Ten Commandments and Indianna

[JLSatty at AOL.COM]

After initially upholding the Commandments as part of a larger display, I
requested Judge Price view the Courtroom.  It was only after that viewing
that Judge Price changed his mind.  While all the things Jim mentions were
there, they were separate from the Commandments, which hung by themselves
behind the Judge and were clearly visible to the jurors when they looked at
the Moore.  Judge Price could see that despite all Judge Moore's lawyer's
arguments, in no way were they part of a general display. Note also that it
was Judge Moore's lawyers who said the Commandments were part of a larger
display.  In interview after interview, Moore honestly reported that the
Commandments were there to confirm his religious beliefs, and not as part of
a historic display.  I, and Judge Price, preferred to believe Judge Moore
rather then his lawyers.

Joel (I've been to the Courtroom) Sogol


In a message dated 03/19/2000 11:09:54 PM Central Standard Time,
JMHACLJ at AOL.COM writes:

> n a message dated 03/17/2000 6:42:23 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>  JLSatty at AOL.COM writes:
>
>  << In the Moore
>   case, Judge Price actually ruled that the display was not part of a larger
>   display (or I believe he would have left it). >>
>
>  Although he had concluded otherwise first, and although Judge Moore's
>  courtroom was, in fact, splattered with the elements of the broader
display:
>  including scales of justice, portraits of Washington and Lincoln, (in a
> cruel
>  sense of irony, perhaps he should have included a portrait of Clinton to
> hold
>  out the false hope to criminals that they might actually get away with it),
>  and an updated US flag (when he first ascended the bench, the courtroom was
>  equipped with a No Alaska, No Hawaii, 48 star flag).
>
>  Jim "Just the Facts, M'am" Henderson
>  Senior Counsel
>  ACLJ
>