Many of the commuted sentences had to do with crack cocaine offenses, which were reformed some in 2010, many years too late, as I argued in this piece published in 2005, Congress Must Fix Inequitable Drug Sentencing. The President should be lauded for these efforts, as should the volunteer lawyers that are working up the cases for the Presidential review.
Charles Hickman, the chairman of the Pikeville-Pike County airport board, got upset about some mean things that had been posted anonymously about him on the local Topix site. He filed a defamation suit and sought to compel Topix to disclose the identities of the anonymous posters. The case came to the Kentucky Supreme Court on the issue of what Hickman would have to show an order to compel the disclosure of the anonymous posters' identities. The court established a pretty demanding requirement that Hickman present a prima facie showing that the postings were false, something that required more of him than asserting their falsity. The case is Doe v. Coleman.
The Court was very cognizant of the free speech and public policy issues under the First Amendment that were at stake. Hickman, after all, as a public figure. History tells us that one of the most influential documents of the American Revolutionary period was Thomas Paine's Common Sense, which was initially published anonymously. And so the Court observed:
Without free comment on matters of public concern, totalitarianism can arise. And naturally, when public speech is "free," that speech will contain comments critical of those who seek to govern. Indeed, it is inherent in a democracy that only by exercising one's voice can the individual citizen truly participate in the governance of society. Sometimes, negative things just need to be said.
Judge Moore is a crusader and a true believer: in 2003 he was ousted from the Chief Justice office for refusing to follow a federal court's ruling to remove a giant rock with the Ten Commandments on it from the state's supreme court building.
There's different ways to look at this. One is that judges have to follow higher court rulings or apply statutes all the time that they disagree with or which they see cause unjust even morally repugnant results. That is known going in as part of the job, I would guess. The legal system can't tolerate renegade judges, because it would devolve into a system of men rather than laws. Frankly, there's already enough problems like this. Actions like Judge Moore's just encourage judges to think they are entitled to have an agenda, which leads some off the reservation, so to speak.
Another way is to respect even admire Judge Moore's willingness to stand up for what he believes in, and to pay a price for doing so.
A third way is to recognize that Judge Moore will likely use this second ousting from office as a springboard to once again run for elected office. Following his removal as Alabama Chief Justice in 2003 Judge Moore ran twice unsuccessfully for Governor of Alabama. Perhaps he figures the third time's the charm.
