Suspended Alabama Chief Justice Fights Charges in Ten Commandments Case

Associated Press ^ | Oct. 22, 2003 | Bob Johnson

[ForGod'sSake]

Because your opinion of 'constitutional' and theirs differs does not give you, or anyone, the right to ignore them without consequences.

You don't seem to grasp the concept here. We are a sovereign people. The government serves at our pleasure. Nobody, under our constitution, can dictate law to us, period. Our elected representatives make law on our behalf. If what you are saying is that only lawyers and judges have the right to interpret law, then we are not sovereign. If the law is so complex that citizens are unable to understand it using their God given common sense, we have given up our sovereignty....to judges.

FGS

[EternalVigilance]

Can't you read?

[sinkspur]

Take it up with the 11th Circuit, AND the Supreme Court.

Your not liking or agreeing with it carries no weight.

Tell me, should a Chief Justice of a State Supreme Court be able to defy three separate courts?

[EternalVigilance]

If they are violating the Constitution of the United States and of the man's home state, he has no choice but to disobey them.

I've posted the clear words of both documents. My nine-year-old can understand them, they are so simple and basic.

[ForGod'sSake]

William Rehnquist: "The wall of separation between church and state is a metaphor based upon bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging."

At the heart of the matter, IMO. Great piece.

FGS

[sinkspur]

I've posted the clear words of both documents.

It must be a bitch to be so damned smart, yet have three separate courts, including the Supreme Court, tell you you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Good night. We're not going to resolve this, you and I.

[EternalVigilance]

Your not liking or agreeing with it carries no weight.

It carries the weight of one sovereign citizen of the United States.

And you may be shocked to find out how many people agree with me.

[EternalVigilance]

You lose.

[Iconoclast2]

Earlier Wednesday, the Court of the Judiciary rejected Moore's bid to disqualify Pryor from prosecuting him. Among Moore's arguments was that Pryor's office defended him in court during his fight to keep the monument in the building's rotunda, and that the attorney general cannot now oppose him in a related case.

Sounds like grounds for disqualification under any ethical code in the country. Oops, I forgot; government officials no longer have to follow the law. Wouldn't it be great if Bush nominated AND DEFENDED somebody with the balls to say he couldn't prosecute Moore as a matter of conscience?

[sinkspur]

And you may be shocked to find out how many people agree with me.

If they're not Federal Judges, with jurisdiction over Alabama, it doesn't matter.

[sinkspur]

You lose.

It's not about me. It's about Roy Moore, and he's going to lose.

[BlueNgold]

I'm truy sorry but you are wrong on this matter. The court does have jurisdiction, and acted within their legal boundaries. There ARE methods to overturn or move around circuit court decisions ... ignoring them is not one of the acceptable paths. Your arguments are best suited for a SCOTUS appeal or a Law in which congress makes an independant finding of fact - defying the courts is not appropriate nor can it be tolerated.

[Noachian]

You did your best, but you'll never convince someone who believes in the tyranny of judges to believe in a system where the Legislature makes the laws and not the Courts.

Good job.

[EternalVigilance]

If they're not Federal Judges, with jurisdiction over Alabama, it doesn't matter.

At the moment, there are over a hundred members of Congress who agree with me. And they hold power constitutionally over those judges, as well as holding their pursestrings.

Now tell me this, would you like to help us rein them in, or do you think they are right? Are they right in their goal of driving God and Christianity out of the American public square where they have always been since the founding?

[EternalVigilance]

Thank you.

[Lloyd227]

"The judges of the 11th Circuit acted well within their constitutional authority as this is a matter of Federal Constitutional law requiring clarification within their appointed district."

- What federal law required clarification?
- What law implies jurisdiction to the federal courts regarding a statue, religious or otherwise, being housed in a State building?
- What is the Constitutional issue involved here (for a State) which required Federal Clarification?

I believe you are wrong on this point and that there is no "...matter of Federal Constitutional law requiring clarification"

Please provide the specifics.

[sinkspur]

I support the Allard bill.

What I DO NOT support is a renegade judge defying a Federal Court.

[Lloyd227]

"Tell me, should a Chief Justice of a State Supreme Court be able to defy three separate courts?"

In my mind? Absolutely! without doubt, and if the circumstances are such, he is duty bound to do so.

[EternalVigilance]

It's not about me. It's about Roy Moore, and he's going to lose.

But....but...sinkspur....you said he is going to be Governor, right?

The man was duly elected by the people of Alabama, and that overwhelming choice is being overridden by a bunch of lawyers and judicial tyrants who don't know where the bounds of their power lie.

Lord willing, they are about to find out.

[EternalVigilance]

They can't cite a law, because there isn't one.