigs have wings.”
                            ― Lewis Carroll

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                              You argued in your OP:

                              I was pointing out that appointed ones aren't any better, and often worse.

                              What is really needed is "Judicial review." That is, people can vote judges off the bench after appointment and they are on the ballot every two years, just like other high office officials and politicians for review.

                              Arizona has this and I always vote to throw everyone of them off the bench. Keeps them honest if they have to worry that their poor decisions will enrage voters and they'll lose their job as a result.

                              That means they needn't be elected but they do need to do a good and reasonably fair job or they risk the wrath of voters.

                              As for this guy...

                              If the SPLC is against him, then I'm rooting for him. The Stupid Peons Liars Club should never be listened to.
                              I'm for him too. But I know him personally. He's a man of his convictions. In his first trial the line of questioning basically amounted to asking him to deny the existence of God. He refused and was removed. I don't always agree with him. I don't think government should be involved in marriage, but he stands for state's rights. That's good enough for me. Couple that with the SPLC against him and I'm with Moore.
                              “I do not wish to have the slave emancipated because I love him, but because I hate his master."
                              --Salmon P. Chase

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X