JUDGE ROY MOORE NEEDS OUR HELP!

World Net Daily ^ | November 3, 2003 | Diana Lynne

[bluecollarman]

It will not be long before Christian Conservatives will have to look for a new home. Seems like Free Republic is becoming more hostile to us.

This is not complicated. God has always been a part of America. From the get go God was included. To argue that he has not is just intellectually dishonest.

[EternalVigilance]

He didn't sneak it in. That's a liberal lie. Every sentient human in Alabama knew he was going to place the Ten Commandments there when they elected him.

The ACLU targeted Judge Moore when he was an unknown low-level magistrate. If he has an agenda, it is an understandable one; and one I agree with.

Nice to see our side on the offensive, instead of on the defensive.

[Ahban]

Lug,

In post #25 you say "until SCOTUS changes the law..." That was a slip of the keyboard I am sure, since you are aware that SCOTUS is not authorized to make any laws, only interpret those that Congress has made....at least in theory. The fact that they have assumed such powers is one of the main issues in this debate.

And that brings me to your post #31. You claim the 14th amendment applies the first amendment to the states. I could object to this on several grounds, but I will start with this one. The 14th clearly says that CONGRESS shall be the one to pass legislation to enforce this provision. This makes ETs "show me the law" point a valid one. If you are going to claim violation of the 14th as part of your argument, then you must point to a real, actual, Congress passed law that Moore has broken- not court rulings. The 14th itself makes this clear.

[MissAmericanPie]

"Nice to see our side on the offensive, instead of on the defensive."

Thank you, I am a very offensive person.=o)

[EternalVigilance]

You got it.

But there are still more of us than there are of them, both in the country and on FR.

We just have to stand up together and fight.

If we do, we will win--just as those who went before us did against all odds.

[Sandy]

I'm quite aware of what stare decisis is.

Okay, well now I'm scratching my head. I asked if yours was a serious question, and you repeated the question as if it were. If you understand that the decision was based on binding precedent, why are you asking which law the court used?

Are you willing to let that be the be all and end all of our form of government?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Stare Decisis is not the be all and end all of our form of government. It's just the way the judicial branch does things. I think it works pretty darn well. What's the alternative? Every case would be treated like a case of first impression. I can't even begin to picture how that would work.

[Poohbah]

But there are still more of us than there are of them, both in the country and on FR.

Which explains why Congress always clarifies legislative intent and impeach judges in such a timely fashion when these rulings hit.

Oh, wait a minute, they don't.

[f.Christian]

Monument huggers ... no problem --- little gas - sparks ... we' ll round em up !

[EternalVigilance]

Precedent is only a good thing if the previous decision was a good one. If it wasn't, it only ties the bonds of injustice tighter, wouldn't you agree?

Do you think that fundamentally the federal government has constitutional grounds to limit expressions of reverence for God by individuals or by the several states? How can anyone think so that knows a lick of American history?

The First Amendment is so clear my nine year-old understands it. I don't understand how educated adults can be so dense that they don't.

[EternalVigilance]

Oh, wait a minute, they don't.

So, what are you doing about it?

[Sandy]

Do you perhaps think that Dred Scott should still be the law of the land?

What kind of question is that? We're talking about vertical stare decisis, not horizontal. BTW, Dred Scott was overruled by Constitutional Amendment, not by some district court judge.

[Poohbah]

So, what are you doing about it?

Trying to get this alleged massive number of "conservatives" out here to elect someone other than a liberal Democrat who will oppose any judge who intends to follow original intent. But if the guy isn't perfect, they prefer the liberal Democrat.

Of course, this question is asked by a guy living in the District--the center of the do-nothing universe.

[Poohbah]

BTW, Dred Scott was overruled by Constitutional Amendment, not by some district court judge.

Whoops. You shouldn't have mentioned that part.

[EternalVigilance]

There are many means for us to stop this out of control judiciary that is trying to reshape our country by fiat.

But, as usual, folks like yourself don't deign to answer my fundamental question. I've asked it over and over on this thread.

You just can't get down to the nitty-gritty of admitting that the courts are increasingly making it up as they go along.

[apackof2]

Well said bump

[EternalVigilance]

Trying to get this alleged massive number of "conservatives" out here to elect someone other than a liberal Democrat who will oppose any judge who intends to follow original intent. But if the guy isn't perfect, they prefer the liberal Democrat.

Hogwash.

Of course, this question is asked by a guy living in the District--the center of the do-nothing universe.

Pure demagoguery.

[Poohbah]

Hogwash.

Then why do they refuse to show up on Election Day and thus let the Democrat win, if they aren't satisfied with her?

[EternalVigilance]

Why are you so hostile to conservatives?

[Poohbah]

Why are you so hostile to conservatives?

I'm not hostile to conservatives. I'm hostile to idiots.

[EternalVigilance]

I'm hostile to idiots.

Which, as per your usual attitude, is anyone who doesn't agree with the Grand Poohbah.