Posted on 08/28/2003 12:12:24 PM PDT by quidnunc
-snip-
Judge Roy Moore, the publicity-seeker who put the 2.5-ton Ten Commandments in the Alabama state courthouse, declared Monday that he could disobey the direct order of a federal judge because "judges do not make laws, they interpret them." Since, Moore continued, an interpretation can be wrong, therefore he may defy a judicial order. So presumably Judge Moore also thinks that if he sentences a man to prison, the man can declare that the interpretation might be wrong and walk free? It's exactly the same logic.
Moore further said that the First Amendment precept, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion," does not apply to him because "I am not Congress." Drag this incompetent lunatic out of the court quickly, please. Anyone with entry-level knowledge of Constitutional law knows that the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was intended to extend the Bill of Rights to state governments; that a 1937 Supreme Court decision specifically declared that the First Amendment binds state officials like Judge Moore.
As a church-going Christian — TMQ was in this church on Sunday — I find it deeply embarrassing when Christianity is associated, in the public eye, with hucksters like Moore. I find it embarrassing, too, when Christians supporting Moore's hunk of stone suggest that a big object in a public square is what matters, rather than the power of God's message itself. Anyone who needs to look at a big object in order to believe, doesn't really believe.
And consider that in the same state, Alabama, where the Judge Moore sideshow is getting nonstop media attention, Republican Gov. Bob Riley is risking his political neck to campaign for tax-law changes that would increase taxes on the well-off while exempting everyone who makes less than $17,000 annually. Gov. Riley phrases the campaign in religious terms, saying, "According to our Christian ethics, we're supposed to love God, love each other and help take care of the poor." How come this pure and admirable Christian sentiment gets no media attention while the egomaniac with the hunk of stone in the same state's courthouse enjoys round-the-clock coverage?
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at espn.go.com ...
Which are part of a larger liberal movement to have the fedgov usurp power. At some point, if it is left unchecked, there won't be anything left to balance out in the relationship between the fedgov and the states.
Untrue. And many of the statements were reiterated in his testimony in the trial. As to the reason the State of Alabama had to have this monument in the judicial building.
Segregation was based on law and upheld by SCOTUS for 60 years. Should the civil rights movement therefore have not resorted to civil disobedience?
It's still properly a state decision, lugsoul, whether or not you like it. I personally don't think they should have bothered with it, but they did, and it was well within their powers to have such a monument in the courthouse, and the feds stepped over the line of the 10th Amendment, just as SCOTUS did when it struck down that law against gays in Texas (I personally think the law was wrong, but, once again, the 10th should have overriden the person opinions of the SCOTUS judges).
If they feel that way, then they should petition their legislators to impeach Moore. Removing the monument does nothing to change the opinions of the judge in question.
Perhaps that is the answer to my question. If so, Roy Moore disagrees with you.
"By leaving religion undefined, the Court has opened the door to the erroneous assumption that, under the Establishment Clause, religion could include Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and whatever might occupy in man's life a place parallel to that filled by God." - Judge Roy Moore
"Americans are free to worship other Gods only because the Judeo-Christian God, and the Judeo-Christian God alone, allows for freedom of conscience." - Judge Roy Moore
http://www.almd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Glassroth%20v%20Moore%20Opinion.pdf
"Due to the slope of the monument's top and the religious appearance of the tablets, the tablets call to mind an open Bible resting on a podium."
The above statement occurs on page 6 of the above referenced opinion.
Notice that the judge refers to "religious appearance", as if there could be such a thing cognizable under any federal law, or even under the Constitution.
Just what is a "religious appearance" and who determines that? With the imprimatur of the federal courts behind this statement I am forced to believe that there is some formal "religious legitimacy" body somewhere in the entrails of the US federal government that provides exacting guidance to the federal judges lest they err in these matters.
Or, is it that the judge's own opinion regarding religion has intruded into his decision?
If so, the federal judge ends up doing the same thing AU (financed by Southern Poverty Law Center) claims Judge Moore did.
Judge Moore can be dealt with at a later time, but so far he has not issued any official opinions claiming anything at all has this "religious appearance".
This "religious appearance" stuff casts a chill over the whole of society because it can have it's origin in only two places ~ the judge's own religious thoughts, and/or some hitherto secret government agency that determines what is or is not legitimately religious.
With judges doing this next they will be dictating personal morality, maybe even ordering the execution of the innocent, and the dispossession of the impoverished.
This guy's crusade is not the right vehicle.
Of course they have the right.
If you follow Moore's words, the answer is no.
Of course not.
Whichever article in the U.S. Code which deals with the offense of contempt of court.
If you need more information than that you can look it up yourself, you can do it as easily as I can since it might well involve a trip to the nearest publically-accessible law library.
Here's my problem with "settled law". It is hard for me to believe that every judge (or court) that has ever made a ruling, made a correct ruling. But, years later, some lawyer, judge, or court pulls out a "precedent" to help their side.
Sometimes bad law is built upon bad law. IMO. Roe vs. Wade fits this category. And yes, I know that the federal courts and SCOTUS are the final arbitrators, but that doesn't mean I have to agree. The Dems (and Clinton in particular) have stacked the deck against fair-minded Americans, and the Senate Dems are blocking (and threatening to block) Bush nominees who fail to pass their "smell" test.
If I built my house starting with bad foudation work just because the contractor I hired had been laying foundations for years and years, but still didn't know what he was doing (or because he was the only "approved" man for the job), my house would be "settled", too.
God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in their government." --Thomas Jefferson
Why the quotes ?.... I like them.. I see the relevancy..and love to engage on negative influences..
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.