Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

JUDGE ROY MOORE NEEDS OUR HELP!
World Net Daily ^ | November 3, 2003 | Diana Lynne

Posted on 11/04/2003 2:17:49 PM PST by AnimalLover

Justices won't hear 10 Commandments appeals

Moore faces trial next week on violation of judicial-ethics charges

The Supreme Court won't be deciding the outcome of the pitched battle over suspended Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's Ten Commandments monument.

Justices refused today to hear appeals seeking to put the 5,300-pound granite cube back on display inside Alabama's state capitol. WorldNetDaily reported the controversial monument nicknamed "Roy's Rock" was removed Aug. 28 from the rotunda of the Judicial Building in Montgomery after Moore was suspended by the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission for refusing to comply with a federal judge's ordered removal. He is slated to be tried on judicial-ethics violations Nov. 12 before the Alabama Court of the Judiciary

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Alabama
KEYWORDS: 10commandments; alabama; commandments; freedom; roymoore
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-228 next last
It's time to help Judge Moore! Diana Lynne supplied the following but no E-Mail addresses are shown.

Court of the Judiciary

http://www.judicial.state.al.us/judiciary_members.cfm

If anyone can find E-Mail addresses, please advise.

1 posted on 11/04/2003 2:17:49 PM PST by AnimalLover
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AnimalLover
He doesn't need my help. The guy is unfit for the bench.
2 posted on 11/04/2003 2:21:53 PM PST by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnimalLover
Moore was involved in civil disobedience, and will have to face the music. I would like to see him come out unscathed, but whatever the law says, is what the law says.

Then, however it comes out, he should run for Congress. Or Senate. Judges rule on the law. Congress makes the laws. That is where he needs to be. I would vote for him if I could, and I'll bet more than half of Alabama would vote for him also.
3 posted on 11/04/2003 2:24:28 PM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marron
You're exactly right. I support him, but the law is the law. If we don't respect the law, we're just DIMRATS.
4 posted on 11/04/2003 2:25:17 PM PST by TexasGunLover ("Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists."-- President George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
He doesn't need my help. The guy is unfit for the bench.

"It's a little confusing when they open their court with 'May God save the United States' inside their court and then say you can't acknowledge God. It does confuse one," Moore said in a live television interview on Fox News Channel.

Like any huckster, Moore is very familiar with bait-and-switch. He's extremely unfit for the bench.

5 posted on 11/04/2003 2:29:56 PM PST by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TexasGunLover
Agreed.

Consequence-free "civil disobedience" is not a valid concept.
6 posted on 11/04/2003 2:31:24 PM PST by Poohbah ("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Major Vic Deakins, USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jimt
Like any huckster, Moore is very familiar with bait-and-switch. He's extremely unfit for the bench.

And his inability to distinguish the two situations demonstrates his incompetence.

7 posted on 11/04/2003 2:31:31 PM PST by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AnimalLover
nicknamed "Roy's Rock"

Pretty fitting, since this is all about Roy Moore and nothing to do with the Consitution or an individuals right to worship. This about one man's ego - he must love the name Roy's Rock.

8 posted on 11/04/2003 2:33:18 PM PST by TheOtherOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnimalLover; .38sw; 2nd amendment mama; 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; 4Godsoloved..Hegave; ...
LIFE and LIBERTY ping!
9 posted on 11/04/2003 2:34:03 PM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
A civil disobedience bump for the Judge!

10 posted on 11/04/2003 2:37:20 PM PST by Scenic Sounds (Me caigo a mis rodillas y hablo a las estrellas de plata. "¿Qué misterios usted está encubriendo?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
Cite the law that Judge Moore broke.

Cite the law that the federal judge based the order to remove the monument on.

You can't do it, because it doesn't exist, and in fact cannot exist because of the simple wording of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

11 posted on 11/04/2003 2:38:49 PM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AnimalLover
http://www.judicial.state.al.us/judiciary_members.cfm link
12 posted on 11/04/2003 2:40:12 PM PST by The Mayor (Through prayer, finite man draws upon the power of the infinite God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Consequence-free "civil disobedience" is not a valid concept.

... said King George to the tea-partyers...

13 posted on 11/04/2003 2:41:13 PM PST by Gelato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: The Mayor
bttt
14 posted on 11/04/2003 2:41:39 PM PST by Agitate (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Bump!
15 posted on 11/04/2003 2:43:27 PM PST by The Mayor (Through prayer, finite man draws upon the power of the infinite God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Gelato
... said King George to the tea-partyers...

Kindly reread Letter from a Birmingham Jail.

