Warning – Serious Item! U10 Commandmensts judge Moore is an egomaniacal huckster)

ESPN Page 2 ^ | August 26, 2003 | Gregg Easterbrook

[lugsoul]

That's my point. If he is not standing up for all of our rights, then he is not standing up for anyone's rights.

[sport]

Why?

[Jim Robinson]

Well, I think what he's saying is, under our constitution and our bill of rights we allow freedom for ALL religions. Some countries do not. Our Founding Fathers' faith in their Judeo-Christian God allowed for this and guaranteed it through the first amendment.

[Jim Robinson]

Well, had it not been for the Founding Fathers' faith in God, we may not have had religious freedom for all religions. There's nothing wrong in Judge Moore saying that.

[lugsoul]

That's a generous interpretation. He flat out says that Hinduism, for example, is not "religion" for purposes of the 1st Amendment. What else could it mean for one to say that to include Hinduism as a "religion" would be an "erroneous assumption"?

I've got no beef with the Ten Commandments. It is Roy Moore's demagoguery that sets me off.

[getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL]

(sorry for the typo--kids to the left of me, and kids to the right of me.)

[lugsoul]

Conservative, knowledgeable, consistent, tireless judge who, along with Posner, has undertaken to clarify and render consistent almost the entire body of law in the 7th Circuit.

[lugsoul]

No, but there is something wrong with him saying that right is not enshrined by the protection of those other religions in the 1st Amendment. And he said that.

[Jim Robinson]

Jusge Moore is standing up for the rights of all. Religious freedom is for all. Free speech is for all. The first amendment is for all. The ACLU is trying to restrict our freedoms to only what they approve (atheism).

[michigander]

The SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what is constitutional.

The people are the final arbiter.

From the same man that brought us the "separation of church and state"...

---

Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, June 11, 1815

The second question, whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law, has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the constitution which has given that power to them more than to the executive or legislative branches. Questions of property, of character and of crime being ascribed to the judges, through a definite course of legal proceeding, laws involving such questions belong, of course, to them; and as they decide on them ultimately and without appeal, they of course decide for themselves. The constitutional validity of the law or laws again prescribing executive action, and to be administered by that branch ultimately and without appeal, the executive must decide for themselves also, whether, under the constitution, they are valid or not. So also as to laws governing the proceedings of the legislature, that body must judge for itself the constitutionality of the law, and equally without appeal or control from its co-ordinate branches. And, in general, that branch which is to act ultimately, and without appeal, on any law, is the rightful expositor of the validity of the law, uncontrolled by the opinions of the other co-ordinate authorities. It may be said that contradictory decisions may arise in such case, and produce inconvenience. This is possible, and is a necessary failing in all human proceedings. Yet the prudence of the public functionaries, and authority of public opinion, will generally produce accommodation. Such an instance of difference occurred between the judges of England (in the time of Lord Holt) and the House of Commons, but the prudence of those bodies prevented inconvenience from it. So in the cases of Duane and of William Smith of South Carolina, whose characters of citizenship stood precisely on the same ground, the judges in a question of meum and tuum which came before them, decided that Duane was not a citizen; and in a question of membership, the House of Representatives, under the same words of the same provision, adjudged William Smith to be a citizen. Yet no inconvenience has ensued from these contradictory decisions. This is what I believe myself to be sound. But there is another opinion entertained by some men of such judgment and information as to lessen my confidence in my own. That is, that the legislature alone is the exclusive expounder of the sense of the constitution, in every part of it whatever. And they allege in its support, that this branch has authority to impeach and punish a member of either of the others acting contrary to its declaration of the sense of the constitution. It may indeed be answered, that an act may still be valid although the party is punished for it, right or wrong. However, this opinion which ascribes exclusive exposition to the legislature, merits respect for its safety, there being in the body of the nation a control over them, which, if expressed by rejection on the subsequent exercise of their elective franchise, enlists public opinion against their exposition, and encourages a judge or executive on a future occasion to adhere to their former opinion. Between these two doctrines, every one has a right to choose, and I know of no third meriting any respect.

---

The people are indeed the final arbiters.
Testicular fortitude for exercising the powers of the inherent checks and balances built into our governmental system needs to be elected by "We the People".
Voting for the lesser of the evils or the best the people feel they can hope for has brought us here.

[Stone Mountain]

Sorry - I may not have been clear. I have a problem with a judge execrcising civil disobedience, because I believe that is bad for the system. Same goes for policemen. I believe that those people who swore to uphold the law should do so in spite of their personal beliefs. I don't have a problem with civilians practicing peaceful civil disobedience; I am very much in favor of that.

[Tribune7]

He's standing up for all our rights -- including the Hindus, Randians et al. Where do our rights come from?

[lugsoul]

Nice retort. But that is what you are saying, not what he is saying. He flat out said in his testimony at trial that, if his monument had been honoring a God other than the Judeo-Christian God, "then what they are accusing us of doing would be true."

Those are his words. It is a shame so many are willing to fall in lockstep behind him without listening to what he is saying. He is nothing more than Lonesome Rhodes in a robe.

[lugsoul]

Can you not read his own words? Hindus don't have 1st Amendment rights, because Hinduism is not a "religion," according to Moore.

Blinders, blinders, everywhere.

[Tribune7]

Americans are free to worship other Gods . . .
--Judge Moore

[lugsoul]

Not under the Constitution. But, instead, because our God graciously allows them to do so.

That is one of the most damned un-American things I've ever heard from the mouth of one who fancies himself a patriot. From the mouth of one who is charged with the rendition of impartial justice, it is inexcusable.

[Jim Robinson]

Perhaps. But I don't think many of the Founding Fathers were Hindu. I believe when they talked and wrote of "God" and or of the "Creator" they were referring to the Judeo-Christian God. But, just the same, their faith allowed them to allow for and guarantee religious freedom to all people of all religions.

[lugsoul]

Have you been studying at the Maureen Dowd School of Quote Editing?

[Jim Robinson]

That's not what he's saying.

[lugsoul]

No one said they were Hindu. But they clearly knew that the faith of the Hindu was every bit as much of a protected faith as their own. They knew that the only guarantee of freedom of religion was freedom of all religions. Though, on this particular topic, most of them used the word "Gintu" or "Gintoo". A quaint one, kind of like "Mohometan".

If I were a Hindu, I'd tend to believe that my freedom of worship in this country came from the 1st Amendment, not the grace of Roy Moore's God.