10 Commandments to go on State Capitol

[rebound]

Maybe we could start a 'cloud-funding' effort to have these words immortalized and placed on the state Capital grounds...I would pitch in $10 or so....

I could support it the part about OU is taken out,  as that's still too much of a religious message...

[heironymouspasparagus]

I could support it the part about OU is taken out,  as that's still too much of a religious message...

Yeah, you are definitely right there...and not just a religious message, but a fanatical religious cult message at that!!

The wife's birthday has to stay, though!


I would still fund it.... 9 1/2 out of 10 ain't bad.  Better than any other "game of chance" we have in this state - especially the legislative game of chance...

[Townsend]

Per the TW - Lawyers are meeting on 9/11 to discuss how to remove the monument.

It seems simple, you get that guy out of jail for a day, give him a key to a Plymouth and tell him to remove the monument.

Then you get some of the construction guys at the capital to toss it in one of the debris bins.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Per the TW - Lawyers are meeting on 9/11 to discuss how to remove the monument.

It seems simple, you get that guy out of jail for a day, give him a key to a Plymouth and tell him to remove the monument.

Then you get some of the construction guys at the capital to toss it in one of the debris bins.

No opportunity for the award of political patronage gifts to your brother-in-law who has a backhoe and a road grader....  Oh, wait...that's Jim Inhofe...  Same principle applies.

[cannon_fodder]

 I now know why I have been so confused, I was thinking we lived in a State based on civil laws and a constitution. In a theocracy, things have to be easier. The constitution Bible is very clear on the topic.

Romans 13:1-5

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

So, to keep on God's good side - do what the authority tells you to do.  When deciding issues of the Oklahoma Constitution, the OK Supreme Court is the highest authority. So we listen to them. Done and done!

Acts 5:29

But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men."

Ahh crap. Ok. I see there is some wiggle room. Maybe this one applies:

1 Timothy 6:1-21

Let all who are under a yoke as slaves regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful on the ground that they are brothers; rather they must serve all the better since those who benefit by their good service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these things. If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. ...

See? If our benevolent overlords are masters, and the citizenry are slaves --- then the masters have been granted authority fro Jesus and we must obey. Otherwise, we are depraved. So it is OK to ignore the ruling of judges! Unless the judges are the masters and the politicians are the depraved puffed up conceited people who understand nothing. Hmmm...

Wait, wait... no, never mind. We should listen to the judges:

Deuteronomy 17:11-13

According to the terms of the law which they teach you, and according to the verdict which they tell you, you shall do; you shall not turn aside from the word which they declare to you, to the right or the left. 12 The man who acts presumptuously by not listening to the priest who stands there to serve the LORD your God, nor to the judge, that man shall die; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel. 13Then all the people will hear and be afraid, and will not act presumptuously again.

Oh crap. If we are a State based on Biblical law we have some serious issues to address. Apparently not obeying a judges order is taken kind of seriously in that book.  I think people dying is a bit extreme, and don't advocate for it, Im actually against it. I think we have to pass on that angle.

So lets compromise, lets obey the judges... but avoid the whole bit about someone dying. I think a stern reprimand, maybe wearing a dunce hat for a period of time equal to the delay would be enough to deter delaying the implementation of a judges order in the future.

Yay for civil law!

- - - - - - - -

Seriously, what's their to decide?  The monument gets taken down and put into storage. You can then return it to the donor or otherwise figure out what to do with it. This is like a child getting out of bed to get a glass of water, to go to the bathroom, then again to check for homework, oh, forgot to wash my face...

[rebound]

Man, that was a long ways to go...  but I'm impressed.   
Nice post.

[Ed W]

Wanna bet they find some way to delay the monument removal? Perhaps it will require a environmental impact study, or an assessment by FEMA of potential flood control management problems, or maybe there's an endangered cricket in the grass nearby.

[Markk]

Unbelievable. 

