quote: Judge's robe gets national attention McKathan's office is getting supportive phone calls from all over the country Thursday, December 16, 2004 By CONNIE BAGGETT Staff Reporter
ANDALUSIA -- Two days after Presiding Circuit Court Judge Ashley McKathan donned a robe in court displaying the Ten Commandments on his chest, staffers were busy fielding calls from media outlets and supporters across the nation.
"We've had calls from Texas, Washington state, Arkansas, California, New Jersey and Tennessee, plus the local calls," explained McKathan's secretary, Susan Sansom, looking over a legal pad listing the callers early on Wednesday. "Every one of them is supportive of what the judge has done. We have not had a single complaint called in."
Then there were media calls from local papers, radio and television and even the CNN and MSNBC cable news networks. The south Alabama judge seemed a bit surprised at how quickly word of his gold-lettered robe traveled. Advertisement
"This is only the third day," he said, smiling and still wearing the robe during a break in court proceedings. "I expected a little stir, but I never dreamed it would go so far so fast."
But it has, and that is part of the problem, according to some attorneys, including Riley Powell, who is trying a case before McKathan and has two others on the docket in the coming days.
"I objected to the robe because the news media attracted by it has been a distraction in this case," Powell said Wednesday. "Even though the judge warned them not to read papers or listen to the news media, this morning at least half had seen the news and read accounts of the issue -- it was on Rick and Bubba's radio show this morning and on 'Paul Harvey.' Some had even been called by the media.
"The judge asked them and they all said they could still give my client a fair trial. I hope so."
McKathan's secretary said he decided somewhere around the end of October to order the robe, paying for it with his own money. He then hired a local seamstress to embroider the Ten Commandments in bold letters on the front, she said.
McKathan said he even shopped for a robe with fewer pleats to better accommodate the sewing.
The judge said he wants the scriptural foundation of modern law to be acknowledged. Without the biblical "truth" he said, "there is no law."
With reporters asking for interviews at a steady clip, his message is getting out.
Law center outraged:
"It is outrageous," said Richard Cohen, an attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center who participated in prior Ten Commandments cases. "If people came to us wanting to take legal action, we would look at it. It seems to be an issue of his religious beliefs, and he is inviting people to sue him."
McKathan said he is not looking forward to any court battles about the issue, but will be prepared to defend himself should it happen.
"Certainly I wanted to make a point," McKathan said. "I think it is important to keep the issue before the people."
Alabama drew national attention last year when former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore had a washing machine-sized granite monu ment placed in the rotunda of the building housing the court in Montgomery. When he defied a federal court order to remove the display, he refused and was ultimately removed from office.
Moore argued that he was only "acknowledging God" and was supported by the state's constitution. Moore released a statement Tuesday supporting McKathan's actions.
Come on. Is there no one who gives a darn about appearing impartial anymore?
'But Mr. Saxon! Just because he values his religion doesn't mean he isn't impartial.'
Yeah, it does. Unless the commandments help him in his job as judge, I don't see how the ten commandments on his robe are anything but a statement of his strong *personal* prejudices.
Also, consider that sewing stuff on what amounts to a uniform is, in my opinion, pretty unprofessional. What would people say if cops started walking around with big 'Jesus Saves' logos on the back of their uniforms? Non-religious people certainly couldn't get away with attaching their own personal effects to uniforms as they wished. Why should the religious? Especially when it isn't mandated by their faith?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
About basing your opinions on the actual merits of the case and the law involved rather than your personal religious beliefs?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Appearing impartial, that is, appearing to weigh a case on its merits rather then on preconceived biases.
No hindu, muslim, atheist, probably jew, etc. could walk into that courtroom, and feel like his religion isn't going to be used against him. Hence, the appearence of impartiality is removed.
Our judicial system absolutely relies on everyone believing that it will find the merits of any given case. If I walked into that courtroom, I have instant grounds of appeal, because of the appearance of the judge.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:No hindu, muslim, atheist, probably jew, etc. could walk into that courtroom, and feel like his religion isn't going to be used against him.
Why not? It seems to me that it should be very easy to.
And if it's not easy to, that would be that person's problem for being overly paranoid about clothing, rather than the judge's problem. No different than if I came in and complained that a judge with a mullet could not give me a fair trial, because I had no mullet. Appearances are just appearances - they do not in any way imply justice cannot or will not be served.
Furthermore, if the issue is whether I might "feel like" my religion will be used against me, why don't we ban Christian judges altogether? After all, does a judge have to be wearing something Christian for me to know he is Christian and realize he might be biased against me? Certainly not. All I have to do is research him a little. As soon as that happens, my perception of his impartiality is removed, and I "feel like" my religion could be used against me if I'm not his religion.
posted
Because the appearance of objectivity matters. If dress didn't matter than judges would just wear office clothes, or jeans and a T-shirt.
When the judge enters the room, he or she is expected to set aside personal beliefs and prejudices and judge openly, honestly, and fairly according to the laws of the district and the country, even if such laws contradict his or her own beliefs. When he or she puts on the robe, it signifies that he or she has become the office.
I don't know that this judge would rule unfairly, or that his religious beliefs would affect his rulings any more than they would without the decorated robes. All I know is that he either takes his religion so seriously or his office so trivially that he feels justified in making this stand. Frankly, that's all I need to know. My case is not the most important thing to this judge.
[ December 17, 2004, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because the appearance of objectivity matters. If dress didn't matter than judges would just wear office clothes, or jeans and a T-shirt.
Wearing jeans and a T-shirt might be unprofessional, but I think it'd be quite a stretch to claim it'd be a big problem if some judge did do that. It wouldn't be a good reason to try and claim you can't get a fair trial.
A judge can be just as impartial wearing a Ten Commandments robe as he can not wearing it. And if he is going to be biased in the special robe, he's probably just as biased in a standard robe. Allowing the clothing change alters nothing.
I have to admit, there are more and more days when I'm in favor of folding up the ACLU and associated groups and just let mob rule take over. If the majority wants a Christian nation, let them take it. I'm tired of fighting for an ideal that lets all religions coexist reasonably peacefully. Let the country move in whatever direction it wants and see what happens.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xaposert - when my son was 13, 14 years old, he decided that people judging him on his appearance were shallow and prejudicial. He felt that, since he was comfortable in his own self-worth, he didn't need to shower or brush his hair in order to be worthwhile.
On the face of it he was entirely correct. People should judge him on his personal merits, his thoughts, his deeds, and not on his grooming.
In reality, as I explained to him, he can believe that all he wants but he'd still get avoided, jeered, and generally shunned if he were to abandon his hygiene. Also, while disregard for his appearance didn't affect how I thought of him, it did suggest that he had no respect for himself if he failed to perform even minor upkeep.
Bathing won. Good thing too, he's 19 and dating now...
You're right. A judge should be able to wear whatever he or she likes, whether it be religious, a favorite rock group, a tu-tu, or a swastika, and be judged solely on his or her rulings. But the fact remains that people do judge by appearance, they're (as a group) unlikely to stop, and that has to be considered. Your arguments about society are fine, they just fail to take into account the social part.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
While most of the commandments are nicely judicial, please remember the 1st and foremost commandment--"I Am The One True God. Thou Shalt Not Put Any Other God's Before Me."
This means that anyone who doesn't worship that "True God" is already breaking the first law that judge blatantly promotes. Can they really expect that judge to treat them the same as someone who does?
He proclaims that Biblical law is the foundation of our present legal system. This follows the argument that this country is a Christian country at its roots. Can an Non-Christian-American find equal justice in such a system?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:This follows the argument that this country is a Christian country at its roots. Can an Non-Christian-American find equal justice in such a system?
Actually, that's not precluded by such a system, at least if it truly were Christian in the highest sense.
posted
Since I break the first three commandments on a nearly daily basis, the fourth every weekend, and one or two of the others are a bit hedgy, I think I'd be trying for a change of venue. On everything. Even parking tickets.
[ December 18, 2004, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once again, Alabama upholds her banner of bigotry and willful ignorance for the eyes of the world.
I still think the snake handling church guys are cooler.
Or the people who eat dirt.
Oh, and Enterprise, AL features the world's only statue glorifying an insect. They honor the boll weevil for teaching them to plant a diversity of crops instead of relying on only one or something like that. Not sure why they honor the boll weevil, actually. Just I know the bug is always being stolen and the statue is a favorite target for local pranksters.
Hey, and don't forget the church of the Eggbeater Jesus in Scottsboro, or maybe it's Huntsville.
We have lots of cool things like that.
And kudzu. We have tons of kudzu too. Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're right. A judge should be able to wear whatever he or she likes, whether it be religious, a favorite rock group, a tu-tu, or a swastika, and be judged solely on his or her rulings. But the fact remains that people do judge by appearance, they're (as a group) unlikely to stop, and that has to be considered. Your arguments about society are fine, they just fail to take into account the social part.
Unlike your son, however, the judge's job is not to try to get a date. The impressions other people get of the judge doesn't matter. Consider what would happen if that judge decided to color his hair neon green... everyone would suspect he's unstable. Would that be grounds to fire him or force him to change his hair color? I would hope not.
