Posted on 11/14/2017 10:45:45 AM PST by Mafe
On Monday, a fifth woman came forward with allegations that Roy Moore sexually assaulted her when she was 16 years old and he was a prosecutor in Etowah County, Ala. The accusations to date are both plausible and disgusting. When Moore was in his early thirties, he allegedly sought out and sexually assaulted numerous teenage girls, including a 14-year-old.
Moore has denied it, sort of, although his weird interview with Sean Hannity on Friday left the strong impression that the charges are most likely true. Yet it’s hard to understand why voters in Alabama are only just now realizing that he is unfit for office.
They should have known years ago, when his contempt for the rule of law twice got him removed from the Alabama Supreme Court. It’s worth recounting those incidents because they reveal that Moore is no conservative and has little use for the American constitutional order that conservatives hold dear. That he was embraced by a significant number of social conservatives, and still enjoys significant support among some evangelicals, is yet another sign that the conservative movement has lost its way.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
Actually he upheld constitutional law and order.
The federalist’s Orwellian speak notwithstanding.
After decades of political bullying, We the People are wise to the Establishment SMEAR TACTICS.
He should point out that he was a Democrat at the time of the allegations and such behavior is ok for rats
So your game is to peel off voters with lies because you don’t want real swamp drainers in the Senate.
Wow, insane. So now, submitting to a modern interpretation of law and removing the 10 commandments, is “conservative”. And nevermind they adorn the Supreme court building.
The same thing happened with Christine O’Donnell. They didn’t accuse her of this, but they attacked her as soon as she won the primary and wanted the Democrat to win.
Moore is getting stronger with these false attacks and will win. People will not be disenfranchised either. The GOPe is playing with fire here and better be very careful. Go ROY!!
That’s a very tortured definition of conservative, to say they are those who scrupulously follow the law.
By this logic, Hobby Lobby was bad, the cake bakers are bad...etc.
The truth is, that the American revolutionary socialists have come out with perverted interpretations of everything in America that was considered normal for 200 years. Resisting them and refusing to obey is a duty of conservatism.
Despite that fact that it has been uncovered that two of his accusers are working for the Perversion Party and that their accusations are false and politically motivated. The drivebys and the nevers media are not reporting this but are mentioning one accuser is a “Republican” .
Here is background on two accusers. One works for the perverts that one knows the one who claimed she was 14. But was actually 17 at the time? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3603606/posts
Latest charge : Grad book signature a forgery; http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3604591/posts
someone named Roy signed it Moore’s last name was added to it. She claims he cornered her in his vehicle using “child proof locks” years before they became in standard use.
“Fifth” woman?
There were at least two who said Moore asked them for a date, they said no, and that was that.
The author is correct. When confronted with an order from a court of greater or higher jurisdiction, a judge must follow that order, even if the judge thinks the higher court is wrong. If the judge cannot follow the order due to moral grounds, then the judge must recuse himself. That’s the law we must all follow.
Liberals are the ones who ignore the law to impose there own beliefs. That what Moore did in the Commandments case, even if I agree with Moore’s decision on the merits. That’s why he was rightfully removed from office.
On the other hand, this could explain why Moore was so adamant about having the 10 commandments on display everywhere, to remind him what he shouldn’t be doing.
Sorry John Daniel Davidson, there is a higher law than those which you want to argue for and for which your article is based on. This higher law has been referenced by the Founding Fathers, and the Supreme Court. Learn something, and go find it yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. “question was settled by the Civil War”
This is the dumbest argument ever.
It is the argument that “might makes right.” It is the argument that “he that wins by force is right.” Well, “might makes right” is wrong.
If the south had won the war, would that have made the south right?
If Hitler had won the war, would that have made Hitler right?
Is it right when thugs mug you and take your money?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2. “ignore a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court is anything but conservative”
Regarding “already decided by the Supreme Court” is also a dumb argument.
Was it right when the Nazis decided it was ok to kill jews?
Is it right that the Supreme Court says it ok to kill babies?
What happens when 3 wolves and a sheep vote to decide what they are going to have for lunch?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry John Daniel Davidson, you are dumber than I expected for someone at The Federalist. Idiot.
“Actually he upheld constitutional law and order.”
He was sworn to uphold higher court orders. That includes the USSC decisions he resisted.
And since Marbury vs Madison, all USSC rulings have been considered the law of the land. So not only did he not uphold the superior courts orders, he refused to uphold the law of the land.
The Alabama Judicial Commission, that bastion of progressivism, twice removed him.
Twice.
And that’s always been my principal gripe with the guy.
Of course now at least a dozen folks will post at me that I must support homo marriage and hate the 10- Commandments. And I’ll say now, and only once without arguing: That is not true.
The Federalist is a Respected publication. You’d do well to learn from them.
As long as the other side refuses to play by the rules, so should we.
Yes. You cant enact you r agenda unless you win. It really frosts me that the Dems circle the wasgeans while the Reps instantly throw a guy in trouble under the bus.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.