Suspended Alabama Chief Justice Fights Charges in Ten Commandments Case

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

[ForGod'sSake]

The establishment clause. How many times does it have to be repeated?

Hey sink, shoot me a copy of your establishment clause so I can be sure we're reading the same constitution. Maybe if you read it a time or two before you send it you'll get a different take on it?

BTW, here's my copy(Thanks EV):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

FGS

[EternalVigilance]

I support the Allard bill.

Kudoes.

[f.Christian]

sinkspur if I'm not mistaken ... didn't want that feeding tube and judge over ruled --- also liked the ins ruling - reno operations !

All they way back to the supreme courts decision in Texas ... not to allow the football teams to say prayers before games --- people for the aclu - ' american ' way (( soviet )) !

[sinkspur]

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.

Moore's associate Judges say he is bound by the rulings of Federal Courts. IOW, he is bound by the rulings of Federal Courts.

I suspect he will ride his defiance into the governor's mansion, and pull some other stunt and get slapped down for it.

[BlueNgold]

If what you are saying is that only lawyers and judges have the right to interpret law, then we are not sovereign.

I do grasp the concept, and so does Judge Moore. He is well aware of the legal ramifications of his actions. He chooses to fight this fight, and in doing so he chooses to face the consequences. Such is the American way.

With regards to your statement about judges interpreting the law ... that is their job. We empower them through the US Constitution to perform just exactly that task as their sole purpose of employment. We have methods and means to overturn or change judicial decisions we believe to be in error. I suggest you put your energy into one or several of these constitutionally accepted methods instead of applauding a man who knowingly and willfully defied the Federal Courts.

Where were you when Clinton defied the courts? Did you defend his right to do so? OR did you applaud the courts and judicial disciplinary system when they finally came down on him?

[EternalVigilance]

...pull some other stunt and get slapped down for it.

Unlike you, I like people who pull 'stunts' that are protected activities under the Bill of Rights.

[ForGod'sSake]

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.

Might makes right or something like that? Never underestimate the power stupid people in large groups.

FGS

[EternalVigilance]

Tell me which law the Judge broke.

[Lloyd227]

"I like people who pull 'stunts' that are protected activities under the Bill of Rights"

Amen

Time for bed on the East coast.

All ya'll take care,
Lloyd

[EternalVigilance]

Me too, real soon.

Good night.

[BlueNgold]

OK if I were wrong the courts would never have taken up this case. But, as they did, we can make a defacto assumption that I am correct in my statement regarding their jurisdiction.

A suit was brought in Federal Court making a claim that the placement of this monument violated the 1st Ammendment protection against the establishment of religion. This is the point at which the judges were required to make an interpretation of the constitution. The Federal Court did not hear a rumor about a possible monument, send the FBI to look at it, then act on their own. A group of fellow citizens brought a legal complaint and the courts made a decision. That is how the process works. Defiance of decisions with which we disagree is not a reasonable way to affect positive change.

[Da Mav]

While I originally admired Moore for standing up for what he believed in, he has turned into a megalomaniac and an embarassment IMO. The less we hear about him the better. In fact, sorry to say, I kind of wish he were a Democrat.

[BlueNgold]

He defied the legal order of a duly empowered federal court. I know, I know, you don't think that's a law. But, it has the affect of law whether you like it or not. You can go on and on and on about 'what law .. what law' and I can tell you again and again about the Federal Court Order, and you can say it's not a law, but let me assure you .. if you choose to defy a Fed Court Order you too will find yourself in legal trouble and rightfully so.

[EternalVigilance]

The Judge's postion will work itself out, and the people of Alabama will have the last word in the end.

The main thing I want to know is this:

Do you support the Allard bill, Senate Bill 1558?

[EternalVigilance]

Duly noted that you could not cite a law that Judge Moore violated.

[BlueNgold]

Ever feel like your speaking another langauge somedays? I feel like today's language de`jour is brickwall-ese.

[BlueNgold]

Duly noted that you do not understand the legal ramifications of a court order.

[EternalVigilance]

Ever feel like your speaking another langauge somedays?

You are speaking another language, and it certainly isn't the language of the Constitution.

The best you can seem to do is say, 'it's legal because a judge says so'.

If their decisions have no basis in law, then they have become a law unto themselves--in fact they have become lawless.

Thank God there are men like Roy Moore who have had enough.

[EternalVigilance]

Duly noted that you do not understand the legal ramifications of a court order.

I fully understand the ramifications.

[ForGod'sSake]

I suggest you put your energy into one or several of these constitutionally accepted methods instead of applauding a man who knowingly and willfully defied the Federal Courts.

I appreciate your suggestion. At what point does an individual have the right to stand against tyranny? Only if a judge says it's OK? Maybe he has a lawyer that says it's OK? I still say you don't get it. We are a sovereign people. We have an obligation, nay, a duty to stand against tyranny, especially judicial tyranny. Based only on our interpretation of "the law"; alone, if that's what it takes.

We are not stoopid! The courts would have us believe otherwise, but that's their job these days isn't it? They, and you, are wrong. Each of us has the duty based in our God given rights to stand up for what we think is right; not what the courts say is right.

FGS