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

To: LS
Yet he names two super. Conservatives. Can't win with you guys

You mean the person that went after a super god fearing conservative Chief Justice Roy Moore that has stood up against that assault on Christians and their values.

Here is your Bill Pryor in action....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWRDn7zsIbk

20 posted on 02/14/2016 3:47:40 AM PST by LowOiL (Trump on his sister possible being nominated for SCOTUS.. "She would be one of the best"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: LowOiL

I watched it. Upholding the law is foremost. Moore is correct that the law originated with God, but it does not do that continuously. Because if it did, we would have preachers legislating from the bench.


57 posted on 02/14/2016 5:27:08 AM PST by palmer (Net "neutrality" = Obama turning the internet over to foreign enemies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: LowOiL
You mean the person that went after a super god fearing conservative Chief Justice Roy Moore

You just don't understand, LowOil. Pryor was mentioned because obviously the dems would rise up against him and at that point the even more superconservative Roy Moore would be nominated, just to show them who's a pussy and who's not.

There are many different levels of genius at work here and we must learn to deconstruct them properly.

lol

61 posted on 02/14/2016 5:55:41 AM PST by Fightin Whitey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: LowOiL

Thank you for this information.
TRUMP scares the daylights out of me, truthfully.


80 posted on 02/14/2016 6:58:54 AM PST by pollywog ( " O thou who changest not....ABIDE with me")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: LowOiL; All
"Moore appealed the COJ's ruling to the Supreme Court of Alabama on December 10, 2003. A special panel of retired judges and justices was randomly selected to hear the case. Moore argued that the COJ did not consider the underlying legality of the federal courts' order that the monument be removed from the courthouse. The Alabama Supreme Court rejected this argument, saying that the COJ did not have the authority to overrule the federal courts, only to determine whether Moore violated the Canons of Judicial Ethics. Therefore, the Court reasoned, it was enough to show that a procedurally-valid order was in place against Moore. Moore also argued that the COJ had imposed a religious test on him to hold his office, and that the COJ's actions had violated his own rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.[25]

The Supreme Court of Alabama rejected each of these arguments as well, and ruled on April 30, 2004 that the COJ had acted properly. The court also upheld the sanction of removal as appropriate.[25]"

Moore was removed by the State of Alabama in accordance with Alabama law.

And, Moore had made it clear for years that he would rule on cases in accordance with Biblical teaching even when that teaching was contrary to the law of Alabama.

Certainly I would have voted for his removal too. One man who believe he has the right to judge cases in accordance with HIS interpretation of Biblical teaching rather than the letter of the law.

He was not fit for office and the State of Alabama agreed.

118 posted on 02/14/2016 10:07:10 AM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18 - Be The Leaderless Resistance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

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