FOX NEWS: ALABAMA TEN COMMANDMENTS JUDGE SUSPENDED...

Drudge Report ^ | 08/22/03 | Matt Drudge

[Pokey78]

Orlando Salinas broke in a few minutes ago and announced this on Fox News.

[WOSG]

Careful. Good point you make, but ... The "Church of the Politically Correct" will be "offended" by any deviancy from a wholly secular public arena.

That way, they have in the backdoor established Secularism as the State religion. (Here's a way to check: *If* Secularism *was* the state religion - what would be different in the Govt, schools, etc.? What?)

Of course, some of these ACLU extremists are just like the Red Guard of Mao's China. They'd be the first to send the dissenters to "re-education" camps if they had a free hand in it.

[wardaddy]

you get extra points for honesty...lol

[concerned about politics]

These Moore threads have degenerated to a sorry state and both sides are responsible; it's like looking at a multi-car pileup, and here I am rubbernecking, like a dang fool.

It's a war between good and evil. I'm sure you must have heard of it.

[ChemistCat]

You got it.

[WOSG]

That Gov Riley comment reminds me of the Lew Rockwell column someone posted today. "Christian duty?" hmmmm.

[Concentrate]

The Founders, having the opportunity to declare the US a Christian nation by the simple mentioning of Jesus Christ ANYWHERE in the Founding Documents, chose not to do so.

You say that with just a little too much glee for my taste.

[WOSG]

"You know, after seeing the arguments go back and forth, I wonder if the best solution might be to let the voters decide. "

The voters did decide.

Judge Moore was elected.

"If *the people* can't be trusted to decide whether this monument is included in a state supreme court that is *meant to serve them* then we are really far gone."

ANd yet, that is exactly the position of the ACLU on a number of issues - the people cannot be trusted to make the decisions.

[tpaine]

Speaking of 'inquisitors' curry, I recently ran across this site, and the writer reminded me of you.. Could it be?


The Deception Of The U.S. Constitution
Address:http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/constitution.html

[wardaddy]

lol...

[Major_Risktaker]

I guess will have to agree to disagree,
but your on the other side now. The other
side of 200+ years of Proud American
History and Rich Traditions.

Luis Gonzalez good luck...

[concerned about politics]

Of course, some of these ACLU extremists are just like the Red Guard of Mao's China. They'd be the first to send the dissenters to "re-education" camps if they had a free hand in it.

It happens already. If you don't agree to homosexual tolerance training, you could lose your job. Tolerance of all sin, political correctness, is the religion the ACLU wants for America.
If you look at liberal policy, and then the 10 Commandments, you'll see they're exact opposites. 10 Commandments and God, liberalism and Satan. It's a battle that started before mans creation.
In the end, though, we win. We get the shield. The liberals will start killing and eating each other. They'll go mad.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Why such anger?"

Who's angry?

I find it highly amusing that my somewhat mild reaction to your insult is "anger" to you.

Religion is not "purged from the public square" at all, it's to be found all over the place in the public square...it's evident in the post showing the dollar bill, in the SCOTUS building, in the swearing in ceremonies of nearly every politician, in our Pledge of Allegiance, in the fact that Presidents close speeches with "May God Bless America"...the problem with you all, is that you can’t differentiate sectarian beliefs, from a belief in God.

Control your anger man, it may take you a bit of time, but you may actually get to understand this someday.

[general_re]

Fancy meeting you here!

:^)

Wages may be diminished but won't affect those presently sitting.

True, but it's those presently sitting who I presume are the problem. You could drop the pay to $20 a week for new justices, but all you'd be doing is insuring that you'd never find anyone competent to sit on the federal bench, liberal or conservative. Which may be okay, if that's the desired goal in the first place.

I assume that Congress has the power to get rid of everybody save the SCOTUS. And quite possibly has the authority to limit that court to one judge.

You do have a gift for thought-provoking posts, my friend - I had a long paragraph written out, explaining why you probably couldn't do such a thing. And then as I was proofing it, it occurred to me that you probably could do something very much like what you describe.

