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 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 361-380 next last
Knowledgable people strongly suspect the Judge Moore is using this incident as a steppingstone to higher office most likely the Alabama governorship.
1
posted on
08/28/2003 12:12:26 PM PDT
by
quidnunc
To: quidnunc
ESPN columnists ought to stick to sports. If I wanted to read leftist social commentary, I would read Salon.com or DU.
2
posted on
08/28/2003 12:16:19 PM PDT
by
Paleo Conservative
(Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
To: quidnunc
The writer is simply another egghead AH.
3
posted on
08/28/2003 12:17:39 PM PDT
by
RAY
To: quidnunc
The writer is simply another egghead AH.
4
posted on
08/28/2003 12:17:43 PM PDT
by
RAY
To: quidnunc
I'll take this guy with a grain of salt. He said Favre played for Green Bay for his entire career. I guess he forgot we (meaning me & my beloved Green Bay Packers) got Favre in a trade from Atlanta.
5
posted on
08/28/2003 12:19:03 PM PDT
by
Catspaw
To: quidnunc
"Knowledgeable people" are avoiding the issues and attacking personalities?
Christians can "do" public relations.
6
posted on
08/28/2003 12:20:34 PM PDT
by
mrsmith
To: quidnunc
>>...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?...<<
Wrong. A jury convicts and a judge applies the sentence according to statutory guidelines.
Of course, the convicted can always appeal but not just "walk free".
As mentioned in a previous post, ESPN should stick to sports.
7
posted on
08/28/2003 12:21:01 PM PDT
by
FReepaholic
(My other tag line is hilarious.)
To: quidnunc
Republican Gov. Bob Riley is risking his political neck to campaign for tax-law changes that would increase taxes . . . I think this writer has a perspective that pre-supposes a dislike for conservatism.
8
posted on
08/28/2003 12:21:18 PM PDT
by
Tribune7
To: quidnunc
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. What is Mr. Easterbrook's position on the Dred Scott case?
9
posted on
08/28/2003 12:22:55 PM PDT
by
Sloth
("I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" -- Jacobim Mugatu, 'Zoolander')
To: quidnunc
"...Judge Moore is using this incident as a steppingstone to higher office most likely the Alabama governorship." And the problem with this would be.....?
To: quidnunc
Why is ESPN writing on such matters?
11
posted on
08/28/2003 12:23:42 PM PDT
by
Phantom Lord
(Distributor of Pain, Your Loss Becomes My Gain)
To: quidnunc
Martin Luther King, the publicity-seeker who led the "March on Washington"...
12
posted on
08/28/2003 12:24:11 PM PDT
by
50sDad
("There are FOUR LIGHTS! FOUR LIGHTS!")
To: TommyDale
And the problem with this would be.....?
That he is resisting a court order in order to gain himself publicity he otherwise wouldn't be able to receive and flaunting the law he has sworn to uphold in the process. And not because of the greater public good, but for personal political gain. At least, that's MY problem with it...
To: quidnunc
Knowledgable people strongly suspect the Judge Moore is using this incident as a steppingstone to higher office ...My problem with that assertion is that why would he choose such a divisive steppingstone? Seems to me he would choose some other vehicle that is not of such "hot-button" proportions unless he made a grave tactical error in not thinking it would create such a furor.
14
posted on
08/28/2003 12:29:42 PM PDT
by
ladtx
( "Remember your regiment and follow your officers." Captain Charles May, 2d Dragoons, 9 May 1846)
To: Paleo Conservative
Agree - leave the bias reporting and lieing to the professionals at the NY Times. ESPN should focus on sports.
15
posted on
08/28/2003 12:33:22 PM PDT
by
sasafras
(sasafras (The road to hell is paved with good intentions))
To: quidnunc
"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. Judge Moore made no law and he violated no law.
16
posted on
08/28/2003 12:35:42 PM PDT
by
Jim Robinson
(Conservative by nature... Republican by spirit... Patriot by heart... AND... ANTI-Liberal by GOD!)
To: ladtx
ladtx wrote:
My problem with that assertion is that why would he choose such a divisive steppingstone?
Because he did it before.
Judge Moore was a local judge who a few years ago defied a federal court order to remove the 10 Commandments from the wall of his courtroom.
The case received much attention in the news media.
He parlayed the notoriety he got from this incident into a successful election campaign for chief justice of the Alabama supreme court.
17
posted on
08/28/2003 12:36:38 PM PDT
by
quidnunc
(Omnis Gaul delenda est)
To: Paleo Conservative
ESPN columnists are all liberal scum. It is that simple.
18
posted on
08/28/2003 12:40:26 PM PDT
by
ohioman
To: Jim Robinson
Jim Robinson wrote:
Judge Moore made no law and he violated no law.Judge Moore took an oath to uphold the Constitution.
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.
19
posted on
08/28/2003 12:41:32 PM PDT
by
quidnunc
(Omnis Gaul delenda est)
To: quidnunc
He did not violate his oath and he did not violate the Constitution.
20
posted on
08/28/2003 12:44:38 PM PDT
by
Jim Robinson
(Conservative by nature... Republican by spirit... Patriot by heart... AND... ANTI-Liberal by GOD!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson