Alabama Justice Suspended Over Monument (10 Commandments Being Violated, Big Time!)

Associated Press ^ | August 22, 2003 | BOB JOHNSON

[Bluntpoint]

And their are judges who are complete libertarians. Should they still not follow the law as it applies to drugs, prostitution, etc.?

[rebel]

So you accept the Nuremberg Defence! That is not an accepted defence in a court of law.

There is a "higher" law. A law that over rules the "authorities ordered me to do it" defence.

What, pray tell, is the source of that "higher law"?

[Bluntpoint]

No. But those in the system cannot pick and choose and not expect those under them to want to pick and choose what is binding and is not binding.

Judge Moore does not have to follow any Nuremburg style of defense. He can resign and fight the system while not entirely fudging that part of the system that is still working, at least somewhat.

[Theodore R.]

It is time that Moore remove his robes and take his fight to the ballot box.


The judiciary triumphs the ballot box in modern America. The ballot box results mean little in some situations, as liberalism, particularly judicial liberalism, grows and becomes entrenched no matter how many
"conservatives" win elections.

[Bluntpoint]

As an ex-attorney, I would not want to practice in front of Moore at the moment.

Appellant decisions have to have some sense of finality.

He has nurtured a climate of future endless frivilous appeals by those who get an unwelcome ruling from his bench.

[Non-Sequitur]

So you say that whatever the SC says is LAW and we must sumbit. Like the Dred Scott decision?

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each." -- Chief Justice John Marshall, 1803

If common sense is to rule then we must hope that common sense sits on the Supreme Court because their's are the only opinions that matter when it comes to ruling what is legal and what is not. You may believe that they lack all forms of common sense in this decision. Others will believe that they acted in a clear and farsighted manner by refusing to take on the case. Regardless of which side one is on, the ruling does not need our approval to be binding.

[rebel]

If the decision wasn't totally contrary to the intent of the founders there would be a sense of finality.

[Non-Sequitur]

I seem to remember reading that, while a circuit judge, Judge Moore's decisions were overturned at a rate far above average. As an ex-attorney would you know how this could be confirmed or refuted?

[Bluntpoint]

Intent of founders is not a concrete standard.

Back to your previous example of why Dredd Scott was given the stamp of approval by the court.

The intent of the framers either did or did not support slavery.

[Bluntpoint]

Usually the state bar keeps those stats for their fitness and reccommendation reports.

[Bluntpoint]

Would the errection of a statute of Mary in front of the Courthouse meet the standards of the founding fathers?

Would you still be supporting Judge Moore from all his accusers here who would be calling him a "Papist?"

[Non-Sequitur]

Since Moore was elected Chief Justice then I suppose those fitness and recommendation reports could say anything and he could still be retained.

[narses]

Hahahaha, you're funny. Now you want to be a hall monitor. Pretending to Holy Orders wasn't enough, was it?

[lugsoul]

"Fire... Death... Wrath of God or something..."

[Iconoclast2]

The single greatest error of libertarians is to fail to recognize that limiting the power of the Federal government is far more important than using that power to restrict the power of state governments to regulate individuals. By defending Federal arrogations of power that, in the short run, appear to advance individual liberties (the freedom not to have to view items of a quasi-religious nature in government offices???), they alienate natural allies and bring about less freedom in the long run.

[keats5]

"Persecution is always a pretext for revival."

So true.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

For some reason i keep thinking of "JUDAS"!

[Iconoclast2]

Have you ever heard of any Left-wing politician and attorney being suspended for any civil disobedience? I haven't. Once again, America's tribunals mete out a special brand of justice for politically-incorrect defendants. And you defend this? How can someone who would have sided with the Tories call themselves a member of Free Republic?

[freeangel]

He is not nurturing frivilous appeals, but following standard procedure most recently instituted by liberals and the ACLU and accepted by all of the PC crowd. Call it fighting fire with fire if you wish.

[Eala]

This is bizarre. What is the first thing a witness is asked to do in court? Put your hand on the what? and swear to whom?

Not in The Peoples' Soviet of Washington (aka The Evergreed State). Here you just raise your right hand and promise to tell the truth.