Posted on 02/27/2004 9:05:46 AM PST by bluerose
The rule of law--it's what America is based on. We have very specific rules in this country designed to promote the general welfare and protect the citizenry, and if we don't obey those laws, we are punished. That's the way it's supposed to work.
Judge Roy Moore did not obey the law. He defied a Federal court order to remove a statue of The Ten Commandments he had placed in the courthouse where he worked as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. So his fellow justices fired him as they should have. Hundreds of newspapers across the country applauded that action on their editorial pages.
"His supporters don't see (Moore) as the scofflaw that he is," the Washington Post opined, "a man who feels free to ignore the constitutionally designated system by which law is interpreted in a democratic society."
The Orlando Sentinel put forth, "Mr. Moore's style is reminiscent of another popular Alabama politician - George Wallace. Just like Mr. Wallace, Mr. Moore has little respect for the Constitution or the rule of law."
And the San Antonio Express-News put it this way: "Moore's refusal to follow the law was clearly out of bounds."
Very noble, don't you think? Newspapers passionately standing up for the rule of law in the Ten Commandments case. Those editorial writers were certainly looking out for us.
But wait a minute. In San Francisco, Mayor Gavin Newsome has decided that California's law defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman, a law that was voted on directly by the citizens of the Golden State in a proposition, is not worthy of being obeyed. Newsome took a hard look at that marriage law and not only gave it a thumbs down, he gave it a middle finger up.
And by issuing marriage licenses to gay couples himself, Mayor Newsome may have actually broken the law in addition to defying it. California Penal Code Section 115 prohibits the filing or recording of any false instrument in any public office.
Uh-oh.
So I fully expected to see those tough "rule of law" editorials reprised in The Washington Post, the Orlando Sentinel, and the San Antonio Express-News vis-a-vis Newsome. But, alas, they did not appear in those publications or in most other newspapers. Apparently, the law rules in Alabama, but not in San Francisco.
This blatant hypocrisy has landed hard on the doorstep of the American left where Newsome is being hailed as a hero. Apparently, if you break laws that liberals don't like, it's okay, but you had better back off from those troubling Ten Commandments.
If Gavin Newsome really cared about the rule of law, he would have had the San Francisco police chief arrest him. The time honored tradition of civil disobedience is an American strength. But you're supposed to pay a price for that action. Newsome has paid zero. He fought the law and the law lost. California's Attorney General, Bill Lockyer, and Governor Arnold are still hiding under their desks.
What kind of message does this send to Americans who don't like a variety of other laws? What if some California mayor started issuing handgun permits because he believed the Second Amendment was being trashed in the Golden State? You think the media, Governor Arnold and Attorney General Lockyer would do nothing? Yeah, and I'm Annie Oakley.
Either the law rules or it doesn't. And in California and much of the liberal press, it doesn't.
Agreed. I'm nowhere close to being a fan of his, but he got where he is today because when he's right he's right. And eloquent.
Yeah, Moby and crew have been out in full force against the recess appointment of Pryor, trying to get conservatives riled up at Bush by saying that Pryor was the one that "fired" Moore. We just laughed in their face and they got zotted by the Viking Kitties.
It's a clever piece, but here's the problem - most of the condemnation/criticism of Judge Moore followed his refusal to comply with court orders after the "rule of law" was determined. I suspect that when the City and County of San Francisco loses this case (as I believe it will), there will be compliance with whatever the courts decide.
On March 7 [1999], California voters passed Proposition 22, proposed by state senator Pete Knight, which mandates: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The proposition, known as the Protection of Marriage Act, passed by a margin of 63 to 37 percent.
Not only are they breaking the law, they are subverting the will of the people of CA.
Typical for them...I tell their subscription people that call me that I would not read their liberal rag if they paid me. Disgusting piece of trash, not even fit for bird cage liner, the cheap ink that easily rubs off might make the bird sick.
To date, none has been issued and until Newsome defies one, this is an "apples and oranges" argument imho.
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.