Posted by biscuitsandhoovergravy (anonymous) on November 28, 2009 at 7:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I believe Judge McKathan to be a good Christian man and I support him for reelection.

Posted by itsjustmyopinion (anonymous) on November 28, 2009 at 9:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

no question about it, Ashley will get my vote.

Posted by lulubell (anonymous) on November 28, 2009 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

He has always had my vote! A very honest christian man and that is what we need for our county!

Posted by bluecollarguy (anonymous) on November 28, 2009 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's a 'Slam dunk", no questions or confusions here, he will hold his seat until he's ready to retire....I'd trust my life and family to this man,...........and folks, that's what your doing when you elect these other judges also..........they have your lives, and your family's lives in the palm of their hand. We the people of Covington County are lucky we've had the Honorable Ashely McKathan to hold some 'sanity' in the courthouse through what all we've been through since times have been a changing, can't say that about the other two judges.

Posted by proudamerican (anonymous) on November 28, 2009 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Same here. He is the epitome of a great judge.

Posted by JesusIsAComin2012 (anonymous) on November 29, 2009 at 7:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ashley McKathan is a man who stands up for what he believes in. Everybody knows that the Ten Commandments is the foundation of all laws. Too bad they don't enforce em' better.

#5 says "Honor thy father and thy mother".

"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death!" Leviticus 20:9

That's what the Good Book says. I say we start follerin' it.

McKathan 2010' all the way baby!

Posted by lo1an2go (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 6:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I also will vote for him. Personally I feel the Ten Commandments and Prayer should be in our schools, justice system, etc. I think everyone should be able to worship the way they believe. I also personally don't have a problem with the judges ten commandments on his robe BUT.... I feel he is breaking the law by doing this while sitting in judgement of others. I realize this will make some people mad but remember this forum is for opinions.

Posted by HumanOnEarth (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 7:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Religious zealot who thinks his religion is better than others - and will use and abuse his power to prove it.

Those who disagree should ask themselves how they would feel if a person of another religion were elected - how comfortable would they feel with that persons religious beliefs being enforced through law.

If I remember correctly - the founding fathers separated church and state to prevent just such an issue.

Posted by LoyalAmerican (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 7:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

HumanOnEarth: Our nation was founded on Christian principles and beliefs. Have you ever noticed the engravings on Federal buildings, especially the US Supreme Court building? For me, separation of church and state means the state can not tell me where, how or whom to worship!
Perhaps you would be more comfortable in a court based on Shariah law.

Posted by HumanOnEarth (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Loyal American - I appreciate the separation of church and state - so that you may choose to worship when, who and how you wish. One that was not separate WOULD dicate how you worshipped.

As far as how this country was founded - read your history - and the constitution - not what's on the money and court buildings. I don't believe the Supreme Court building supersedes the constitution. And was built afterwards.

Posted by galatians5_6bniv (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

HumanOnEarth, sorry but you are wrong, no where in the Constitution does it mention separation of church and state. If my memory is right it was Jefferson who mentioned it in a speech he made to a private group; but I do know that the context he used the phrase in was that religious beliefs are not to be dictated by the government and not be oppressed by the government.

The fact is that the founding fathers quiet clearly and frequently publicly proclaimed that our nation was founded on Christian principals, but provided freedom for all religious belief's. One of the first orders of business handled by the first congress was to order the printing of Bibles to be given to the public so that the public not forget the principals that our country was founded on.

As for the Ten Commandments, they are openly displayed in the US Supreme Court at the order of the same founding fathers.

I am proud to have a Judge who stood up for his belief's and rights, and to have done so with enough wisdom that the powers that be could not stop him without over-throwing the Constitution. What concerns me is that there is so much government pressure to deny Christians the rights and freedoms that this country was founded to protect,

Oh, by the way, this particular zealot goes out of his way to protect the rights of those coming before his court. That is the reason his cases do not get overturned on review.

