[habs4ever]

Would it fair minded to say that judge Roy Moore has a very narrow interpretation of who shall be entitled to benefit from this exercise of judicial activism?

In fact, would there be any point to it if it wasn't so narrowly focused and exclusive?

[Catspaw]

It's his interpretation of the law. Unfortunately, he's not the federal judge assigned to this case, nor the 11th circuit court of appeals, and they've ruled against him. I found, reading the first decision in this case, Moore relied on his own dissent in an Alabama Supreme Court case in his deposition and testimony. That's rather circular.

And despite having the district court judge and the 11th circuit court of appeals rule against his arguments, he's still insisting that his interpretation of the law correct, he's still making the same arguments--even though he's been told by two other courts that he's wrong. It's as though, despite losing in the courts, he's now turned to the court of public opinion rather than a court of law.

[hocndoc]

I don't think that the Judge has shown any narrowness of mind. The monument not only contains the Commandments, but portions of the Alabama and US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. It is clearly a monument to the history of Alabama law.

The Federal Government has no place in deciding what the people of Alabama may or may not honor or remember. Since the monument was a gift to the State, the ACLU is totally responsible for any cost to the State in defending Alabama's right to freedom to express the will of her people.

Leftists and atheists will only stop at total surrender to their will. Compromise is not in these people's vocabulary, unless "compromise" is defined as capitulation.