Skip to comments.
US Supreme Court refuses to block removal of Ten Commandments
Sean Hannity Show ^
| 8-20-03
| Sean Hannity
Posted on 08/20/2003 1:10:06 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed
US Supreme Court refuses to block removal of Ten Ccommandments from Alabama courthouse.
TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: Alabama
KEYWORDS: aclu; roymoore; scotus; tencommandments
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 801-809 next last
To: Beelzebubba
Would like to know the vote on this.
Where do people think our notions of crime and punishment come from? Right/wrong?
The Ten Commandments are the Moral Keystone from which our laws evolve from. From that perspective alone. . .historical. . .they should stand.
. . .and now the 'Pledge of Allegiance'. . .the Libs are winning; our Country, culture, society and future are losing.
21
posted on
08/20/2003 1:17:44 PM PDT
by
cricket
To: OldFriend
It wasn't the middle of the night. It started at 6 PM after work hours because it was a 5.5 ton piece of rock being moved by a crane.
They did it that way for safety because the public is all over the rotunda.
Any safety conscious person would have done it the same way.
22
posted on
08/20/2003 1:18:14 PM PDT
by
xzins
(In the Beginning was the Word)
To: OldFriend
The Judge put the Ten Commandments there in the middle of the night. He knew it was the wrong thing to do or he wouldn't have had to sneak in the dark. That's not true and I bet you know it's a lie. The people were scheduled to come in the afternoon but were late in delivering it.
Libelous attacks on a conservative judge. Not too good . . .
23
posted on
08/20/2003 1:18:22 PM PDT
by
JohnnyZ
(I don't know but I been told - Eskimo ***** is mighty cold - Tastes good - Mm good)
To: Beelzebubba
they just refused to hear the case. They don't have to give a reason.
I heard it on Hannity too.
24
posted on
08/20/2003 1:18:31 PM PDT
by
bedolido
(None of us is as dumb as all of us!)
To: OldFriend
>>Take the monument away and put it on private property.
Leave the monument there and sell the property to a private foundation.
25
posted on
08/20/2003 1:18:51 PM PDT
by
VxH
To: Consort
Good question. Mentioning the trusting of God in our currency, what were the Founding Fathers thinking? Our modern, 'new and improved' judges will take care of that!
To: Catspaw; sinkspur
Moore had pledged last week to defy the judge's order. His emergency stay request was filed Wednesday with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who oversees cases from Alabama. Kennedy referred it to the full court, which said in a one-sentence order that it was rejected.
27
posted on
08/20/2003 1:19:21 PM PDT
by
Chancellor Palpatine
("what if the hokey pokey is really what its all about?" - Jean Paul Sartre)
To: OldFriend
It's Keyes' message that's the issue. It is the same message as Judge Moore's. And it is a clear view of those same words that the liberals use to confuse the 1st amendment.
It is forbidden for Congress to touch this question! It is forbidden for Congress to address it! It is forbidden for Congress to deal with it! [cheering, applause]."
Its a sound argument, but what follows is whats vitally important:
"If Congress is forbidden to make a law, how can this judge be enforcing a law they cannot make?.. There is, I believe, going on right now a violation of the Constitution. There is, I believe, a lawless act against which we must stand. But it is the lawless act of the federal judges who seek now to wrest from us that liberty which is ours--not by right of the Constitution, but by grant and right of the Creator, God. "
Awesome reading. And it fits the text.
Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION.
If the topic were gun sales, a parallel wording would be: "Congress shall make NO law IN REGARDS TO a GUN SALES ESTABLISHMENT."
If the topic were liquor sales, a parallel wording: "Congress shall make no law REGARDING an establishment that sells liquor."
If the topic were religious denominations, a parallel wording would be: "Congress shall make no law IN REGARDS TO/RESPECTING/REGARDING any ESTABLISHMENT that deals with Relgion."
1. Need to determine if "establishment" is used that way elsewhere in that era.
2. Need to determine if "respecting" is used that way elsewhere in that era.
28
posted on
08/20/2003 1:19:56 PM PDT
by
xzins
(In the Beginning was the Word)
To: Labyrinthos
so its okay to show art about Moses and the tablets, but writing down commandments on the tablets is where the wall between church and state comes crashing down? bring me up to speed here...
29
posted on
08/20/2003 1:19:59 PM PDT
by
votelife
(Free Bill Pryor)
To: lilylangtree
Why? For ruling that Roy Moore doesn't have to comply with the same time requirements everyone else has to abide?
30
posted on
08/20/2003 1:20:10 PM PDT
by
lugsoul
To: Beelzebubba
Shall they remove their freize of Moses and the 10 ?
31
posted on
08/20/2003 1:20:24 PM PDT
by
VRWC_minion
(Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
To: Labyrinthos
Thank you for verifying the monument I mentioned. LOL.
To: OldFriend
Take the monument away and put it on private property.I agree. It's over, and Justice Moore lost. As a Chief Justice of a state supreme court, he should re-affirm the rule of law by complying with the order, even if he disagrees with it.
33
posted on
08/20/2003 1:20:39 PM PDT
by
kesg
To: lilylangtree
whoops - meant "not ruling"
34
posted on
08/20/2003 1:20:46 PM PDT
by
lugsoul
To: Beelzebubba
Good. Take the thing out. Roy Moore should shut up and go back to work ruling for the plaintiff's bar just like he always does.
35
posted on
08/20/2003 1:21:11 PM PDT
by
BamaG
To: Arthur Wildfire! March
Now, how will they enforce this decision when the House defunded the enforcement?A meaningless political stunt in the absence of an equally meaningless political stunt in the Senate.
To: xzins; OldFriend
"Because it weighed 5,300 pounds they had to wait until the courthouse was closed," Scarborough told Baptist Press.
The movers hired to install the monument arrived after the doors closed at 6 o'clock but soon discovered they didn't have enough men, Scarborough said, adding that it took them "hours" to get it lifted and in place. link
37
posted on
08/20/2003 1:21:42 PM PDT
by
JohnnyZ
(I don't know but I been told - Eskimo ***** is mighty cold - Tastes good - Mm good)
To: lugsoul
What constitutional right does the Federal Court have to make this demand, particularly when the House made sure to defund the enforcement of it?
To: JohnnyZ
"Libelous attacks on a conservative judge."
Sorry, but even though not true this doesn't come anywhere close to the standard of libel. And the conservative judge is a friggin' idiot. Being conservative doesn't automatically make you perfect.
He will keep on losing for good reason, and everybody knows it.
39
posted on
08/20/2003 1:22:20 PM PDT
by
kegler4
To: sonsofliberty2000
Well, for one thing, it was the Ten Commandments.
Now if it had been a plaque depicting two men giving each other oral sex or depicting two men engaged in sodomy the Court would mandate that the plaque remain in place.
40
posted on
08/20/2003 1:22:35 PM PDT
by
sport
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 801-809 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson