Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Gritty
They have caved in on the principle. They seem be looking for a solution and compromise which gets them out of an uncomfortable position.

Fine. Whatever. I was posting in response to this comment of yours: "This controversy is not about the 10 Commandments per se but about resisting unbridled Federal judicial activism.

How is it federal judicial activism when Alabama's own courts and attorney general have ruled against Moore on this?

173 posted on 08/22/2003 7:47:44 AM PDT by Texas_Dawg (I will not rest until every "little man" is destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies ]


To: Texas_Dawg
Ha - shows what you know. Haven't you figured out that "judicial activism" is when the courts produce a decision that I don't like? And don't bother me with little details, either ;)
176 posted on 08/22/2003 7:52:29 AM PDT by general_re (A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies ]

To: Texas_Dawg
How is it federal judicial activism when Alabama's own courts and attorney general have ruled against Moore on this?

That's a fair question.

This is an issue of Federal judges making law from the bench on a subject which Congress has been specifically prohibited from making law by the First Amendment. Therefore, no decree by a Federal judge on this subject has force of legitimate law behind it, only their own judicial precedent and interpretation via their own constuct.

This is a genuine States Rights matter under the 10th Amendment. Congress has no say in the matter. Unless it is Congress trying to set up a specific Sect as a State Religion neither do Federal judges. This is just a huge power grab by unelected Federal judges. Calling this situation "obeying the law" is no different than having a Federal judge ordering you without trial to a concentration camp and then having everyone in the enforcement chain obey the order because they are "obeying the law". There is no applicable law. It is Judicial Tyranny, pure and simple. They are trying to cloak it in the words of the First Amendment, which says precisely the opposite!

There is no Federal law saying Alabama can't post whatever they wish in their own Courthouse - only Federal Judicial fiat which goes against the very words and meaning of the Constitution. Judge Moore stands on solid Constitutional grounds. The Feds are being exposed, not just in this but in their entire long, miserable train of usurptions in this matter. This entire controvery over religion in the public square started in 1962 when the Supreme Court threw prayer out of public schools. They have been making similar law out of the same phony whole cloth ever since. Before this, there was little controvery on such matters.

This sort of judicial tyranny is a threat to all our freedoms, not just "freedom of religion". I'm surprised you can't see that.

180 posted on 08/22/2003 8:01:18 AM PDT by Gritty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson