Vanity: My Letter to Alabama Attorney General Pryor

Self | 11/11/2003 | Self

[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.

[Catspaw]

His faith, evidently, is of no use to him in the public square. What sort of faith is that?

And who are you to question Pryor's religion?

Of course, given your prior Catholic bashing, at least you're consistent.

[dirtboy]

Actually I think you missed the point of the "quack like a duck" reference. Would there be _any_ federal order that a state judge should not obey? Is there _ever_ a time to follow a higher law and ignore the temporal one?

I have said REPEATEDLY that I thought Pryor should have stood up to the feds. Why do you refuse to let that salient detail soak in? My point is, no matter what you and I consider to be Constitutional (and I doubt we're all that far apart on that subject), in this day and age, the federal judiciary has the last say in the matter, unless Congress cuts off their funding for specific areas such as the Pledge matter. So Pryor was, in effect, following the law as it stands, and my argument with you is not with the appropriateness of Pryor's actions, but with your claim that he was not following the law.

Our objective must be to create more conservatives who understand the concept of limited federal government, which in turn will impact Congress, the Presidency and eventually the judiciary. But when some of your cohorts are deriding erstwhile allies because we're just not true enough believers, you're never going to get anywhere in that direction.

[lugsoul]

jwalsh and I have a gentleman's agreement not to post to each other, but I will tell you that I have asked him that same question a few times in the past, and have gotten the same non-answer. The fact is that he can't cite to a case between 1866 and 1925 that says the 1st Amendment does not apply to the states. He can't do it.

[Bryan24]

I'm from Alabama and an ULTRA-conservative.

Chief Justice Moore was wrong is how he went about trying to get that monument put in place.

Pryor is following the law.

[lugsoul]

Careful, Bryan. Keep it up and you'll have these folks calling you an anti-Christian liberal Nazi bootlicker. Don't you know that no one can disagree with Moore without branding themselves as a godless communist traitor?

[farmer18th]

I have said REPEATEDLY that I thought Pryor should have stood up to the feds. Why do you refuse to let that salient detail soak in?

Now that I remember you, (my bad), I appreciate that distinction: you would have preferred that Pryor ignored the upper court. Very good. I still believe, however, that judges, attorney generals, and prosecutors have the power, in effect, to "make law" by invoking a standard that is higher than the temporal order of things. I believe the founders intended that with respect to a jury's 18th century right to try law as well as fact. In this scheme of things, Pryor would essentially be telling his federal superiors: "no, you are the one requiring me to break the law by imposing restrictions upon a state judge's right to display the foundation of our jurisprudence in a court of law. I will not break the law as you have instructed me so to do."

[EveningStar]

Ohioan, would you be willing to distill your univeral suffrage and Holocaust stances down to a paragraph or two each? Thank you.

[farmer18th]

Don't you know that no one can disagree with Moore without branding themselves as a godless communist traitor?

It's not about Moore, of course. If Moore is in deep with the trial attorneys, he's just as much a flawed human wretch as the rest of us. It's about the stand he is making and about the manifest effort to remove faith from the public square. When someone takes a bold step to thwart the tide, I'd rather be standing on the side of David than of Goliath.

[Bryan24]

"A transparent and juvenile dodge. Either they embrace the ten commandments or they are ungodly. "

That is total BS. Again, I'm more conservative than 90% of the people on this board and I'm from Alabama.

Roy Moore rode that single issue into an election to the Alabama Supreme Court. His intent the whole time was to challenge the courts.

He went about this THE WRONG WAY.

Tell me, are you from Alabama?

[kegler4]

"I repeat the question: are you a defender of murder, adultery, theft, covetousness or perjury? Which one of those laws offend you and why"

This question is so incredibly stupid that it borders on insanity.

If removal of this monument causes anybody to doubt their faith or the truth if what was on it, then that person didn't believe anyway. The Ten Commandments have not disappeared from my church or home because of a court ruling. How about you? I have yet to hear ANYBODY ANYWHERE discussing how they can now murder or steal because Moore's monument was removed. Have you? If so, I sure hope you set them straight.

[EternalVigilance]

Try re-reading the 1st Amendment. It starts with "Congress shall pass no law". Which means Congress is the relevant body here.

Try finding at least a tiny dose of common sense. The Judiciary is not to make ANY laws.

Why is that too complicated for you to figure out?

[lugsoul]

There is no manifest effort to remove faith from the public square. Being generous to your view, it could only be stated that there is an effort to remove preferred faith from the sole occupation of the public square.

[EternalVigilance]

...it could only be stated that there is an effort to remove preferred faith from the sole occupation of the public square

You're in an honest mood.

Fact is, there has been a concerted effort for the last generation to remove every possible trace of Christianity from the history and the heritage of the United States.

This particular episode in that effort started with the ACLU's efforts to remove the Ten Commandments from a minor judge in Alabama's courtroom. That judge fought back, and in the process found favor with the people of Alabama.

The elitist lawyers just hate that, and will do whatever it takes to crush him.

[lugsoul]

"Fact is, there has been a concerted effort for the last generation to remove every possible trace of Christianity from the history and the heritage of the United States."

Maybe where you live. But, I doubt it - I'm sure your entire statement is nothing more than hyperbole. I can tell you for sure that there is no "concerted effort" to remove all traces of Christianity in Alabama. You can't drive a mile in any direction from the Alabama Judicial Building without seeing verses of Scripture and other "traces" of Christianity all out in plain view - an no one is trying to get rid of them. That is the real joke behind Moore's crusade - the very idea that his monument is some sort of bulwark against the tide of godlessness is comical.

But you keep on believing that. After all, I know Paul and Jan have to get their money from somewhere.

[lugsoul]

How Christian of you.

You probably need to get out of D.C. a little more. There is a whole country out there and it is quite different from the den of iniquity that you and your bosses like to portray.

[farmer18th]

If removal of this monument causes anybody to doubt their faith or the truth if what was on it, then that person didn't believe anyway.

Who said this was about affirming the faith? This is about reaffirming a common and ancient cultural consensus against historically illegal acts: murder, adultery, dishonoring parents, perjury, theft, covetousness, and, yes, blaspheming God and the Sabbath. All faiths in this country shared a common belief in these standards, despite their denominational differences. Removing them from the public square, or failing to protect their presence, is another victory for a _totally_ secular state. Are you happy with that? Or are you just trying to rationalize your lack of conviction?

[farmer18th]

The last was menat for Kegler4. Sorry.

[dirtboy]

Try finding at least a tiny dose of common sense. The Judiciary is not to make ANY laws. Why is that too complicated for you to figure out?

So therefore this is NOT a 1st Amendment issue, as the judge has no proper legal powers to make such a law. That's my entire point - this isn't a 1st Amendment case, it's a 10th Amendment case, as the Constitution does not grant the judge the powers to make such a ruling, so therefore under the 10th this power properly belongs to the states.

[EternalVigilance]

That's my entire point - this isn't a 1st Amendment case, it's a 10th Amendment case, as the Constitution does not grant the judge the powers to make such a ruling, so therefore under the 10th this power properly belongs to the states.

Well, we're in agreement then, it would seem.

When I get time I'll have to go back through this thread and analyze why we have been at such odds.

But that will probably be about Friday. The rest of the week is devoted to trying to get an up or down vote on the President's nominees, including Mr. Pryor.

Later.