The courtroom is not highschool. If people want to come to judgements about whether the judge is biased or crazy or mean or whatever based on his clothing, what do we care? It doesn't stop a fair trial from going on. It doesn't stop the judge from doing his job. And it doesn't suggest, in any way, that the defendant is better or worse off than he would have been had the judge been wearing neutral clothing. It might stop the judge from winning a popularity contest, or getting a date, or running for president, but these sorts of things are not the judge's job.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The impressions other people get of the judge doesn't matter.
This is just false. Most of the rules of legal ethics are not aimed at stopping actual conflicts of interest, but the appearance of conflicts of interest.
posted
The founding fathers were very clear that they did mot set up the laws, etc. of this nation as a Christian country. Jefferson, in particular, was adamant that one's religion was one's own business. Often, Christian groups will take his words out of context to prove that he had (the Christian)God in mind the whole time. It is untrue. He wanted people to look at their religion under the microscope of reason to see if it made sense, and not blindly believe anything they were told.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh come on.. who are we kidding? Appearances DO matter, anyone who insistes that they do not form an initial impression of people based on their appearance is deluding themselves. If I walked into a courtroom and the judge was wearing jeans and a t-shirt my initial impression would be -wow this is a pretty laid back judge-, if the judge was wearing a Hitler mustache and swastika I would probably be a little scared, particularly if I was a member of a minority.
I feel that a judge's responsibility is to serve the people and uphold justice, not promote his or her own personal agenda. I do not understand why the concept of Seperation of Church and State is so dog-gone difficult.
Posts: 295 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is just false. Most of the rules of legal ethics are not aimed at stopping actual conflicts of interest, but the appearance of conflicts of interest.
The fact that rules exist about appearance doesn't mean appearance matters, that those rules need to exist, or that those rules would be important enough to justify restricting a judge's freedom of religious expression.
quote:If I walked into a courtroom and the judge was wearing jeans and a t-shirt my initial impression would be -wow this is a pretty laid back judge-, if the judge was wearing a Hitler mustache and swastika I would probably be a little scared, particularly if I was a member of a minority.
I agree, but the question is: Should a judge be banned from doing those things just because you might get a bad impression of him?
quote:I do not understand why the concept of Seperation of Church and State is so dog-gone difficult.
Well, the biggest problem with Seperation of Church and State is that it often seems that BOTH directions you can go on an issue are violating the consitutional right to freedom of religion. Remember the Constitution reads that the government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise."
I would think banning a judge from wearing religious symbolism is prohibiting the free exercise of religion much moreso than allowing him to wear it would be establishing a religion - precisely because the clothing of a judge is irrelevant enough that it should not in any way force anyone to accept that judge's religion.
quote: agree, but the question is: Should a judge be banned from doing those things just because you might get a bad impression of him?
Well.. Yeah.. the judge sets the tone of the court room. I think they are the guiding force in the court room. They shouldn't wear clothing that says "HEY!!!!!!!! LOOK AT ME EVERYONE!!!!!!!THESE ARE MY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS" I am all about freedom of speech and freedom of expression but not when all those affected are not afforded the same opportunity. Would anyone else in the court room have this same right? Could someone in the courtroom that disagreed with the judge's message be afforded the opportunity to express his or her opinion or would they be forced to sit there and "take it"?
Posts: 295 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess my biggest problem with this situation is that I feel the judge is the only person in the position to express his beliefs. THAT is not free speech.
Posts: 295 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres- A strong judicial system can only be achieved if the appearance of impartiality is maintained, as without the appearance of impartiality, the losing party can blame the impartiality for his loss, and so undermine the whole system, casting doubt on the impartiality of the judge in any case. Once doubt is established about impartiality, then teh judicial system ceases to be a place where people will go to have their disputes settled in an impartial manner.
If you can't understand this concept, then you have no clue about inter-personal dynamics, and should spend the next year observing people and how they interact in large groups, especially when in conflict over important matters, rather then debating points that involve how people act.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The fact that rules exist about appearance doesn't mean appearance matters, that those rules need to exist, or that those rules would be important enough to justify restricting a judge's freedom of religious expression.
The rules exist for numerous policy reasons. Someone attempting to change them has a heavy persuasive burden. Forgive me if I trust the cumulative experience of hundreds of years of legal rule-making over a couple of paragraphs from you on this subject.
It is a fundamental requirement of a system of justice that the participants feel they have received a fair hearing. Participants are more likely to accept contrary judgments if they believe the process which led to them is fair.
Courts obtain most of their power from their prestige. They have no real enforcement power. If the executive refuses to implement their decisions, most of them will have no real-world effect. Right now, an executive cannot politically survive widespread disregarding of final judgments.
In every court proceeding there are innumerable decisions made by the judge which are not subject to review. Cumulatively, these decisions can easily change the outcome of a case. Most of these decisions could really go either way, and most of them aren't explained.
Anything which gives the appearance of partiality brings every single one of those decisions into doubt.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
