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 ...
Sorry you feel that way about the Bill of Rights.
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.
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.
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!
HANNITY: Could you be...could you end up in jail for this?In other words, the judge could have sent Moore to jail. No one knew what would happen.MOORE: Well, that's up to the judge, of course.
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/_NEWSTALK/00001203.htm
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.
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.
"If I go to jail, I go to jail."
You argue like one.
He was asked COULD you go to jail. He said he didn't know. It was up to the judge.
Asked more directly on a different occasion of H&C if he would be willing to go to jail, he said, "If I go to jail, I go to jail."
Your concerns are addressed.
Do you support designating English as America's official language? If so, please learn how to read and write in English. Thank you.
"Could you go to jail?" is a query with a boolean answer--either yes, he COULD (i.e., it is within the possible range of consequences) go to jail, or no, he COULD NOT (i.e., it is NOT within the possible range of consequences).
It's not up to the judge if he COULD go to jail; either the judge has the power to sentence him to jail, or the judge does not have the power.
Asked more directly on a different occasion of H&C if he would be willing to go to jail, he said, "If I go to jail, I go to jail."
Yup. That time out, there wasn't even a question of whether or not such an outcome was possible.
from tyme to tyme, to make, ordeine, and establishe all Manner of wholesome and reasonable Orders, Lawes, Statutes, and Ordinances, Directions, and Instructions, not contrairie to the Lawes of this our Realme of England
Hmm.
I'm sorry my expressions are beyond your comprehension.
"Could you go to jail?" is a query with a boolean answer--either yes, he COULD (i.e., it is within the possible range of consequences) go to jail, or no, he COULD NOT (i.e., it is NOT within the possible range of consequences).
And, if you notice, Judge Moore answered accordingly: it's up to the judge. He conceded it was within the range of possible consequences.
It's not up to the judge if he COULD go to jail; either the judge has the power to sentence him to jail, or the judge does not have the power.
His answer was clear: the judge could order him to jail if the judge deemed it necessary.
Asked more directly on a different occasion of H&C if he would be willing to go to jail, he said, "If I go to jail, I go to jail." Yup. That time out, there wasn't even a question of whether or not such an outcome was possible.
The next day? These interviews were August 7th and August 8th.
No, he didn't; he merely tried to make it LOOK like he did.
Good grief, learn the difference between "could" and "would."
He answered the "could" question with a "could" answer. He answered the "would" question with a "would" answer.
Shall we continue cutting this hair? It's getting quite thin.
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.