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 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 361-380 next last
To: Jim Robinson; aristeides; 6ppc; sport; CaliRepub
Take the Poll

Do you agree with a federal judge's ruling last week that a Ten Commandments monument at the Alabama Judicial Building violates the Constitution's ban on government establishment of religion and must be removed?
Yes  11.6% 52
No  87.9% 393
No Opinion  0.4% 2

241 posted on 08/28/2003 7:31:51 PM PDT by Happy2BMe (LIBERTY has arrived in Iraq - Now we can concentrate on HOLLYWEED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
The Fourteenth Amendment's relative section states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Now how does keeping a monument to the Ten Commandments 'make or enforce a law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States?' I'm sure that you have to go through YEARS of Constitutional Law before that connection makes sense!

242 posted on 08/28/2003 7:36:19 PM PDT by JoeSchem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoeSchem
Without going through years of constitutional law (which is often misinterpreted even today), what specific federal or state law did Judge Moore violate by remaining faithful to his oath to defend the Alabama and United States Constitutions?

Is it really, really all that deep? Mysterious? Technical?

243 posted on 08/28/2003 7:42:27 PM PDT by Happy2BMe (LIBERTY has arrived in Iraq - Now we can concentrate on HOLLYWEED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: JoeSchem
JoeSchem wrote: The Fourteenth Amendment's relative section states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Now how does keeping a monument to the Ten Commandments 'make or enforce a law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States?' I'm sure that you have to go through YEARS of Constitutional Law before that connection makes sense!

The Equal Protection clause of the 14th makes states — including their constitutions and other laws — subject to the provisions of the US Constitution.

244 posted on 08/28/2003 7:42:27 PM PDT by quidnunc (Omnis Gaul delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: RWG
"The Church of the Liberated just announced that the 10 commandments may be defied because the former method of observation was based on a wrong interpretation."

The Church of the Liberated have not taken oaths to uphold the Alabama and United States Constitutions.

Have they?

245 posted on 08/28/2003 7:44:30 PM PDT by Happy2BMe (LIBERTY has arrived in Iraq - Now we can concentrate on HOLLYWEED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: JoeSchem
The claim is that the 14th Amendment's guarantee of "due process of law" applies some -- but not all -- of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights to the states, and that the Ten Commandments monument violates the guarantee of no establishment of religion.

What? You don't find that very persuasive? Neither do I.

246 posted on 08/28/2003 7:54:29 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: bjs1779
So you now claim a Constitutional right to tax-exempt political activism?
247 posted on 08/28/2003 7:59:11 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
And not a single one of your examples is affected in the least by the decisions in Glassroth v. Moore.

During the Clinton administration, an attempt was made by the EEOC (I think) which would have prohibited religious displays or discussions in the worksplace on the grounds that it was a form of harassment.

A nation has to choose what values it has. Our's is based on Judeo-Christian ones. There is nothing wrong with recognizing this.

If Judge Moore wants to base his rulings on Christian principles, it amazes me that you, or anyone, would not think this is a good thing.

I frankly think we should recognize Christian principles as best.

248 posted on 08/28/2003 8:18:47 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
I work for a federal agency. During the Clinton administration, my office's Christmas party was replaced by a "winter party." That's the sort of thing that happened in Soviet Russia and, to a much lesser extent, in Nazi Germany.
249 posted on 08/28/2003 8:21:04 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Schools are prohibited from calling Christmas recess Christmas recess anymore. It's Orwellian.
250 posted on 08/28/2003 8:24:12 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | 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.

I hope he makes it. He has superb leadership qualities and a spine of iron.

251 posted on 08/28/2003 8:27:03 PM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
"I frankly think we should recognize Christian principles as best."

If the government doing this is not establishment of religion, there is no such thing.

252 posted on 08/28/2003 8:50:22 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
If the government doing this is not establishment of religion, there is no such thing.

Maybe you fail to understand Christian principles or can't see the difference between principles -- in which the state does have a legitmate interest -- and religion -- in which it doesn't.

253 posted on 08/28/2003 9:00:05 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
Thanks, but it's still misquoting the First Amendment. It's from such a misquotation that all the subsequent judicial mischief has arisen.
254 posted on 08/28/2003 10:51:08 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
I made up the church of the liberated to make a point.
255 posted on 08/29/2003 3:28:18 AM PDT by RWG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer
Check out this thread - lugtroll is trolling on Jim Robinson.

Unfreakingbelievable.

No need to call the kitties, just an object lesson in the kind of person he really is. Aside from being a worshipper of the 800 Holy Federal Druids... ;-)

As I said before, you'll never get the last word with this troll - and neither did Jim Robinson.

256 posted on 08/29/2003 5:40:02 AM PDT by an amused spectator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stone Mountain
So YOU are the one who bought out the entire press run of THAT BOOK Linda Tripp was going to make a mint from! I've never been able to find a single copy! You didn't BURN THEM ALL, did you? I'll pay good fiat money for a copy!
257 posted on 08/29/2003 5:51:47 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
In the name of "religious freedom" would you allow, say neo-Aztec virgin child sacrifice (maybe you didn't know there are neo-Aztec's -- I do know there are), or fringe Santerian child sacrifice or digging up graveyards, or a Hindu sutee -- where the living widow of a dead husband throws herself (or is drugged and thrown) on his funearal pyre?

There is "religious freedom" within a boundary. That boundary is from the "Old Testament".

258 posted on 08/29/2003 6:07:20 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
With you as Judge Easterbrook's tout, then one must wonder what exactly this "clarification and rendering" will produce -- a reworked version of the LAW ACCORDING TO EASTERBROOK?
259 posted on 08/29/2003 6:11:17 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator
"Unfreakingbelievable"

I'm even more amazed at the amount of free time he has!!
260 posted on 08/29/2003 6:18:06 AM PDT by DanTheAdmin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 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