We don't tell you what you can believe in, so what gives you the right to tell us that we cannot publicly practice our faith, just like the founding fathers insured in the Constitution.

Posted by winkie (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am watching 'All" who work for the State and County, and will deside accordling.

Posted by szyQ (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I hate to see this man get re-elected. He has made bad decisions that have caused me alot of undeserving greif. I will pray that he doesnt' ruin anyone else's family life.

Posted by madashell (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

People need to read the Constitution! It says nothing about a seperation of Church and State. It does say that congress shall make no law regarding religion. Read it!!

Posted by HumanOnEarth (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

galatians5_6bniv - I make no comments regarding your right to publicly practice your faith ... just the governments right to force anyone to practice a certain faith

Posted by LoyalAmerican (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

HumanOnEarth: I am up to speed on the contents of the Constitution. Again, our nation was founded on Christian beliefs and principles.

galatians: I admire your post!

Posted by info4u (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 3:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have nothing against McKathan but in the up and coming electionS I will NOT vote for anyone that is already in office. As I said I have nothing against this man or many that are in office now BUT I feel we need to start fresh and new. The only way to do this is to have all new faces and blood. We all need to elctect people that have not held office, that way these people will be fresh and not be familiar with the loop holes and the "ins and outs" of government. I feel if these people say in office we will run in to situations like we have in the past with Political figures that feel they are above the judicial system. I HOPE OTHERS SEE MY POINT AND FOLLOW MY THINKING!!!

Posted by outlaw11 (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Even though I feel that Ashley has been the best sitting Judge since Bill Baldwin, I still have a problem with an elected Judge who recused himself from hearing the Phillips case because they worked at the same place. With that being said, how can he try cases against any lawyer, policeman, deputy, store owner where he shops, anyone he has known anywhere through-out his life? That action alone cost him my vote. And the other Judge will NOT get my vote either. I'm with info4u, let's start over fresh and new.

Posted by Estragon (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 5:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Pointing out facts to LoyalAmerican and the other right-wing, Bible-quoting Christians, HumanOnEarth, is like arguing with a sign post. Their minds are made-up and closed. I don't doubt that they think that our country was established based on Christian principles, they also believe a lot of other silly and untrue things about religion. Especially that *their* religion has anything to do with the historical Jesus. What they seem to be worshipping is materialism, militarism, and nationalism.

As for Judge McKathan, he is regarded as intelligent and knowledgeable about the law and, except for his displays of religiosity, a good judge. In addition to wearing the 10 Commandments on his robe, the case involving the church dispute where he asked the litigants to pray over what should be done, is simply not acceptable, and he was, I believe, rebuked for this behavior.

What concerns me most about the dispensation of justice in Covington County is the excessive amounts that are set for bail. Persons accused of a crime have a constitutional right to bail. Setting bail for possession of drugs at $800,000 or something ridiculously high that no one in the county can raise, means that a person, without the benefit of trial, is confined to prison. That person is still presumed innocent at this stage of the proceeding. Unable to make bail, the accused looses his or her job, maybe even their homes and automobiles as without income they can not make their monthly debt payments. They may also not be able to afford a lawyer to defend themselves. These excessive bail amounts are clearly unconstitutional and if the practice is not changed, the County should budget a large amount of tax money for payment of the ACLU's court awarded fees in a case that challenges this practice.

And, outlaw11, I disagree with your view about Judge McKathan's recusal in the Phillips case. He made the right call there. Even the "appearance" of impropriety is not acceptable, and if he had taken the case, every ruling he made would have called into question by people, who like you, don't know what they are talking about.

Posted by biscuitsandhoovergravy (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 7:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Appearance of impropriety my ass...the very judge who was her instructor in her so called law school was her judge in her trial. How improper is that?

Posted by HumanOnEarth (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 7:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Estragon - agreed. The arguement for separation of church and state will always fall on deaf ears - unless the religion is not what that particular person believes. And then suddenly all hell breaks loose.

