Here we go again
Posted by Joshua Claybourn on 15 December 2004 | 21 responses
Say what you will about the legal issues at play, but you have to admit that this judge at least has creativity:
A judge refused to delay a trial Tuesday when an attorney objected to his wearing a judicial robe with the Ten Commandments embroidered on the front in gold. Circuit Judge Ashley McKathan showed up Monday at his Covington County courtroom in southern Alabama wearing the robe.
(In)famous former Ala. Chief Justice Roy Moore, as you might expect, supports the idea.
21 Responses to “Here we go again”
“I feel this creates a distraction that affects my client,” said the attorney representing a person charged with DUI.
Mmm-hmm. Sort of like that case of Bud Light he (or she) drank before hitting the road distracted him from driving safely?
Gotta give the attorney points for chutzpah!
That judge should be disbarred immediately. Outside of the Ten Commandments issue, he should not have been adorning his robes with anything unnecessary. But judges are so arrogant and secure because of judicial retention, what should one expect?
Sounds like something from Night Court!
This is not the first time that Republican judges have enjoyed adorning their robes. Have we forgotten the four stripes on Rehnquist’s sleeves during the impeachment? The president also seems to enjoy playing dress-up, including his flight suit and the special “Members Only” jacket that he recently had made with “Commander in Chief” on the chest. I wonder if these guys like showtunes and white wine too…
LOL! At least some of our trolls are useful for entertainment value!
The judge does need to be impartial… check the job description, it’s in there somewhere. Now, does having some writings from your personal religious beliefs written on your judge-robe make you partial? No, not automatically. Does it mean the judge will ignore laws? No.
If the judge rules unconstitutionally, then there is an appeals process that can be followed. I think enforcing a dress code that eliminates anything that makes a person unique is just over doing it.
Most people think that the concept of separation of church and state is written somewhere in the constitution or bill of rights… it’s not. It only states that no law shall be written regarding religion. Well, a “law” that prohibits a judge who is a Christian from wearing a robe with the 10 commandments on it would violate that amendment.
(I’m not even a Republican, go figure)
Well said Noah, another point is the fact that no one gets upset until its a Christian reference, yet there are other things just as distracting for other people. Like gay activists of using the stolen symbolical rainbow which was originally a symbol that God would never destroy the earth again by rain. This could go on forever…
First, I have never heard of a judge wearing his gay stolen rainbow symbol on the bench. If I’m not mistaken I think christianity is fairly agianst symbols.
I digress. You people miss the point. As a judge he is in a position of power and is responsible for people’s lives. We expect these people to put aside who they are and do this job according to the law. We want them to be fair and concerned about us when we are in court. Not wearing the ten commandments on the robe, not wearing a rainbow symbol, not wearing a pin that says “I’m an Atheist”. Just because you (christians) are extremely sure in your belief doesn’t mean you are right or that you have the right to promote your beliefs at the expense of everyone else. This goes for every belief.
It is an expense because the people in the trial deserve the judges attention and he gets paid by everyone, including non-christians.
Hmm . . . I wonder if there are any hidden messages in the white lace collar Judge Judy wears over her robes?
Seriously, inasmuch as all law is basically legislated morality, & that is what the 10 Commandments are – granted, direct from God rather than decided upon by humans – at least it shows this judge has a grasp on the history of law. Not that some folks like that fact. Some would rather see the guy disbarred. OK. Based on what grounds? What if he’d embroidered a peace sign or an ankh on his robes? Or a passage from Plato or Plutarch? Or Kant? Or Nietzsche? Or Hume? (Hume would sure throw ‘em!) Some judges, I’m sure, have been members of extremist groups like the KKK. Which is more of a reason to remove a judge from his/her position: membership in the KKK or the fact that he/she is a Christian or Jew?
You start to get the feeling that “separation of church and state” equals “no Christian references”
… just like when “diversity” began equalling “no white guys”
I realize this isn’t the case across the board, I’ve just observed this idea ringing truer over the past several years–and it’s usually not intentional.
It goes back to the thinking that if one side has been given an unfair advantage for x number of years, that the only way to fix it is to give the other side an unfair advantage for a while. When in reality, if it was truely unfair, as soon as you realize this, neither side should be given an unfair advantage (ie. correcting the problem).
Ah, but I’m starting to wander off topic and I’m hungry for dinner.
> We expect these people to put aside who they are and do this job according to the law.
You are still pre-supposing that a person who wears a religious symbol on their judge-robe is incapable of rendering a fair and balanced ruling. I understand that judges are supposed to rule based on the letter of the law, but it’s usually not a simple matter.
Law is all about interpretation. Interpretation is based on the individual and is different for everyone. A judge makes rulings based on his/her interpretations of the law. That interpretation is based on the life experience and education of that judge–that is why 2 judges could interperate 1 law in 2 different ways.
The point is, individualism plays a big part in the job of a judge. Judges do not “put aside who they are” when they come to work. They use their personal wisdom, education, and experience in every decision they make. So why treat them like robots when they are not? If their individualism comes out in their rulings, and still is able to be fair and according to law, then why keep them from expressing themselves with their own personal beliefs written on their robes.
I’m actually surprised that the attack came against the 10 commandments on the judges robe, and not against the fact that witnesses must swear on the Christian Bible before giving “sworn” testimony.
“Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?”
“Sure, but… which God?”
Noah,
Must witnesses still swear on the Bible? I’m almost certain that it’s not the case.
With regards to the topic itself, I’m going to have to respectfully disagree with you. The robe is the utmost symbol of a judge, almost any American can recognize that a person wearing such a robe is either a judge or trying to look like one. Had he put this on a personal affectation, we would have an entirely different question. Instead, the 10C’s are on the robe in big enough font for others to see. It’s the difference between wearing a cross necklace tucked under his robes and embrodering a cross on the robe itself. The 10C’s are sectarian statements, and about half are blatently relgious demands that would be–for what it’s worth–wholly unconstitutional.
So you’ve got a state actor in an official setting making the appearance of sectarian endorsement and is so entangled with the endorsement that he could LITERALLY trip over it. It’s clearly unconstitutional.
Michael,
My comments about swearing on the bible was the result of my watching too much tv. You’re right, I don’t think they require it any more.
I suppose I am starting to see your point. The robe itself is very symbolic and by placing the 10 commandments (or any other religious–or secular for that matter–symbols or texts) on it modifies the symbolism.
I just don’t like it when people try to pretend that any human can be devoid of bias or be fully objective. There is always bias, and it’s not always a bad thing, it’s just how you deal with it and how you communicate it to others. I don’t want to infringe on the judge’s right to believe what he/she wants and express themselves however he/she wants outside of the courtroom. I guess keeping it under the robe while acting in an official capacity makes sense.
I think that Christians (myself included) just get taken back by all the stories of the 10C’s being removed from so many places where they used to be embraced. I think that would be alarming for any faith-based group of people. You know, wanting to make sure their ability to practice and express their beliefs wasn’t being reduced.
I appreciate this discussion.
A point about secular symbols I meant to make…
This isn’t just about religion, really. It’s also about conflict of interests (as I see now). You wouldn’t want a judge wearing a “Microsoft” patch on his robe and then let him preside over a software company anti-trust case? It would look pretty darn biased.
Every courthouse I’ve ever been in had a statue of Themis. While pagan in origin she was never worshipped (technically she’s a Titan, the daughter of earth & sky, and not a goddess) and was never worshipped, though some Big 10 defenders (including Roy Moore, who with his usual erudition called her “Venus, goddess of justice”, whilst Ashcroft was more famously concerned over her bare titty) claim (erroneously) she’s a goddess violation of the First Amendment. She was rechristened Justicia* by the Romans who had statues of her in their courtrooms for exactly the reason we do today: the blindfold signifies that justice should be “blind”, unconcerned with any differences twixt the litigants, and the scales symbolize that justice is a matter of necessary balance her symbolism. The blinders are off when people like McKathan wear their prejudices (not a value judgment- we all have prejudices- but it is the job of a judge to put his aside) so blatantly on their cloth of office (that black robe is 100% Caesar’s, not God’s).
