Posted on 08/21/2003 3:39:23 PM PDT by ComtedeMaistre
Some conservatives do not realize what is at stake in this 10 Commandments battle. Americans have protested more vigorously over taxes, busing, quotas, and other issues, over the past 3 decades, than they have protested against the anti-faith assaults of the past decade.
What Judge Moore is fighting for, is about who we are as a people, and whether we are proud or ashamed of the Christian values on which this nation was founded. The Supremes (especially the spineless Justice Kennedy), ducked this issue, because it would cost them of the respectability they need to get invitations to those fancy parties in Georgetown.
I saw Judge Moore speaking on TV today, and he reminded me of Ronald Reagan at the Berlin Wall in 1987. Just as Reagan opposed the wall, a symbol of godless communism, Judge Moore is opposing godless court rulings imposing state-sponsored atheism as America's official religion. In my mind, I picture Judge Moore telling that nutty feminist who heads the ACLU, "Ms. Nadine Strossen, tear down this wall of anti-Christian hatred"!
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?
My sympathies if that is your understanding of America and your rights in this country.
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.
You're a blowhard.
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
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.
Man, that's gonna leave a mark. ;-)
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.
Federalism (not con-federalism).
The original solution is still the best solution. .
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.
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.