US Supreme Court refuses to block removal of Ten Commandments

Sean Hannity Show ^ | 8-20-03 | Sean Hannity

[Atlas Sneezed]

US Supreme Court refuses to block removal of Ten Ccommandments from Alabama courthouse.

[Dog Gone]

Isn't that a fair trade? As in some sort of: don't obey the law, but accept the penalties thereof?

Sure, if he's willing to pay the price, fine. That's not the message I'm hearing.

But it's worse than that. He's willing to make the statement that it's fine to defy court orders. And he's a judge.

[Dog Gone]

I wonder if you would have told that to the revolutionaries in the American colonies. There comes a breaking point.

If you think the system is so broken that we need to overthrow the government, please say so.

[lugsoul]

Oh, they displayed the liberty bell, with a portion of a phrase from the Bible on it. Ok. Now, where did they display the Commandments?

[Southack]

I'm unconvinced that he is defying court orders in any traditional sense, as he is prepared to accept the punishment for his stance.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that you are making a valid point, it's just that I don't quite see Judge Moore fitting into the convenient stereotype of "anarchist" since he **is** willing to accept the court's punishment. Are you truly defying the court itself if you accept its punishment?!

And he may even permit the statue to be removed tonight, anyway.

[kesg]

If a law is in contention or an interpretation is in contention, then one or both by default must yield to the Constitution.

Yes, and the same Constitution also vests the federal judiciary with the ultimate authority to decide what is and isn't constitutional. Here, the federal courts have spoken. They say that the monument violates the establishment clause, which is part of the First Amendment. For a sitting state supreme court judge who has taken an oath to uphold the constitution, that should be the end of the story, even if he disagrees with the decision.

[Labyrinthos]

Exactly Judge Moore's point. Thank you.

He made his point ex post facto.

What he said during the trial was quite a bit different. Read the court decisions.

[Havoc]

You're hoping for the latter, and the ramifications would be far broader and more detrimental than you're willing to admit.

Nope, pal, I'm a born and bread law and order type. I just happen to believe that conforming to an unconstitutional ruling does damage to the constitution. I don't believe in standing by silent till they shred the document. The idea is to rise up and do something before we reach that point. Go back and read the Declaration and what the forefathers knew about the lonsuffering nature of people and their willingness to tolerate so much, then no more. At some point you stand up and fight or you surrender your freedoms. In my book if you don't vote you've no right to complain about who's in office. If you don't defend the constitution, you've no right to run off at the mouth about what end it meets. If you want to elevate process above rights, you've surrendered already. This is an attack on the Constitution. Tell me, if your right to vote is contested, do you stay home and not vote if you do have the right to vote, or do you sit on your hands and let the right be stolen from you through intimidation and process? How much abuse is enough and how much is acceptable? Do tell. The abusers want to know.

[Southack]

"I said that the Founders did not either talk about or have religious displays in courthouses."

Let's not raise the bar again, shall we.

Unless you are claiming that only the Ten commandments qualifies as a religious display, surely my picture of Leviticus 25:10 as displayed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1790 qualifies.

[DaGman]

1250

[VRWC_minion]

Leviticus 25:10, as incribed upon the Liberty Bell, as displayed in the U.S. Supreme Court chambers at Indpendence Hall, 1790.

Uh, oh. Leviticus ? The same Leviticus that condemns homosexuals ? Your in deep trouble now for this.

[Dog Gone]

No, you're not defying the court system if you accept the punishment, and I hadn't read yet where he said that.

Nevertheless, I think it sets a bad example to defy a Federal Circuit Court. How many Democrats will cite Judge Moore as justification for doing the same thing? Especially if he gets away with it?

[Labyrinthos]

how can the feds enforce something that is clearly constitutional and is in good standing with state standards?

While you might think what Judge Mooron has done is "clearly constitutional," four federal judges so far have reached a different conclusion.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"And we are not the most science-generating. If Christianity had its way, we would have a flat earth, not bathe, and not cure diseases because its playing God."

Ah but you see, what relgion generated the most science? Don't be fooled by leftist professors. Don't be fooled by all the leftist propoganda, which is everywhere. Which religion generated the most science? Was it in an Islamic nation? No. Budhist nation? No. Hindu? Nope. Christian.

And, let's look at it even more narrowly. The Christian nations that allowed the most religious competition generated the most science. Monopolistic religions fell behind, although Lutherans did a pretty good job in Germany for a time.

As goes science, so follows prosperity.

In fact, science has been so successful in Christian nations, it now competes with Christianity and is forming a religion of its own-- liberalism. Our success has created this monster. Liberalism places science above religion. "The fragile planet" is its goddess. We must sacrifice millions upon millions at the alter of this liberal goddess. We must perform vile ceremonies upon the body parts of those sacrifices. We must trim down the surplus population and enshrine vast tracts of land to her. And Christianity is getting in the way of this new religion.

They will do and say anything to aide their goddess. That is why there is so much confusion on this thread.

[VRWC_minion]

-If Christianity had its way, we would have a flat earth, not bathe, and not cure diseases because its playing God.

Nonsense.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"Nevertheless, I think it sets a bad example to defy a Federal Circuit Court. How many Democrats will cite Judge Moore as justification for doing the same thing? Especially if he gets away with it?"

All they have to do is cite Clinton. Good day in the morning. He pulled off more crimes successfully than anyone else in US history. You really think they need to cite Moore? Moore is defying unconstitutional tyranny. God bless him. FReegards....

[Dog Gone]

You don't defy the courts. Not if you expect and want them to be there someday to respect and enforce your rights.

Instead, you lick your wounds and work like hell to get judges like Owen and Estrada into a position to do so.

If you defy the courts and get away with it, our whole constitutional system breaks down.

[billhilly]

"I doubt this topic isn't too complex for me."

I doubt this topic IS too complex for me? College degrees are all too easy in a world with no standards.

[Southack]

"Nevertheless, I think it sets a bad example to defy a Federal Circuit Court."

If federal courts merely judged cases based upon written statute rather than de-facto re-writting of laws that we see due to activist judges, I'd agree with you.

But if the federal courts are overstepping their bounds, it's not completely out of the question to stand up to them, although preferably this would be done in the media and by the Legislature rather than by yet another judge.

Frankly, the left-wing takeover of our judiciary almost went by as unnoticed as the initial takeovers of our schools and universities and various flavors of media.

[Dog Gone]

Clinton did not defy the Federal courts, if I recall. Please refresh my memory if I'm wrong.