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/oklahoma-ag-scott-pruitt-continues-fight-over-ten-commandments/article_9bf8d628-5687-5b77-9070-ef5ceb5d1438.html

[Conan71]

Unbelievable. 

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/oklahoma-ag-scott-pruitt-continues-fight-over-ten-commandments/article_9bf8d628-5687-5b77-9070-ef5ceb5d1438.html

So, by Pruitt's own logic, the moratorium halting the construction of any other religious monuments on capital grounds would violate the First Amendment and would show hostility to other religions as well.  Pruitt is dead set on trying to maintain a Christian theocracy in Oklahoma, isn't he?

Pruitt's latest legal filing in Oklahoma County District Court argues that the June 30 ruling is hostile to religion and therefore violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

"In its decision to remove the monument, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that no matter how historically significant or beneficial to the state, state law prohibits any item on state property or to be funded by the state if it is at all 'religious in nature,'" Pruitt said.

He said the ruling prohibits manifestations of faith from the public square and creates hostility toward religion.

[Markk]

So, by Pruitt's own logic, the moratorium halting the construction of any other religious monuments on capital grounds would violate the First Amendment and would show hostility to other religions as well.  Pruitt is dead set on trying to maintain a Christian theocracy in Oklahoma, isn't he?

Just his particular brand of Christian theocracy.  Not that there's anything wrong with that ...

[swake]

Just his particular brand of Christian theocracy.  Not that there's anything wrong with that ...

I'm quite sure that his version of Christian is that which furthers his political career. I don't buy that he believes in anything other than himself and naked pursuit of power.

[cannon_fodder]

I'm going to try and explain, as calmly as I can, just how insulting this filing is.  The posters above have already pointed out the hypocrisy of his position (It's totally nonreligious... what I mean is, if you make me remove it you're being hostile towards religion!), and his hypocrisy within hypocrisy (my religious idol is not religious at all, totally nope!). But from a legal perspective, his actions would be swiftly sanctioned if any other attorney did so. If it was done by a pro se, it would e stricken and the pro se directed not to file additional materials or appear before the court.

Here is the basic process of the case up until now:


08/19/2013 - CV-2013-1768 is filed in Oklahoma County District Court against the Oklahoma Capital Preservation Commission (the State of Oklahoma), asserting that the monument is religious and must be removed

09/13/2013 - Scott Pruit Enters the Case

09/13/2013 - ANSWER of the State of Oklahoma, asserting that the monument is purely secular and doesn't have to be removed

03/13/2014 - parties come to an agreement on discovery schedule

04/09/2014 - depositions and written discovery are ongoing (evidenced by notice of deposition on the docket)

04/28/2014 - discovery is still ongoing, there are subpoenas being issued, and motions to quash the same

05/22/2014 - MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by the State of Oklahoma (hey Judge, there are no real fact questions here. Just purely a legal question, resolve this case for us) arguing again that the monument is purely secular and not religious, so it can stay.

06/06/2014  - RESPONSE by the Plaintiffs, monument is religious, violates the Oklahoma Constitution, it has to go!

A few months of back and forth and additional briefing back and forth. Briefs by other people entered etc. etc. etc.

09/09/2014 - STATE WINS! No explanation is given by the Curt, but the Ten Commandments is defacto declared "non-religious" and therefore not in violation of the Oklahoma Constitution.

09/23/2014 - Order finalized in three sentences.

10/23/2014 - APPEAL filed

11/12/2014 - STATE ANSWERS the appeal. Argues that it is totally not religious and doesn't violate the state constitution.

01/08/2015 - Oklahoma Supreme Court orders additional briefing.

03/16/2015 - Plaintiff's file additional briefs. Arguing the monument is totally religious and must be removed.

Over the next month, several other briefs are filed by people not in the case.

05/08/2015 - the STATE files their brief. Arguing that it is entirely not religious, and even if it is, it is totally like any other monument that might be kinda religious and was allowed to stay in other places.

05/29/2015 - STATE responds to Plaintiff's brief. Saying the monument is NOT religious stop saying it is!

