Panel Rules Justice Moore Failed to Respect & Comply with Law; Judge removed from Supreme Court

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

More to follow

[Revel]

"That is what I want him to announce, "Once elected I will put a larger monument inside the court house""

I Love it...LOL

[candeee]

Ditto

[mdmathis6]

Laws are enforced either from a consenses deriving from the hearts of a agreeing populace or by naked force. Since we have lost consenses as to the interpretations of law,(with judeo-christian morality as the shining light illuminating our constitution from with-in), force remains to be applied in tyrannical, arbitrary fashion by the oligarchs of the courts, legislatures and those who manipulate them!

Moore's defiance of those oligarchs is the "John Brown" signature shot of an even more horrible oppression and civil conflict coming with-in a generation or so.

As for me and my house....we will serve the Lord!

[exmarine]

How do you propose to correct this consensus view among liberals and conservatives judges?

Renquist called the phoney doctrine of separation of church and state "bad history" and bad law. So, I don't know what you are talking about. If he voted with the liberals on some of these cases, then he was wrong. The liberal judges don't care about history or true intent - they reshape the Constitution to coincide with their liberal atheistic ideology. CAse in point: 1992 Lee vs. Wiseman - Court rules 5-4 that prayers could not be given at public school graduations even though dissenting lawyers had made an irrefutable historical case that the founding fathers not only prayed at public graduations but GAVE SERMONS! In his concurring opinion, the idiot David Souter acknowledged these facts of history, but concluded that the founding fathers had therefore "turned their backs" on the ideals of the Constitution. Do you see that? Thank you David Souter! You know more about the ideals of the Constitution than the men who wrote, debated and ratified the 1st Amendment!!!

[Pahuanui]

Panel Rules Justice Moore Failed to Respect & Comply with Law; Judge removed from Supreme Court

It's morning in America.

[WackyKat]

That's right - and Justice Moore was trying to obey the Highest Law

I know that's what theocrats believe, which is why its a good thing they're not in power.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

That would be the ultimate "HeeHaw" moment.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Mark 9:38-43, 45, 47-48

Let the self-dismemberment begin!

Can I watch? ;0)

[lugsoul]

"Question. Who paid for the rock?"

Coral Ridge Ministries

[concerned about politics]

I could go into the choice of his text of the 10 commandments (his own), his request for an arena, and all his other foibles, but when it comes down to it, he was fired because he refuses to acknowledge the rule of law - and

So you agree with liberals being able to dictate from the bench? After all, they're in charge of the law, no? We have no right to petition, dissagree, or question their judgement?
I've been hearing the lefties complain they're being slenced, but no outrage from the right who feel the same. Is this a good thing?

[tpaine]

That's what the US Supreme Court has said. The Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the First Amendment to the states.
-GW-

---

"But that's not what the 1st amendment clearly says --"
-ex-

---

The state governments have always been bound by the provisions of the bill of rights. Article VI makes this position clear in the supremacy clause.


During the fight over slavery, states rightists used the 1st amendments restriction on Congress as a talking point to get an erroneous USSC 'ruling' that A1 thru A8 did not apply to states.

This is ludicrous on its face because at the same time in history states were being formed from territories [wherein the feds enforced our BOR's], --- areas which when granted statehood citizens would have LOST the BOR's protection unless it was reiterated in the new states constitution..


Thus, because California omitted a 2nd amendment type RKBA's clause in 1848, its new residents suddenly lost the right to own guns? Ridiculous.

Bet me that this was original intent of the framers..

[Porterville]

The Constitution sets limits on the power of the state and local governments. You choose to call that limits on "representation", a statist view. Some of us on the other hand consider to be, for the most part, good.

The limitation is on the people's right of expression dictated by the Federal Government,” limitations on government " It is an expansion of Federal rules and a siphoning (to the District of Columbia) of individual community/state rights.

Open your eyes!!! We are being shackled.

[mdmathis6]

Ditto...I read somewhere that Longstreet of Civil War fame wished the slaves had been freed...and that Fort Sumpter had still been fired upon!(A state's rights issue!) I can't remember the source...someone can set me right if he never said it!

[Chancellor Palpatine]

They'll be going after Pryor first, then there will be the inevitable run for the Senate, or maybe even the Presidency on the Constitution Party ticket (now that Pat Buchanan has worn out his welcome with contrarians and Alan Keyes has indicated that he isn't interested).

[E Rocc]

people can't be fired for their religious beliefs,

The judge was.

No, he was fired for actions, not beliefs.

He's in the same position as a sales person who constantly asks prospective customers if they are "saved", prosletyzing those who say no, is asked by their boss to desist, and refuses.

-Eric

[TexasGunLover]

You will need a law that specifically allows it since the judges are INTERPRETING the current law in a manner you disagree with.

I support what the judge was doing but not breaking the law..... if after all the appeals, the judges say he broke the law, he broke the law.

Judges INTERPRET law... guess you didn't realize this.

[Porterville]

I love that verse because it allows people to be angry.

[concerned about politics]

As for me and my house....we will serve the Lord!

The Alabama Constitution agrees with you, too. Go figure.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

So long as your outrage is rational, that is cool.

But what if it is grounded in parochialism and hysteria?

[WackyKat]

Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God.

Doesn't matter how good and enlightened they were!

All the philosophes are roasting on spits in H*ll right now!

Just thought I'd get that in to save bandwidth ;)