As far as bail - the amounts do not seem to reflect the crime or the accused's potential to run or re-offend. Alleged sexual molesters routinely receive bail amounts far lower than that of persons alleged to possess small amounts of illegal drugs for personal use.

Also - to all ... I mis-posted earlier - due to my own haste ... I posted and I quote here ..." just the governments right to force anyone to practice a certain faith"... when I should have posted that I was just debating the separation issue. The mispost was far too hurried and not conducive to intelligient discussion. I don't believe anyone is forced to practice a certain faith ... though having various things on building and robes does imply a certain 'correct path'...My fault alone for the haste and mispost.

Posted by LoyalAmerican (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 7:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Estragon: Please indulge me briefly, so I may give you correct information for future reference, before you speak about how I think. First, I challenge you to find posts where I have quoted the Bible. As a general rule, I don't quote the Bible, because there are so many interpretations. It would be just my luck to get it wrong, since I am not a theologian. My life is based on Spirituality, my personal relationship with my God and not 'organized' religion. Organized religion, to me, is people based and therefore has the potential to let me down, because of humanistic expectations. Organized religion is great for fellowship and creating a church family. But Spirituality,for me, is God based with no expectations! Total acceptance....no matter what! I do not worship material things, the military or America. However, I am thankful for what I have, admire the sacrifices made by our military, and I love my country, with all her warts, blemishes and triumphs. If you find fault with, or ridicule in either of these three areas, you have missed a lot as an American. What I do worship is my God. He has never let me down. My God is probably not your God....there again....interpretation as we understand it. If you find fault with, or ridicule my interpretation....so be it. Again......you have missed a lot! Now...... feel free to refer to me, correctly!

Posted by bob (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 9:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I had always respected Judge McKathan until he recused himself from the Phillips case. I agree too that he was the best Covington County had in the way of Judges. I thought the Judges took an oath to judge fairly and accordingly to the laws of Alabama any person regardless of fellow politician, friend or family member. Why do we need them if they are only going to select the cases they hear. A criminal is a criminal and should be treated as such. As far as impropriety is concerned I heard Phillips make the statement that the higher court in Covington Co. would not go against her. Apparently she was right. I agree and most of my friends and acquaintances say "CLEAR THE COURTHOUSE"!!

Posted by supprtVets (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 11:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I must agree with Judge McKathan on his recusal in the Phillips case and will vote for him as long as he will continue to seek and hold the office. However, I feel the Intermediate Judge or Juvenile Judge should be replaced in this election. I know of many cases where his rulings on custody matters have proved wrong over the years and many families broken bonds with their children over this Judges rulings and the children have lost their bond with their natural parents due to this one man. This particular court in our county has grown over the years and it is time for a much needed change in flavor in our District Court Judge and staff as my opinion. I hope some good lawyer will seek this 'office' in this upcoming election that has children and a family. But, as far as Judge McKathan, we will never have another Judge as compassionate and fair as this man in our community serving in this position.

Posted by Estragon (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 11:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bob, none of your post makes any sense, although in reading it I gather that you share Biscuits' cockeyed view of how the world works.

The rules governing recusal of judges in Alabama is set forth in the Canons of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3 C. http://www.alalinc.net/jic/docs/cans2006.... These rules include not only personal bias, but having personal knowledge of the disputed facts in the case, having a personal financial interest in the outcome, having served as lawyer in the matter, etc. In deciding whether there are grounds for recusal, good judges err on the side of removing themselves as there is no harm done by their removal, but if they stay in the case and it is later disclosed they should have removed themselves, the conviction in the case could be overturned. Judges normally do not disclose their reasons for recusal when they recuse themselves as the mere disclosure of the basis for recusal might prejudice the case.

I do not know McKathan's reason for recusal in the Phillips case, but his relationship as a fellow judge in the same courthouse must have given him a sound basis for recusal. While it is true that the judge from Montgomery who was appointed to hear the case once taught at Jones Law School and Sherrie Phillips took his course in Legal Ethics, this "relationship" is not a basis for recusal under Canon 3 and no reasonable person would think that the judge was prejudiced for or against an accused because she was once his student.

