Posted on 11/11/2003 11:43:08 AM PST by farmer18th
Dear Mr. Pryor:
Your actions with respect to Judge Moore confuse me.
Is "Thou Shalt Not Steal" offensive to you? (I'm glad I don't own property in Alabama)
Is "Thou Shalt Not Murder" problematic for you? (I'm glad I don't live in Alabama)
Is "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" hurtful to you? (I'm glad you don't know my wife.)
Is "Thou Shalt not Bear False Witness" repugnant to you? (I'm glad I never had to seek justice in your state.)
Is "Thou Shalt Have no Other Gods Before Me" distasteful to you? (What with lightning bolts and all, I'm glad I dont worship next to you.)
We are a nation of laws, Mr. Pryor, and not of men. I'm just confused as to which laws you follow.
And, in this case, Pryor was following the law as dictated by federal court. I personally disagreed with the ruling, but it's ludicrous to get after Pryor for not following the law.
That's not the point. I personally would have preferred that Pryor tell the feds to go stick it in their eye, just as I would love a state AG to tell the feds to stick it over any number of issues where they have usurped power. However, you say this: We are a nation of laws, Mr. Pryor, and not of men.
And the point is, the way the law is EFFECTIVELY structured now, what the federal courts say IS the law - so Pryor was following the law - and your point is off target.
At least you admit that these judges have become dictators.
Lawless dictators at that...
Uh, dude, you're running in circles here. First you get after Pryor for not following the law when he was, and then you say I must have had an objection to the Boston Tea Party when I clearly stated twice on this thread that I wished Pryor had stood up to the feds. Please try to make your arguments consistent with what the other person is doing or saying.
Uh, TF, the point is, you can say that the appeals court ruling was unconstitutional and I can say that the appeals court ruling was unconstitutional - but that really doesn't amount to a hill of beans. What matters in this day and age, in a system mandated by Congress, is that some dude seated on a federal appeals court said that the monunment was unconstitutional. I personally disagree. But it's absurd to get after Pryor with the line of attack the initial poster used - instead, a better approach would be to get Pryor as AG to stand up for the laws of his state.
Uh, dude, you really should read some of my other posts instead of dwelling on this one time and time again. And here's a hint - comparing a court decision over a monument to the 10 Commandments to the actions of a regime that killed tens of millions of people is very much over-the-top - and this is from someone who supported keeping the monument in place.
First of all, the judges are not dictators - they are simply part of a larger usurpation of power by the fedgov which was, last I checked, still elected, and a judge who oversteps his bounds can still be impeached. Second, lawless is not a focused term here - no matter what you and I might think, what the judge says is the final ruling on law since SCOTUS did not step in, under our federal system. So Pryor was just falling in with that system, and was following the law as he is conditioned to understand it. I would rather he stood up to the court and sparked a confrontation that would have forced SCOTUS into play - but he didn't.
I personally think the monument should have stayed. However, my opinion really doesn't matter for squat, except to the extent that I try to convince enough other people to act to elect officials and appoint judges who will effect change. Pryor in his position followed the law of the land, which, for all its flaws, is still better than anything else on the planet. I would have preferred a confrontation, but this wasn't the best time or place to challenge federal power. That day will come and hopefully soon, but we need to be on solid ground for it.
Actually, I would postulate that it is the 10th, not the 1st, that applies here. And the 10th is basically roadkill in this day and age, although some are administering CPR to it, and it has shown a few signs of life.
Ergo, it is the Federal judges who are the lawbreakers in this instance.
That and a buck will get you a cup of coffee. Until such time that we change the intellectual makeup of the citizenry, the government and the judiciary, what the judge says is the law.
Those like Judge Moore who are actively opposing their lawless orders deserve our support and protection.
Judge Moore did not pick his battlefield well, IMO. There will be a better case in the future on which to make a stand.
Then let me focus it for you:
Congress is forever banned from making laws in this area. Read the First Amendment with your mind unclouded by modern liberal revisionist thinking. For a federal judge to dictate in such a way based on nonexistent law which in fact cannot exist is tyrannical and 'lawless'.
Go run and hide then.
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.