Bottom line: The kindest assessment of Corlews rulings in this case is that he was in over his head and it showed. He came off as having an "anti-mosque" mind set from the begining and ended up making a ruling that made his bias obvious. An unbiased ruling would have reflected the obvious, that being he should have ruled under the law that existed and expressed his personal opinion later and off the record. The Fed. seemed to pick up on the Courts lack of objectivity early and began early on to prepare for the "big boo- boo".
I agree with bota--it seems that Corlew based his ruling on his prejudices (or maybe pressure from the anti-mosque) rather than Constituional law. Anyway you explain it, it was a bad decision.
The man is facing re-election soon and wants to win at any pathetic cost. Obviously making Murfreesboro look like a bastion of hate is of no consequence.
Duvics :If you are refering to Judge Corlew, I may be wrong, but I think that he is appointed, not elected.
On the last page of an election ballot, you vote to deny or retain judges. They can be voted out of office.
Corlew, and all other local judges, are voted directly by constituents in the 16th Judicial District (Rutherford and Cannon Counties). Corlew is up for re-election in 2014.
Tennessee appellate judges are appointed by the Governor, and then "retained" by yea or nea votes in subsequent elections. It is called the "Tennessee System", and was created by our state supreme court as a way around the state constitution mandate for elected appellate judges.