10 Commandments to go on State Capitol

[Markk]

some of those concurring opinions essentially call Pruitt an idiot.

I'd be interested in knowing whether there is any precedent in Western legal jurisprudence that has permitted a litigant to amend an answer after the case has already been decided (and mandate issued) by the court of last resort.

[cannon_fodder]

I'd be interested in knowing whether there is any precedent in Western legal jurisprudence that has permitted a litigant to amend an answer after the case has already been decided (and mandate issued) by the court of last resort.

I can Answer that by reading the Motion to Amend ---

Not so far as the moving party was able to find.

[cannon_fodder]

Holding on file here:

http://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetDocument.aspx?ct=oklahoma&bc=1030213727&cn=CV-2013-1768&fmt=pdf

It was far kinder than I would have been. Essentially the Court entered the re-entered the Order to remove the monument. The court calmly explained to Pruitt that after an appeal the Trial Court cannot grant leave to Amend an Answer. Far kinder than a law professor would have been to a mock trial participant.

[Markk]

Agreed.  But I still think the AG has a trick or two up his sleeve.The longer he complains about this, the more traction he gets with a coveted slice of the electorate.

[Townsend]

Agreed.  But I still think the AG has a trick or two up his sleeve.The longer he complains about this, the more traction he gets with a coveted slice of the electorate.

His running-for-governor ads will be "He's willing to stand up against Obama and Oklahoma Supreme Court's anti-Christian agenda."

His handlers will have the "Christians under attack" electorate eating out of their hands.

[cannon_fodder]

50/50 on filing a frivolous Federal suit on the issue. Challenging the Oklahoma Supreme Court's violation of the State of Oklahoma's First Amendment Right to practice its religion under the US Constitution.  Or some such nonsense.

A friend asked me a scary question over the weekend: what happens if they just refuse to comply. Pull ye' ole' Andrew Jackson and say "Yeah, but the Supreme Court of Oklahoma doesn't have State Troopers, National Guard, or Capital police. The monument stays."

Result #1 is a constitutional crisis. When the Governor just ignores the laws of their own state, their isn't really a procedure in place for it. The government simply ceases to represent the rule of law and loses all legitimacy.

The easiest solution is to impeach the official who refuses to uphold the law, but as we have seen in Kentucky, if the law is unpopular oaths to uphold it aren't really taken that seriously. So that's unlikely to happen.

One could foresee a request by the Plaintiff for Federal intervention, but unlike historical precedent the Federal intervention would be for violating a State Order, not a Federal Order. Not sure how that works out, but I can see Pruitt really really enjoying the "Obama sent troops to take down our Christian heritage!" theme.

Would the actions of the mentally ill guy who ran it down previously remain criminal if he did a repeat performance should the Governor decide not to remove the monument (is removing an illegal monument illegal)?

An interesting law review article could be written on the subject of a State deciding to simply ignore its own Courts. As the right wing hostility towards the rule of law continues to grow (activist judges! Making law from the bench! Unelected officials! Defund them. Impeach them. Ignore them. (see, e.g., Huckabee)'s recent revelations, Kentucky, Kansas, and our potential situation), the issue is ripe for analysis.

[Hoss]

50/50 on filing a frivolous Federal suit on the issue. Challenging the Oklahoma Supreme Court's violation of the State of Oklahoma's First Amendment Right to practice its religion under the US Constitution.  Or some such nonsense.

A friend asked me a scary question over the weekend: what happens if they just refuse to comply. Pull ye' ole' Andrew Jackson and say "Yeah, but the Supreme Court of Oklahoma doesn't have State Troopers, National Guard, or Capital police. The monument stays."

Result #1 is a constitutional crisis. When the Governor just ignores the laws of their own state, their isn't really a procedure in place for it. The government simply ceases to represent the rule of law and loses all legitimacy.

The easiest solution is to impeach the official who refuses to uphold the law, but as we have seen in Kentucky, if the law is unpopular oaths to uphold it aren't really taken that seriously. So that's unlikely to happen.

One could foresee a request by the Plaintiff for Federal intervention, but unlike historical precedent the Federal intervention would be for violating a State Order, not a Federal Order. Not sure how that works out, but I can see Pruitt really really enjoying the "Obama sent troops to take down our Christian heritage!" theme.

Would the actions of the mentally ill guy who ran it down previously remain criminal if he did a repeat performance should the Governor decide not to remove the monument (is removing an illegal monument illegal)?

An interesting law review article could be written on the subject of a State deciding to simply ignore its own Courts. As the right wing hostility towards the rule of law continues to grow (activist judges! Making law from the bench! Unelected officials! Defund them. Impeach them. Ignore them. (see, e.g., Huckabee)'s recent revelations, Kentucky, Kansas, and our potential situation), the issue is ripe for analysis.

And what's funny is that they aren't 'making law'.  They'r enforcing current law.  Watching the comments on the day the order was handed down was quite amusing.  As I've said before, it's no wonder Oklahoma is near last in education when people don't know how their government works.  I learned that in 7th grade Civics class.

[patric]

Fallin spokesman: Governor will respect court's decision
http://kfor.com/2015/09/16/fallin-spokesman-governor-will-respect-courts-decision

OKLAHOMA CITY - A spokesman for Governor Mary Fallin said the executive office will "live with the outcome either way" after the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals granted Richard Glossip a two-week stay of execution.

"The Governor's job is to follow the law," said spokesman Alex Weintz. "She's had respect for the courts and the justice system all along, and that's what this is about as far as we're concerned, doing justice and what the courts tell us to do."

..but we cant wait to carry out a state-ordered murder of someone who might have been wrongly convicted.
Two-faced horsemeat-eater.

[cannon_fodder]

I took this as a positive sign. She will violate the Constitution in spite of Court Orders when it comes to putting up populist monuments, but she draws the line at murder (killing someone contrary to a Court order would be murder).

That's progress!

Though Shall Not Kill (when the Court Orders you not to)

[Townsend]

Hindus to Seek Statue at Oklahoma Capitol if Law Changes



http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/hindus-seek-statue-oklahoma-capitol-if-law-changes

TULSA, Okla. (AP) — A Hindu organization plans to increase its efforts to put a deity statue on the Oklahoma Capitol grounds if voters approve a proposed change to the state's constitution.

The Tulsa World reports that the Legislature has approved versions of a question that seeks to delete language from the constitution that prohibits the use of public money or property for the support or benefit of religion.

The language was cited in a recent court decision that removed the Ten Commandments from the Capitol grounds. If the proposal becomes law, a statewide vote would be held on whether to remove the wording and return the Ten Commandments to the Capitol.

Universal Society of Hinduism president Rajan Zed says that if the change is approved, the organization would renew its request to place a statue of Lord Hanuman on the property.

[cannon_fodder]

Geee... it seems like we have done this before. Many times before. Passing laws that we know are unconstitutional, then whining about the cost of defending them and the "activist Courts" who throw them out. Even if Oklahoma gets rid of the separation of church and state, it still exists at the Federal level... which trumps Oklahoma law. Every single statement I've heard on the issue demonstrates either blatant ignorance, or an obtuseness that is obnoxious.

It isn't a difficult concept. If you really want the Ten Commandments on display you have to repeal that provision of the Oklahoma Constitution, then you have to set aside a monument park that enables everyone who wants to express an opinion via  monument to do so. The Christian Monument doesn't get more special treatment than the Hindu ones, Satanists, Flying Spaghetti Monster (may we all be touched by His noodly appendage), Moooslim monument, or whatever.

BUT THE TEN COMMANDMENTS ARE IN THE SUPREME COURT!!!

Yes, yes they are. Along with the laws given by Confucius, Muhammad, Grotius, John Marshal, Hammurabi, and... you know, things and people known for giving laws. Kind of like a monument park... oh wait... that's what we DONT want.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Geee... it seems like we have done this before. Many times before. Passing laws that we know are unconstitutional, then whining about the cost of defending them and the "activist Courts" who throw them out. Even if Oklahoma gets rid of the separation of church and state, it still exists at the Federal level... which trumps Oklahoma law. Every single statement I've heard on the issue demonstrates either blatant ignorance, or an obtuseness that is obnoxious.

The insidious thing is that it is neither ignorance nor obtuseness.  It is a radical, extremist, right wing, political agenda to impose a theocracy upon the US.  It really is that simple.

And because that plays so well with fanatics and the weak minded, we have the situation of Okrahoma!


Thinking people must not fall into the trap of believing, even for a second, that it is ignorance, or any other mental deficiency, other than dedication to a extremist right wing radical agenda guiding the effort.

Rust never sleeps!

[Townsend]

State Senate Passes Ten Commandments Monument Legislation

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/state-senate-passes-ten-commandments-monument-legislation

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — A proposed constitutional amendment that asks voters to return a Ten Commandments monument to the Oklahoma Capitol grounds has been approved by the Oklahoma Senate.

Without debate, the Senate voted 39-5 Wednesday for the House-passed measure. It's similar to a measure already approved by the Senate.

The resolution calls for a statewide referendum on whether to abolish an article of the Oklahoma Constitution that prohibits the use of state funds to support a religion. The state Supreme Court relied on that constitutional requirement in June when it ordered a Ten Commandments monument removed from the Capitol grounds.

The 6-foot-tall granite monument was authorized by the Republican-controlled Legislature in 2009 and was erected in 2012. Its placement led other groups to seek their own statues.

[cannon_fodder]

No. That isn't what it does. Stupid news organization. What it does is abolish the separation of Church and State under the Oklahoma Constitution. 

The RESULT of the referendum is essentially to ask if they can place the monument on the capital grounds. But the motion is merely to strip the constitutional amendment. On paper, it has nothing to do with the 10 Commandments Monument.

OK Constitution, Article 2
§ 5. Public money or property - Use for sectarian purposes.

No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such.

Of course, the purpose is to put up the protestant 10 Commandments to Catholics, Jews, and Muslim's know where they stand. Let alone Hindus or other religions that don't believe in the 10 Commandments at all. Ha! We'll show them!

Of course the actual result is an immediate challenge by the Satanists (who have a statute ready) and the Hindus (who have funded one but apparently don't have the statute ready) and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to put up their monuments as a reflection of their cultural and historic influence on the laws and society of the United States (because this is totally a historic issue and in no way religious).

Of course the outcome is going to be a denial of any other religious request along bogus reasons and a federal lawsuit which Pruitt will lose (along with his suit against Texas, Arkansas, Colorado, on gay rights, on the original monument, on...) and we will pay for. Then an appeal, which we will lose and pay for. And a rejection by the Supreme Court  (if we ever appoint a full Court again because the President doesn't get to do that, we now wait until the NEXT president after a vacancy opens because we believe in the Constitution but only when it benefits us). The monument will then be taken down after a couple of years of stalling and speeches will be made about activist Courts "making" new law as Governor Pruitt regales us all with tales of how he stood up to the Federal Government (and almost always lost).

Remember: my religion good, yours bad.

[dbacksfan 2.0]