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

Skip to comments.

Warning – Serious Item! U10 Commandmensts judge Moore is an egomaniacal huckster)
ESPN Page 2 ^ | August 26, 2003 | Gregg Easterbrook

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News
KEYWORDS: activistcourt; alabama; boycott; boycottespn; espn; freedomfromreligion; itsfreedomofreligion; mediabias; religion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 361-380 next last
To: quidnunc
Those groups which are I mentioned are antithetical to everything which I believe, but they are still part of "the people".

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.

101 posted on 08/28/2003 2:59:12 PM PDT by dirtboy (Press Alt-Ctrl-Del to reset this tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
"Moore's comments were not on trial here"

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.

102 posted on 08/28/2003 2:59:19 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Stone Mountain
That was my point. I still believe that the high moral ground for a judge lies in upholding the rule of law, even if he disagrees with it or the reasoning that led to it, and finding legal ways to challenge what he disagrees with.

Segregation was based on law and upheld by SCOTUS for 60 years. Should the civil rights movement therefore have not resorted to civil disobedience?

103 posted on 08/28/2003 3:00:17 PM PDT by dirtboy (Press Alt-Ctrl-Del to reset this tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Maybe they are worried that they are seeking fair and impartial justice from a man who explicitly categorizes them as having fewer Constitutional rights than you or I have.
104 posted on 08/28/2003 3:00:32 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Stone Mountain
I support Judge Moore. I am tired of the God-less athiests ramming their beliefs down my throat at every opportunity.

God Bless Judge Moore.
105 posted on 08/28/2003 3:00:43 PM PDT by fortaydoos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
What is the Statute number he violated?
106 posted on 08/28/2003 3:01:34 PM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
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.

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).

107 posted on 08/28/2003 3:02:56 PM PDT by dirtboy (Press Alt-Ctrl-Del to reset this tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Maybe they are worried that they are seeking fair and impartial justice from a man who explicitly categorizes them as having fewer Constitutional rights than you or I have.

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.

108 posted on 08/28/2003 3:04:06 PM PDT by dirtboy (Press Alt-Ctrl-Del to reset this tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Huh?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Looks pretty clear to me. Even with the so-called modification by the 14th extending it to the states.

Freedom of speech and freedom of religion shall not be abridged. Freedom is for all, not just the athiests.

109 posted on 08/28/2003 3:04:38 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Conservative by nature... Republican by spirit... Patriot by heart... AND... ANTI-Liberal by GOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
"The first amendment guarantees certain free speech and religious rights to ALL of the people, not some of the people."

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

110 posted on 08/28/2003 3:04:50 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
Knowledgable people strongly suspect the Judge Moore is using this incident as a steppingstone to higher office — most likely the Alabama governorship.

So what? As long as he takes correct stands on most of the issues, I would applaud his ambition.
111 posted on 08/28/2003 3:05:17 PM PDT by mugsy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mugsy
Ol' Squidnuts is just using the tried-and-true propaganda technique of impunging the motives of his opponent.
112 posted on 08/28/2003 3:06:19 PM PDT by dirtboy (Press Alt-Ctrl-Del to reset this tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
Knowledgeable people have also read Myron Thompson's ruling which may be found at:

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.

113 posted on 08/28/2003 3:06:22 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Looks pretty clear to me, too. Not to Roy Moore. Constitutional freedom is for the Christians. Whatever freedom others may have comes because the Christians, and their God, are so kind as to bestow it on them.

This guy's crusade is not the right vehicle.

114 posted on 08/28/2003 3:07:31 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Do American citizens of the Hindu faith have a Constitutional, 1st Amendment right to freely exercise their religion? What about Buddhists? Taoists?

Of course they have the right.

If you follow Moore's words, the answer is no.

Of course not.

115 posted on 08/28/2003 3:08:26 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: sport
sport wrote: What is the Statute number he violated?

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.

116 posted on 08/28/2003 3:09:09 PM PDT by quidnunc (Omnis Gaul delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
It is settled law (See Marbury vs Madison) that the federal courts in general and SCOTUS in particular are the final arbiters on the US Constitution.

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.

117 posted on 08/28/2003 3:09:58 PM PDT by auboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: 6ppc
How?

Do you personally know Judge Moore?
118 posted on 08/28/2003 3:10:02 PM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
"If the Constitution is to be construed to mean what the majority at any given period in history wish the Constitution to mean, why a written Constitution?"--Frank J. Hogan, President, American Bar Assn. (1939)

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..

119 posted on 08/28/2003 3:10:43 PM PDT by hosepipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
That was exactly the point that Dr. James Dobson made this afternoon at the rally. He pointed named Rosa Parks as having stood up against the masses.
120 posted on 08/28/2003 3:10:46 PM PDT by getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL (...where even the mosquitoes use bug spray.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 361-380 next last

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.

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