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 ...
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.
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.
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."
I don't, and I am.
Their reading is exactly the opposite of what it says.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
It is, whether these revisionists like it or not.
Too bad he thinks he is some sort of God.
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.
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.