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

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

[Jim Robinson]

Says who? If the order is unconstitutional, and many people believe it is, he has the moral right to continue fighting as forcefully as he possibly can. The federal government may step in and end it forcefully, but that does not make it right. And they may find they have the people to answer for it if they do.

[dirtboy]

But once a decision has been rendered he's not entitled to defy the federal courts outside of the judicial or legislative systems.

I think it's time for that to be challenged, as the feds have gotten way too big for their britches. And the states are the best place to challenge that.

[dirtboy]

If the order is unconstitutional, and many people believe it is, he has the moral right to continue fighting as forcefully as he possibly can. The federal government may step in and end it forcefully, but that does not make it right. And they may find they have the people to answer for it if they do.

That's the only peaceful way the fedgov will be pared back, if the states and the people stand up to its usurpations.

[quidnunc]

dirtboy wrote: I think it's time for that to be challenged, as the feds have gotten way too big for their britches. And the states are the best place to challenge that.

Just so those doing the challenging understand that there may be a hefty price to pay.

Defiance of a federal court order is contempt of court and can place the non-complier in jeopardy of a substantial fine or a stretch in the stony lonesome.

[dirtboy]

Just so those doing the challenging understand that there may be a hefty price to pay.

As if we're not paying a hefty price already, bowing down to federal usurpation? How much worse will the price get if some people don't start standing up before it is too late?

Defiance of a federal court order is contempt of court and can place the non-complier in jeopardy of a substantial fine or a stretch in the stony lonesome.

Well, Andrew Jackson once said "John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can." - the point is, the checks and balances at the federal level have completely broken down, and the feds have decided they can do just about anything they damn well please - so who is best suited to take them on? The states. It has to happen sooner or later, or else the federal government will become completely supreme and the republic as we know it will be dead.

[Mr. Silverback]

If every person who as called Moore a huckster/demagogue/self-promoter in the last 2 weeks applied the same standard to people who agree with them (or that they like) they would have to call virtually everyone in the public square a huckster/demagogue/self-promoter. Want some examples?

What did Al Gore run on in 200? The economy. Why? Because he could claim he had a good "record" on the issue and the voters like a good economy.

Why will Dubya run on homeland security and foreign policy next year? Because he can claim a good record on both issues and the voters like safe streets and frequent womping of jihadis.

So, why did Moore run as "The Ten Commandments Judge?" Because he had a record of posting and protecting the big 10, and a lot of Alabamans liked it. That doesn't make him a huckster.

[Jim Robinson]

Lots of people fighting for liberty have been wrongfully jailed or even killed by their oppressors. This is not new.

[Mr. Silverback]

LOL!!

[quidnunc]

Jim Robinson wrote: Says who? If the order is unconstitutional, and many people believe it is, he has the moral right to continue fighting as forcefully as he possibly can. The federal government may step in and end it forcefully, but that does not make it right. And they may find they have the people to answer for it if they do.

The SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what is constitutional.

Furthermore, the US Constitutuin trumps state constitutions and state law.

Are you really advocating tinkering with Marbury vs Madison (which has been settled law since 1803) and the Establishment Clause of the Bill of Rights?

[shaggy eel]

Knowledgable people strongly suspect that Judge Moore is using this incident as a steppingstone to higher office

,,, looking at the decisions coming out of the Supreme Court lately, do you really think he has a chance - or would want to go any higher? I think he's taken a stand on the BIG10 issue and proved his worth.

[Stone Mountain]

He is resisting an order that was made based upon no law whatsoever.

That is your opinion, and I respect it, even agree with it to an extent. However, the higher courts made their ruling, and Judge Moore doesn't have any legal grounds to resist that ruling. Just because you or he don't happen to agree with the reasoning that they used doesn't mean that it doesn't apply. Judge Moore, as a judge, had taken an oath to uphold this system, agree with it or not. If someone doesn't think they can work in the system, they shouldn't become a judge.

[Jim Robinson]

The people are the final arbiter.

[6ppc]

ESPN columnists ought to stick to sports.

Maybe so, but in this case he is right on target.

[dirtboy]

The people are the final arbiter.

That's going to leave a mark...

[Stone Mountain]

Taking advantage of his popularity over this issue for his political gain is no different than any other politician, except that this man is standing on high moral ground.

This is where we differ. I believe that the high moral ground for a judge is to uphold the law, even when the judge personally disagrees with it.

[lugsoul]

I know you wouldn't know this, AAS, but knowledgeable people also know that Judge Easterbrook is one of the best damn judges in the U.S.

[tame]

Judge Moore made no law and he violated no law.

Amen!

[discostu]

Easterbrook isn't just an ESPN guy. Here's his bio snippet:
Gregg Easterbrook is a senior editor of New Republic, a contributing editor of The Atlantic Monthly and a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution. He is believed to be the first Brookings scholar ever to write a pro football column.

[shaggy eel]

He parlayed the notoriety he got from this incident into a successful election campaign for chief justice of the Alabama supreme court.

,,, it must have been what the voters agreed with then. I'd say the Lord had rewarded him - and the voters with sound leadership in a field where it's desperately needed.

[dirtboy]

I believe that the high moral ground for a judge is to uphold the law, even when the judge personally disagrees with it.

What if the decision in question, made by a federal court regarding a state matter, is not based on law but on the whims of judges?