BTW, the tea-partiers knew the consequences of getting caught, which is why they expended so much energy on NOT getting caught. They would not have thrown a hissy-fit about it not being "fair" that they were getting punished. In short, they had a LOT more scrotal fortitude than folks like Roy Moore.

16 posted on 11/04/2003 2:46:15 PM PST by Poohbah ("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Major Vic Deakins, USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
The decision of the federal judge was a lawless one.
17 posted on 11/04/2003 2:47:20 PM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
The decision of the federal judge was a lawless one.

Sorry, but stare decisis says you're wrong.

18 posted on 11/04/2003 2:48:29 PM PST by Poohbah ("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Major Vic Deakins, USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Name the law the decision was based on.
19 posted on 11/04/2003 2:49:20 PM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
He doesn't need my help.

Why would he want it? I believe Judge Moore is a man.

20 posted on 11/04/2003 2:53:06 PM PST by JesseHousman (Execute Mumia Abu-Jamal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Name the law the decision was based on.

The 1st and 14th Amendments. If you do not like the interpretation placed on them that the courts have placed on them over the past 40 years, you need to lobby Congress to clarify the legislative branch's intent.

21 posted on 11/04/2003 2:55:21 PM PST by Poohbah ("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Major Vic Deakins, USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
BTW, the tea-partiers knew the consequences of getting caught, which is why they expended so much energy on NOT getting caught. They would not have thrown a hissy-fit about it not being "fair" that they were getting punished. In short, they had a LOT more scrotal fortitude than folks like Roy Moore.

Civil disobedience is OK only if you don't get caught?

Civil disobedience is justified when all long train of abuses renders it necessary to brake the bondage.

I, for one, am tired of law-making from the bench and the twisting of the First Amendment. Kudos to Judge Moore for having the guts to stand against this! It set in motion the direction for what is taking place in Congress with religious liberty protection. He set the ball rolling, in many respects, and has lit the fire of indination needed to roll back the abuses of the courts.

22 posted on 11/04/2003 2:55:41 PM PST by Gelato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
stare decisis is crap-so is any decision that "violates
the clear and unambiguous language of the (US) Constitution.
If the Court is sole arbitor of the COnstitution it is a
cult-Not a Court.IT is tyranny-and despotic and we ought
resist.
23 posted on 11/04/2003 2:56:06 PM PST by StonyBurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Comment #24 Removed by Moderator

To: EternalVigilance
Got your talking points going again, I see.

Until the SCOTUS changes the law, the trial court and the 11th Circuit had an obligation to rule exactly as they did. Which, by the way, was exactly the way Roy Moore wanted them to rule. The worst thing that could happen to Moore would be if everyone just ignored his rock, or if a court said "fine, whatever, keep it - just shut up about it."

25 posted on 11/04/2003 2:59:23 PM PST by lugsoul (And I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
The 1st and 14th Amendments. If you do not like the interpretation placed on them that the courts have placed on them over the past 40 years, you need to lobby Congress to clarify the legislative branch's intent.

I don't, and I am.

Their reading is exactly the opposite of what it says.

26 posted on 11/04/2003 3:00:44 PM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Gelato
Civil disobedience is OK only if you don't get caught?

No. The core concept of civil disobedience is that you're willing to suffer the consequences of said disobedience to demonstrate the inherently unjust nature of the law in question.

Civil disobedience is justified when all long train of abuses renders it necessary to brake the bondage.

And that includes, believe it or not, accepting the consequences of the decision to disobey the law.

Demanding that one's "civil disobedience" be free of inconvenient consequences is, to put it mildly, cowardice.

I, for one, am tired of law-making from the bench and the twisting of the First Amendment.

Fine. That fatigue and $2.99 will get you a coffee at Starbucks.

27 posted on 11/04/2003 3:02:08 PM PST by Poohbah ("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Major Vic Deakins, USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Got your talking points going again, I see.

I don't use anyone's talking points.

Your charge that I do just shows that you don't know what you're talking about, but are willing to open your trap in spite of it.

28 posted on 11/04/2003 3:03:10 PM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: marron
Then, however it comes out, he should run for Congress. Or Senate. Judges rule on the law. Congress makes the laws. That is where he needs to be. I would vote for him if I could, and I'll bet more than half of Alabama would vote for him also.

Who say's judges don't make law from the bench? Look at the Terri Schiavo case for example.

Following is an article that appeared in WND - interesting!

The judiciary: America's new power center

http://www.wnd.com/news/archives.asp?AUTHOR_ID=190

29 posted on 11/04/2003 3:03:39 PM PST by AnimalLover
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Cite the law that Judge Moore broke.

First Amendment.

Cite the law that the federal judge based the order to remove the monument on.

First Amendment and sixty plus years of Supreme Court precedent.

You can't do it, because it doesn't exist,

I just did and came to the same conclusion that every judge who has reviewed this case has reached including the trial judge, three judges on the Court of Appeals, and nine Supreme Court Judges.

and in fact cannot exist because of the simple wording of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Only an idiot would fail to understand the role of the judiciary in interpreting the Constitution and the law in general. No law can be written to cover every possible factual situation, which is why we have the judiciary to develope case law and a body of Federal commonlaw. The First Amendment, for example, prohibits government from passing laws abridging free speech and the right to peacefully assemble, without exception, yet there are dozens of judically recognized exceptions such as yelling fire in a crowded theater, inciting a riot, fighting words, harrassment, peacefully assembling on the floor of the Senate or House of Representatives, public use of profanity, and even tresspassing on to your private property for the purpose of political protest. The First Amendment also fails to define the term "religion," and since the judiciary, in your view, lacks the authority to render decisions that have the binding effect of law, a religion must mean anything I want it to mean, and thus, if a person declares their favorite perversion a religious experience, then government is powerless to pass a law preventing that person from practicing that religion. Another example lies in the Fourth Amendment, which refers to, but does not define "unreasonable searches" and "probable cause." If not for judicial interpretation and the fact that those interpretations become binding precedent and the law of the land, those terms would mean whatever the prosecution says they mean, and the protections that the Fourth Amendment is supposed to provide to the citizenry would be totally illusory.

I don't expect you to agree or even understand because you have an agenda to promote and why let 225 years of Constitutional Law and a 1000 years of jurisprudence stand in the way.

30 posted on 11/04/2003 3:12:31 PM PST by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Try a little reading comprehension. YOUR talking points. Meaning the same ones you repeat over and over again on thread after thread.

For example, you KNOW that the dispute in this case is over the application of the Establishment Clause as incorporated against the states via the 14th Amendment, yet you persist in posting your silly "name the law" post over and over again. Why not just state your argument, instead of the same silly post?

As another example, you [like Judge Moore] continually talk about "the lawless decision of the Federal judge", as if Myron Thompson is some rogue judge cutting a new path. You love to ignore that three appellate judges emphatically affirmed that decision - including two of the most conservative jurists on the 11th Circuit. THOSE judges followed the law, as they are required to do. They can't overrule the SCOTUS, no matter how much you urge them to do so. Neither can Roy Moore.

Back to your talking points.

31 posted on 11/04/2003 3:13:01 PM PST by lugsoul (And I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Demanding that one's "civil disobedience" be free of inconvenient consequences is, to put it mildly, cowardice.

Just prior to the removal of the Ten Commandments monument, Judge Moore said he would be willing to go to jail if he had to. He hasn't winced at the consequences. But that doesn't mean he's going to sit back and be led like a sheep to the slaughter.

He'll be kicking and screaming all the way, God bless him.

No rights worth fighting for should be mildly laid down without utilizing all the opposition at one's disposal.

32 posted on 11/04/2003 3:13:25 PM PST by Gelato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Gelato
Just prior to the removal of the Ten Commandments monument, Judge Moore said he would be willing to go to jail if he had to.

There is no provision for a jail sentence in this situation, and Roy knows this.

He hasn't winced at the consequences.

Easy to do when the consequences are so light.

33 posted on 11/04/2003 3:16:00 PM PST by Poohbah ("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Major Vic Deakins, USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
The only consequence Roy Moore fears is not being in front of the television cameras.
34 posted on 11/04/2003 3:17:07 PM PST by lugsoul (And I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

I thought it was freedom of religion not freedom from religion.
35 posted on 11/04/2003 3:18:08 PM PST by pickyourpoison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos; lugsoul
Here's my talking points:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Sorry that you, like these judges, are too 'sophisticated' to understand plain English.

Sorry that you think that the judiciary can enforce laws that don't exist, and in fact are forbidden by the First Amendment from existing.

Sorry that you support judicial tyranny.

36 posted on 11/04/2003 3:18:27 PM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: pickyourpoison
I thought it was freedom of religion not freedom from religion.

It is, whether these revisionists like it or not.

37 posted on 11/04/2003 3:19:33 PM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: socks
I may be flamed for this, but Judge Moore should read Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter from the Birmingham Jail, specifically the part dealing with civil disobedience.