Here's how it works. The organization and jurisdiction of the federal court system was originally created by Congress, in the Judiciary Act of 1793, although that act has subsequently been modified fairly heavily. Now, the only way to remove a federal judge from the bench is to impeach him - you can't simply repeal the Judiciary Act and throw them all out on the street. But if you did repeal the Judiciary Act, the effect would be to eliminate the organizational structure and jurisdiction of the federal courts. Essentially, you'd still have all these federal judges wandering around, but they would have no jurisdiction over anything, no courthouses to sit in, and no dockets to administer. Basically, you'd be paying nearly 900 people $140,000 a year or so to play golf and sit by the pool, unless you formally impeached them in order to end their employment. Even so, that would have the practical effect of achieving the goal that is apparently at issue here - eliminating the federal judiciary as an institution. On paper, the judiciary would still exist, but they would have no power or authority to actually do anything.

Or, alternately, I haven't read the Judiciary Act in quite some time, but I don't believe anything in that act or in the Constitution mandates Congress to fill vacancies on the bench. If the Executive and Legislative branches were so inclined, they could simply let the federal bench empty itself out through attrition over the next few decades or so - when a judge retires, resigns, or dies, he or she would simply not be replaced. It would be rather slow, but it could be done.

Not that this will ever amount to much - in theory, these things might be possible, but nobody in the other branches of government has the political will to do anything remotely like going nuclear in this manner. I highly doubt W. wants to be remembered as the man who destroyed the courts ;)

[Luis Gonzalez]

News flash...it's over Johnny.

[WOSG]

"What do we do when a court district's population becomes majority Muslim, and they VOTE to outlaw public practice of Christianity and public display of any Christian symbols on private property...and so on, and so on?"

Quite a bit of a strawman argument, as this has not happened at all. Let's talk about what *has* happened:

The ACLU has been the ones to outlaw shared and non-coercive public displays of religious sentiment. The ACLU has been the ones to prevent private organizations like the BSA from freely associating. The ACLU has interfered with the right of private citizens to be free from harrassment by panhandlers. The ACLU has interfered with the state's ability to defend the rights of the most innocent, the unborn.

In *all cases* the ACLU has turned to Judicial tyrants, not democratic demagogues, to enact their evil. They have done it by twisting constitutional interpretation into a pretzel, gutting the intentions of the founding lawmakers and replacing it with their own modernist agenda of cultural degradation. How can we stop this creeping tyranny, if NOT with a return to Democracy???



"The reason we do not have DEMOCRACY in this country, but rather a Constitutional Republic, is to protect the minority view from majority rule."

And who will protect Judge Moore from the tyranny of the ACLU and the tyranny of Judicial activism run amok?

[concerned about politics]

"You know, after seeing the arguments go back and forth, I wonder if the best solution might be to let the voters decide. "

The voters did decide.
Judge Moore was elected.

If you scroll back, you'll see a FOX poll. 95% of the people want the monument to stay in their state.

[First Amendment]

but his postings in this thread would indicate that he's a lot closer to the lib/dim philosophy than he is to the predominantly conservative philosophy of most Freepers.

Regarding Sinkspur, a while ago there were a couple really long threads about homosexuality, started by Polycarp, and Sinkspur was rigidly on the side of "gay rights" without doubt. Not a conservative position.

[Concentrate]

Not to worry. He's our token Cuban who can speak English. He has license to run over anyone at anytime and not get banned. I've seen it!

[concerned about politics]

Religion is not "purged from the public square" at all, it's to be found all over the place in the public square...it's evident in the post showing the dollar bill, in the SCOTUS building, in the swearing in ceremonies of nearly every politician, in our Pledge of Allegiance, in the fact that Presidents close speeches with "May God Bless America"...

And in Judge Moores court house. So what's the problem? His memorial doesn't say what God either.

[Concentrate]

IIRC, Sinkspur is a member of the Catholic hierarchy, who have shown their true colors as of late. Need I say more?