The World Around You

In today’s episode, Roy’s attorneys appear to throw up their hands at the inherent unfairness of the process the Chief Justice must face,

Lawyers for suspended Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore say they don’t believe he can get a fair trial before the Alabama Court of the Judiciary on judicial ethics charges.

The attorneys said in a statement Thursday that it may be “inevitable” that Moore will be removed from office for not obeying a federal court order to move his Ten Commandments monument from the lobby of the Alabama Judicial Building.

What makes this situation so unfair? Well, that’s easy, because the justices won’t have to face a crowd of thousands at Roy’s hearing, that’s why.

Moore had asked that his trial be held somewhere like the 7,000-seat Montgomery Civic Center or the 1,200-seat Davis Theater in Montgomery, calling the Supreme Court courtroom that is normally used by the Court of the Judiciary “small” and “restrictive.” Moore claimed any smaller location would restrict media access and deny him his constitutional right to a public trial.

But the court rejected Moore’s request in a decision Wednesday, ruling instead that the case would be heard in the 210-seat Supreme Court courtroom to minimize costs and maintain proper security. The court laid out a plan for setting aside seats for the general public and the media.

Moore’s lawyers said the decision meant the chief justice cannot obtain a “fair, public trial.”

“Further, Moore’s legal team advised him that in light of the rulings of the COJ denying him his basic legal rights, that an adverse ruling from the COJ is inevitable, which may well include his imminent removal from office,” the attorneys said in the statement.

With all due respect (which isn’t much), did these attorneys get their law degrees from a Cracker Jack box? Where in the Judicial Code of Ethics, the Code of Alabama, or the US Constitution is there a right to have 10,000 of your closest friends at your trial?

Roy and his attorneys are obviously disappointed they will not be allowed to turn his hearing into a circus like we witnessed on the steps of the State Judicial Building. They know that in a case based purely on the merits, and not public passion will not be decided in their favor. Bravo to the Commission for sticking to its guns.

I thought I had just about heard it all from certain members of the US Senate, but Senator Lott’s latest remarks are beyond belief,

Asked whether he favored any policy changes in Iraq, Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) responded: “We need to have a different mix of troops, is the key. We may need to move some troops around.”

Lott suggested moving more troops from the relatively stable south closer to the region around Tikrit, where attacks on U.S. forces have been common. He said there was a need for more trained military police, adding that his comments were not a criticism.

“Honestly, it’s a little tougher than I thought it was going to be,” Lott said. In a sign of frustration, he offered an unorthodox military solution: “If we have to, we just mow the whole place down, see what happens. You’re dealing with insane suicide bombers who are killing our people, and we need to be very aggressive in taking them out.”

What happened to “liberating” Iraq. Is it liberating to be dead? Under the Senator’s theory we could ensure the safety of all the world’s people by dropping enough atomic bombs to wipe us all out. Freedom!

This is exactly the kind of thinking that put us in this position. You don’t fight suicide bombers with more military raids, especially if the military action is the reason they are willing to take their own lives in the first place. Until we get at the root of the problem, the attacks will continue.

Sorry for the dearth of posts. I have just returned from a business trip to Washington, DC (no, I was not there for the protests). I had a great time, but I missed the blogosphere. Now, back to business.