06/30/2015 - RULING - REVERSE AND REMANDED. TEN COMMANDMENTS ARE INHERENTLY RELIGIOUS AND VIOLATES THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION

06/30/2015 - SAME DAY, State files a request for rehearing and stay of execution (almost like it was ready to be filed...)

07/09/2015 - Plaintiffs file a response, saying a rehearing is a waste of time, the state is stalling, lets move it!

07/15/2015 - State and others ask to file more briefs.

07/27/2015 - DENIED, we already heard this crap. Get on with it!

08/03/2015 - Plaintiffs - you lost, pay our costs!

08/12/2015 - State: we don't want to pay your costs!

08/17/2015 - RULING. Too bad. Pay their costs, you lost.

08/27/2015 - MANDATE ISSUED. REMOVE THE MONUMENT.

08/27/2015 - Oklahoma County Judge - OK people, lets set a hearing and talk about how this monument is coming down.

09/03/2015 - STATE OF OKLAHOMA, WE WANT TO CHANGE OUR ANSWER THAT WE FILED TWO YEARS AGO. WE HAD NO IDE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO ARGUE THAT THE MONUMENT WAS RELIGIOUS AND THAT RELIGIOUS MONUMENTS CANT BE ON THE CAPITAL GROUNDS.

- - -- - -

Seriously, they filed a request to Amend their Answer.

Holy sh!t! Seriously? Two years later and after going back and froth with a dozen briefs, you are JUST NOW figuring that out?  This is sitting through a kids high school graduating, then getting a rejection letter from Harvard and  deciding you should have used birth control, so you'd like to pretty please throw him off a bridge and just start over. Can we call a mulligan on that one? Please?

To start with, I've never even heard of anyone wanting to amend their answer more than ~30 days after the discovery cutoff. Certainly not after summary judgment has been GRANTED. Let alone after they won and an appeal was filed. And I've never even considered someone asking to amend their answer after a case was fully litigated, an appeal was filed, all briefs were filed, a ruling made, a petition for rehearing denied, and a mandate issued. It never even crossed my mind... you had many, many chances to state your argument.

Secondly, "Ummm, I never really thought the Court would take the other guys side - so I want a redo changing my entire theory of the case" is a ridiculous reason to ask to amend.
To come from the highest legal authority the executive branch has in this state is a flat out embarrassment.  If this is how things operated then EVERY Supreme Court case would result in someone going back and changing their answer. Because by its very nature, that Supreme Court is deciding big cases and clarifying points of law. So each and every time the loser can say "Gee, I didn't think I was going to lose. I'd like a re-do." Then if they change the ruling the new loser gets to just go back and reanswer and start over again?

Finally, I sttill can't see the filing on the docket. That means the media didn't pick up on it from reading the docket. Rather, it seems likely that Pruitt is grandstanding by sending a copy directly to the media and shouting LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME. Trying the case to the public is severely frowned upon by ethics rules. The Tulsa posted on the TulsaWorld isn't even signed... here's the motion:
http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/9/24/924642b4-4025-574f-983e-a5283fb4b9be/55e8dd9bcc86a.pdf.pdf

Want to talk about frivolous lawsuits and wasting the Court's time?

Here's the underlying docket sheet:
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&db=Oklahoma&number=CV-2013-1768

Here is the appellate docket sheet:
http://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&cmid=115447&number=SD-113332

Here is the Order Denying Rehearing (the opinion in the case):
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=476438


I'm surprised there isn't a footnote announcing his run for governor. What a political hack job.

[Markk]

some of those concurring opinions essentially call Pruitt an idiot.

[Ed W]

Scott Pruitt is an embarrassment not only to the people of Oklahoma but to conscientious attorneys everywhere.

[Townsend]

Scott Pruitt is an embarrassment not only to the people of Oklahoma but to conscientious attorneys everywhere.

And he'll win when he runs for governor unless someone shows Jesus disapproves.