Hurrah for Judge Moore! If the 10 Commandments Are not Worth Defending, What Is?

Comte de Maistre

[an amused spectator]

and then the federal district court agreed with us, and the 11th Circuit agreed with us, and the US Supreme Court agreed with us, and the Alabama Supreme Court agreed with us, and the Alabama Attorney General agreed with us.

Once upon a time, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling on the Dred Scott case...

150 years later, the US Supreme Court "discovered" that rump rangers got a "Right" to "Sexual Privacy". I tink dey was going tru some of da old Federalist Papers an the Right to Sexual Privacy was stuck between a couple a duh pages. ;-)

All hail the 800 holy federal Druids, eh, SedVictaCatoni?

[TheOtherOne]

The Constitution without God's laws supporting it and justifying it is garbage based on the whimsies of 9 foolish men. You can use it for toilet paper now.

My sympathies if that is your understanding of America and your rights in this country.

[Dog Gone]

Byron, I'm trying to provide a perspective to this forum, when it comes to matters involving the courts, as to the way things are and what to expect. Some of the outcomes I predict, and even argue when I'm trying to explain the rationale, are different than what I would like if I were designing the perfect country and legal system.

I have yet to find a way to explain a legal analysis, which might result in something conservatives might not like, in a way that doesn't draw criticism.

I can handle that, because I suspect that more people appreciate it than yell at me. If and when I decide that I'm wrong about that, I'll reconsider. If my posts aren't appreciated at this forum, there's not much point in making them.

[loulou]

I have been a witness in a U.S. trial and was sworn in, "to tell the truth the whole truth, so help you GOD", if GOD isn't in the courts after we have made USA laws based on the Commandments, what the heck are we swearing to?????

[F.J. Mitchell]

No, they have abandonded their moral stance for the sake of expediency.

[Fred Mertz]

I am a Christian Conservative, of the Madison, Jefferson, and Franklin type. I believe that power corrupts, and that's why I don't want someone using religion to attain power.

You're a blowhard.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Nice to see you Freddy, it's like having TLBSHOW back, less the intelligent reparté.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"But I've never seen a case where the moral issues are clearer."

Are they?

I sincerely doubt Moore's intentions, and I certainly do not trust those who seek to gain political offices through the use of religion.

"To suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own." -- Thomas Jefferson

[Luis Gonzalez]

The problem is that Moore DEFINED God as being the God of a particular set of sectarian beliefs.

[an amused spectator]

Dog Gone - I'm just going to make some observations here, so don't take it that I'm yelling at you. I just want to clarify some matters relating to the American legal system. Sorry, Byron, I've always felt that, as a matter of law, Judge Moore had no case. None.

Fascinating. A justice of a state supreme court "has no case".

Leaving aside all the comments made about Moore's motives, I review the record and see: "Moore then returned to Alabama where he completed his Juris Doctorate Degree in 1977 from The University of Alabama School of Law... During his professional career, Justice Moore became the first full-time Deputy District Attorney in Etowah County and served in this position from 1977 until 1982. He returned to private law practice in Gadsden until he was elected Circuit Judge, Place Number One of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit in Gadsden, in 1992...".

OK. The guy's pretty sharp, got a law degree, passed his bars and practised law for 15 years at least (not counting the military). You don't hear a lot about him being a shabby lawyer, because the Moore haters would be all over it.

My point is this: why do we tolerate a legal system like this? Here's my analogy to what you're telling me. It's like having two licensed professional auto mechanics with their shops sitting right next to each other. Something's wrong with your car and you take it in. The first mechanic tells you your vehicle is totalled, and the second tells you that you can fix your car for a thirty-five dollar part. These sorts of wildly varying opinions occur in auto shop after auto shop across the country, but the state licensers can't seem to do anything about it.

How long would people put up with an auto repair system like that? Not very long, I can tell you that.

I have yet to find a way to explain a legal analysis, which might result in something conservatives might not like, in a way that doesn't draw criticism.

I understand that there is a legal superstructure on which law is built. Going back to my above example, what's the point of trying to fathom any of it when on top of the legal analysis, you have black-robed uber-druids shaking the bones in the back room to make the ruling?

Why don't we just sign our money and property over to these people now, and get the suspense and bother over with?

We ordinary Americans must seem like the American Indians seemed to the 19th century whites - gullible morons to be tolerated until the time was ripe to tear up the treaty. I mean, hey - if a guy with a law degree can't understand the law, us simple tillers of the field have NO chance of understanding it. The nice man in the black robes will explain it all to us.

[an amused spectator]

it's like having TLBSHOW back, less the intelligent reparté.

Man, that's gonna leave a mark. ;-)

[tortoise]

Much ado about nothing.

[Dog Gone]

Here's the problem, and here's the flaw in our Constitution.

Somebody has to be able to make the final decision.

The three branches are equal, no question about that. Any one of them can do nearly mortal damage to the others.

But who gets to decide the final disputes? The Constitution doesn't say, but it's not workable if nobody can. Sooner or later the whole thing will collapse.

The judicial branch is probably the best choice. Marbury v. Madison was the first time the question was raised, and while it certainly wasn't popular with President Madison, it fixed the flaw.

Nobody yet has come with a better solution. If you have one, I'm certainly interested.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Ya think?

;-)

[Luis Gonzalez]

BTW, great posts.

[Kevin Curry]

You are right. There is far, far more at stake here than a granite monument to the Ten Commandments. The battle has just been joined at this initial skirmish.

[Kevin Curry]

Nobody yet has come with a better solution. If you have one, I'm certainly interested.

Federalism (not con-federalism).

The original solution is still the best solution. .

[Fred Mertz]

The battle has just been joined at this initial skirmish.

No, none of you sheeple are going against the feds. You've been beaten for 40 years...and some would argue for about 150 years.

And you have statist freepers smacking you about the head and shoulders in the meantime.

[goldstategop]

Its a sign of the times that a slab with words no one disagrees with should suddenly be considered "offensive." You know, like teachings against murder, theft, ethical conduct, covetuousness that is the source of our secular laws. Oh but liberals have made it clear the 10 Commandments not the religions that sprang from them, that constitute a violation of religion and state. If you loved the SCOTUS legitimization earlier this summer of sodomy, you'll be ectastic over the federal courts' declaring that moral law is an illegitimate source for our jurists to acknowledge along with the rest of the American people. And when one gets right down to it, we all know that right and wrong is contrary to liberal desires - they want to be the ones to interpret everything and the last thing they want is for people to bow before a Higher Authority. Now if the 10 Commandments are to liberals what pornography was to an earlier time - something to be kept of public view, then the basis for this country collapses. Just like in the decadent days of the dying Rome Empire. Ladies and Gentlemen, we're under siege from within by the cultural barbarians of our era and the results we are witnessing are NOT a pretty sight.