Moore has the right to civil disobedience, but he must be willing to accept the consequences of his actions. If you feel a law is unjust, fine, then protest by not obeying. But be prepared at the same time to pay the penalty for breaking the law.

Here's a link to the letter:

http://almaz.com/nobel/peace/MLK-jail.html

38 posted on 11/04/2003 3:20:59 PM PST by dawn53
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: JesseHousman
I believe Judge Moore is a man.

Too bad he thinks he is some sort of God.

39 posted on 11/04/2003 3:22:15 PM PST by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Whose free exercise?

By the way, have you ever heard of the state action doctrine? Do you believe that, for example, a state government can take action to prevent a newspaper from publishing, as long as it doesn't pass any legislation to do so? Can a local government abridge your freedom of speech, as long as no one introduces a bill to do so? Would that violate the Constitution, or not? If not, what stops them from doing so?

A concept I'm sure is too subtle for your simplistic approach.

40 posted on 11/04/2003 3:23:20 PM PST by lugsoul (And I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: pickyourpoison
It is both - but the second only relates to the government cramming down your throat.
41 posted on 11/04/2003 3:24:29 PM PST by lugsoul (And I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
"laws that don't exist"

Sorry you feel that way about the Bill of Rights.

42 posted on 11/04/2003 3:25:24 PM PST by lugsoul (And I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Here's my talking points...

Sorry that you have to rely upon canned talking points rather than addressing my specific responses to your questions. I'm sure there's a place for you on the DNC.

43 posted on 11/04/2003 3:25:33 PM PST by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
There is no provision for a jail sentence in this situation, and Roy knows this.

He didn't raise the issue. Others did. On national TV, others asked him if he would be willing to go to jail over this issue. I believe his answer was yes.

You said he should be "willing" to accept the consequences. He stated he would be. Still, he is fighting to the end, and completely justified in doing so.

Easy to do when the consequences are so light.

There was nothing easy about what Judge Moore did. And the consequences he's already suffered are nothing to scoff at.

44 posted on 11/04/2003 3:29:10 PM PST by Gelato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Gelato
He didn't raise the issue. Others did. On national TV, others asked him if he would be willing to go to jail over this issue. I believe his answer was yes.

OK, you're telling me that he was intentionally deceitful; in saying "Yeah, I'm willing to go to jail over this," he's implying that jail is a real possibility. It isn't, and he knows it.

My opinion of him is getting lower and lower.

You said he should be "willing" to accept the consequences. He stated he would be. Still, he is fighting to the end, and completely justified in doing so.

It's one thing to argue that; it's another thing to invoke "civil disobedience" as a magic-carpet to avoid consequences, as you did.

And the consequences he's already suffered are nothing to scoff at.

Yeah, he's on vacation. Whoop-de-do! Some consequences!

45 posted on 11/04/2003 3:33:34 PM PST by Poohbah ("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Major Vic Deakins, USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
HANNITY: Could you be...could you end up in jail for this?

MOORE: Well, that's up to the judge, of course.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94216,00.html

In other words, the judge could have sent Moore to jail. No one knew what would happen.

Ten Commandments Judge: 'If I Go to Jail, I Go to Jail'

Rally in Support of Judge Roy Moore Slated for August 16th

By Bill Fancher and Jody Brown August 8, 2003

[snip]

Moore said he has no fear of the consequences. "If I go to jail, I go to jail," he told Hannity, "but I've got to do my duty. I took an oath." The chief justice said he swore to uphold the state and federal constitutions, but that the U.S. Constitution has been misinterpreted by courts to forbid acknowledgment of God -- an acknowledgment that he says Alabama's constitution requires.

http://www.investigatemagazine.com/_NEWSTALK/00001203.htm
46 posted on 11/04/2003 3:43:22 PM PST by Gelato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Gelato
HANNITY: Could you be...could you end up in jail for this?

MOORE: Well, that's up to the judge, of course.

Notice that he didn't give a simple yes/no answer to a simple yes/no question?

The more I hear about or from him, the less I find to admire.

47 posted on 11/04/2003 3:46:32 PM PST by Poohbah ("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Major Vic Deakins, USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
The answer to the question is in the next quote:

"If I go to jail, I go to jail."

48 posted on 11/04/2003 3:48:03 PM PST by Gelato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Gelato
That's not a yes/no answer to that question.

Maybe his inability to give a straight answer is genetic--he IS, after all, a lawyer.
49 posted on 11/04/2003 3:49:06 PM PST by Poohbah ("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Major Vic Deakins, USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: AnimalLover
Let hime fend for himself.
50 posted on 11/04/2003 3:49:42 PM PST by verity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-228 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