I wonder what the reaction would be if a Black Muslim lawyer became a judge and wore a robe with the captions “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Prophet” and “All blessings upon the Honorable Elijah Muhammad, Revealer of the Truth”. True, this doesn’t say firmly that he will not be impartial in trying cases involving white people or Jews, but the implication is most certainly there.
And why are Christian judges who are so concerned with the Ten Commandments (which is historically and demonstratively NOT the basis of American law) but seem oblivious to the Eleventh Commandment?
*Ironically, considering Roy Moore’s infamous decision in the case of the lesbian mother suing for custody, the Greek word for justice, sometimes applied to Themis herself, is Dike.
Noah,
The easiest path is simply to say that any sort of appearance of endorsement is professionally inappropriate, regardless of religion.
The slightly less easy path would be to liken the robes to the flag as a semi-sacred symbol of the Republic, and go into issues of modification and defacement.
What will be sticky is that the people on both sides that riled up about this sort of thing will be the loudest and will focus on the religious part of this. On top of that, if this goes to appeal as an issue, I’m sure that the judge will raise questions of personal speech in addition to whatever else.
My sense is that he’s doing this not to remind the court of a long history of morally-based codes, but instead as a protest of the Roy Moore case. Maybe it’s me, but the time for protest against government action is not when acting as a judge in an official governmental capacity.
I wonder what the reaction would be if a Black Muslim lawyer became a judge and wore a robe with the captions “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Prophet”
Why is it so common for those who oppose the 10 Commandments or “under God” in the Pledge to make these overstated comparisons? The above Islamic creed would be comparable to the statement “Jesus is Lord,” not to the 10 Commandments which, if I’m not mistaken, are accepted by Christians, Jews, and even Muslims.
Maybe it’s me, but the time for protest against government action is not when acting as a judge in an official governmental capacity.
Just out of curiosity, then, do you think police officers, firefighters, etc., have a right to not salute the flag or say the pledge of allegiance when appearing in public in uniform?
“The above Islamic creed would be comparable to the statement “Jesus is Lord,” not to the 10 Commandments which, if I’m not mistaken, are accepted by Christians, Jews, and even Muslims.”
Even in Covington County, AL (where I have family and friends) there are people who are not Christian, Jewish or Muslim. Besides which, technically No, Jews do not revere the same 10 Commandments but rather the “replacement set” given after Moses shattered the first two tablets- there are slight differences. In addition, the first four commandments deal completely with religious issues, adultery & coveting & disrespecting your parents are not punishable by law, and every culture that ever existed with or without knowledge of the 10 Commandments had laws against theft, murder and perjury as they’re simply no brainers. Alabama law is based, if you trace it’s ancestry far enough, on English common law which predates that island’s exposure to Christianity and thus there simply is no legitimate purpose in adorning the robe like a ticky tacky breastplate. This is a bid for publicity and attention and he’s gotten it and now hopefully he’ll slink back into the woods, but more likely he’ll make a bid for high state office in two years.
Jon,
My point was not to argue in favor of the 10 Commandments in public places (although, in fact, I do think the vehemence with which the ACLU and other groups have opposed such displays is silly).
My point was just that comparing them to the Shahadatan is very much an exaggeration.
Well, in fairness I have to say I was really pissed off to learn that the public park in front of the courthouse in the county next to the one where I live (for the next two days here in Flannery O’Connor-ville) had to remove the Nativity Set they have displayed for almost 75 years due to threat of ACLU action. The set in question was carved from treated logs during the Depression and was a local public artwork as much as a religious symbol; totally ridiculous that this particular piece of heritage was forced to be removed when it was not in a court of law or other really neutral ground. (Currently it’s housed on the lawn of the local Baptist Church and is going on a rotation basis with other churches.)
Yes, the ACLU does go too far sometimes and they haven’t always chosen their battles wisely or well, but I happen to think that anything that is actually clearly a symbol of secular justice such as a judge’s robe or courtroom should be totally neutral ground with respect to race, religion, creed, etc., but we can agree to disagree.