Comments on: Alabama Judge Wears Ten Commandments on Robe

By: anjin-san

anjin-san — Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:28:57 +0000

I certainly think that any defendent before the court who is not a Christian would have decent grounds for appeal. For that reason alone the judge's fitness is in question.

By: David Harris

David Harris — Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:23:12 +0000

Denise, I guess I thought my earlier comment implied that there was another reason that a DUI attorney was filing an objection over this matter. As to your comments on the jury being confused, I say again: I don't think anything in the Ten Commandments conflicts with any DUI laws I have ever seen. And I hope you are not saying that without "robe assistance" a juror would abandon his or her religious convictions simply by sitting in the box. That is why there is a jury selection process, to attempt to remove as much prejudice as possible from the jury before the trial begins.

All that being said, I think the judge is a moron. I would like to get my hands on one of those robes, though.

By: Roger

Roger — Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:19:09 +0000

Amen Denise, no pun intended. This guy needs to either lose the robe, provided he's wearing something underneath, or step down from the bench.

As a judge he is supposed to act as a neutral representative of the law. By wearing this robe, he is giving evidence of taking sides.

By: Bithead

Bithead — Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:49:26 +0000

Slavery was settled law for decades, as well.

By: denise

denise — Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:00:59 +0000

David Harris, the stated reason for the objection is that it's a distraction. It also mixes up religious law with state law, and some jurors may have a religious conviction against drinking at all. I can see how it could confuse a juror to be told on the one hand to follow the jury instructions, but on the other hand have the judge's robe state a different (and unrelated, as you say) set of laws. If drinking is against a juror's religious law, why not bring that in too? The real reason is probably just to delay, and hopefully to get a different judge on the case -- one who either doesn't share this judge's fundamentalist values, or if he does, doesn't literally wear them on his garment (not literally on his sleeve, but close).

By: David Harris

David Harris — Thu, 16 Dec 2004 18:31:13 +0000

I agree that this is all quite absurd, but what about the attorney objecting to the robe in a DUI case? "Thou shalt not drink and drive" is not a commandment, so I don't see how lettering on the judge's robe could possibly affect his client.

By: Kappiy

Kappiy — Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:17:19 +0000

Maybe judges should go back to wearing the colonial-style white wigs--although, in Alabama, that would probably get you thrown in jail!

By: denise

denise — Thu, 16 Dec 2004 16:17:13 +0000

I agree this is ridiculous.

I object to any judge embellishing his/her robe. From Judge Judy's lace collar to CJ Rehnquist's gold stripes, personalization is a distraction and sends the wrong message. One of the important messages of the robe is that it is "the court" that sits behind the bench, not an individual. It stands for the idea that in theory anyway, a person should expect the same treatment regardless of who is wearing the robe.

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 16 Dec 2004 16:10:10 +0000

Don't agree at all - Jim Crow was also "settled law" for decades. And it was wrong. Law isn't written in stone - but at least in theory, the Ten Commandments were. In any case, they WERE part of the founding rationale for our court system. Denial of their validity (indeed, even their existence) by disallowing their display in the courts which are supposedly based on their principles is a denial of our own history - and an exercise in destructive childishness. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. You can't learn from a history of which you're ignorant.

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 16 Dec 2004 15:34:33 +0000

Agreed. Nothing like doing the wrong thing for the right reasons (and I'm generously giving him the BOD on his reasons). Respect for the law of the land, provided it doesn't conflict with God's law, is also a part of the Christian faith. The thing is, when a higher court intercedes, and I'm pretty sure one will, Christians everywhere will take it as a great affront and rise up in protest. As if, along with the 10 Commandments, God conferred the right act like a total imbecile so long as you attach the Lord's name to it.