Posted by outlaw11 (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 11:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Estragon... you are the unknowing one because you have not read the vows taken by these judges...read Bob above...I guess you are the one who doesn't know what they are talking about, but, I respect your opinion anyway, but, please, for future reference, don't state that I don't know what I'm talking about until you check certain things, because you don't know me...my Father and I both worked as investigators up there for several years and I know that neither Judge Smith nor Judge Baldwin would have given 2nd thoughts to trying the case as it was their job, so, still shame on Ashley. As for seperation of church and state, it was written by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association to assure them that the gov't would not tax them...sometime after the Constitution was instated. So good-nite all.

Posted by outlaw11 (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 11:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Estragon...I apoligize because "personal knowledge of facts in dispute" gave Ashley an out...sorry

Posted by Estragon (anonymous) on December 2, 2009 at 7:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There are only two references in the Constitution and Bill of Rights to religion.

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The restrictions of the First Amendment were later applied to the states (and their subdivisions) by their incorporation into the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

In the main body of the Constitution, Article VI provides: " The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

If the Constitution was a document founded on Christian principles, it would have said so. It doesn't. The drafters of the Constitution were greatly influenced by the French Revolution's The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, a draft of which was shown to Thomas Jefferson when he was Ambassador to France. These principles, which evolved out of a movement known as the enlightenment, were based on natural law - that there were innate, inalienable rights with which men were born - and a rejection of the notion that the only rights man had were those bestowed on them by the monarchy or by God, through the church. Western monarchies were a social structure that owed their existence to the Christian religious order, as there were no individual rights, only the right of the King and the Church to decree what was right. Our founding fathers rejected this social order and the religious baggage it contained. Many of the founders considered themselves "Deists," a form of religion that was competing with Christianity in the late 18th Century. Deism is a belief system premised on reason and man's use of his intellectual powers. Deism is closely associated with the Unitarian Church, the church to which many of our founders belonged.

Our judges should be applying non-sectarian, American civil and criminal law; not Hebrew law, not Christian law, not Islamic law,, and not any other religious law. There are enough religious wars in this world without trying to start one here in this country.

Posted by Estragon (anonymous) on December 2, 2009 at 7:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Steve, Bob's view of a judge's "vow" is wrong. ("I thought the Judges took an oath to judge fairly and accordingly to the laws of Alabama any person regardless of fellow politician, friend or family member.")

Here is what Article XV of the Alabama Constitution provides with respect to Oaths of Office:

Section 1. All members of the general assembly, and all officers, executive and judicial, before they enter upon the execution of the duties of their respective offices, shall take the following oath or affirmation, to wit:

"I,.........., solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Alabama, so long as I continue a citizen thereof; and that I will faithfully and honestly discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter, to the best of my ability. So help me God."

Which oath may be administered by the presiding officer of either house of the general assembly, or by any officer authorized by law to administer an oath.

Posted by BigDogDaddy (anonymous) on December 2, 2009 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I met Ashley on the first day of school in 1964 at Pleasant Home. Pretty much saw him everyday for 12 years. I KNOW the man's character, his ethics, and his beliefs. Although he now holds an office, he is still a common man, just like so many of us here in this area. He is accessable. I challange those of you who do not know him to meet him and talk with him. Once you do, I think you will agree, he is as fair,honest, and trustworthy as any man you will ever meet. Go ahead, put him on "trial".

Posted by outlaw11 (anonymous) on December 3, 2009 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Estragon, I apoligized, let it go. I went and read what you posted, then admitted I was wrong, so, please don't shove it down my throat. Thank you.

Posted by galatians5_6bniv (anonymous) on December 8, 2009 at 1:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I love it that we can all publicly express our opinions on matters like this or any other matter, not many places on earth have that right. To all posters, thank you for participating; and no matter what your opinion, it was a pleasure reading your opinions.