Posted on 02/15/2016 9:22:05 AM PST by JediJones
Seems like the nude pic of Pryor in the homosexual porn magazine might make him a no go.
But, idiots opposed to Trump are now bashing him for doing his job.
You Cruz or nobody folks are without question the least likable people in the history of this forum
And for what?
Bill Pryor is a good man.....Roy Moore is too but Roy likes camera time
Sometimes camera time collides with higher court rulings Pryor has to live with
George W appointed Pryor
Is this a Cruz or no one crowd day to support George Bush or not support George Bush?
Should Cruz get lucky I’ll be thrilled to support him
But you guys are gonna do what?
Sit home?
Start another website?
Both?
I think Trumps biggest crowd yet was at Ladd in the fall....Mobile
I pinged two locals from there to see how they are on Pryor
And, never mind, Pryor is one of the most vocal opponents to Roe in the Federal courts. Democrats made it clear they wouldn't consider him for SCOTUS when Bush floated his name.
Trump supporters are already defending him by saying “it means nothing. He’s not a politician - he’s just throwing names out”.
Been posted. Basic BS. Pryor was AG and doing his job. Pryor was boycotted for judgeship by democrats because of his stand against Roe v Wade. Such pathetic crap should be beyond folks here.
I simply disagree with the application.
One may stand on religious grounds, or other moral imperatives, but any time we take a stand we risk consequences.
Judge Moore knew the risk, and he took it. He chose his fight. He unfortunately lost.
The argument that other laws are being ignored is not an excuse to ignore this one. The greatest complaint against president O is his refusal to follow the law, choosing his own private ideology over his public responsibility.
I simply feel that our philosophical application should not be overly colored by our positions on whether the fight was valid. When we agree with the aggrieved, is anarchy acceptable? And when we disagree, the law must be followed?
I support constitutional remedies to these questions. It is, IMO opinion, high time Article V was applied, and some of these questions put to the people.
The risk of a physical divide in this country is as great as it has ever been. The 1st, 2nd, and even 4th amendments have been twisted beyond recognition. The 10th is outright ignored. The travesty of justice created by a class of lifetime politicians is killing our nation.
I fear our nation’s choices to achieve survival will be the pen - or the sword.
That said, I propose all avenues of the pen be exhausted to their last breath. Article V anticipated such a day, and is in my mind necessary.
Flouting the law invalidates the pen, and leads only to the sword.
Bill Pryor wanted to shame Roy Moore for his religious beliefs... Here is one section of him attempting to do so and Roy Moore standing firm. Litmus test, what litmus test? You decide.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPPRCKmSQf4
Wrong link ... hate when I do that.. try this instead...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWRDn7zsIbk
Tag line.
“Bill Pryor wanted to shame Roy Moore for his religious beliefs... Here is one section of him attempting to do so and Roy Moore standing firm. Litmus test, what litmus test? You decide.”
Do you know the legal reason why Pryor was asking those questions?
You say it was to shame Moore. That is not a legal reason.
Did not sound that way to me. Sounded to me like Moore asserted a far-fetched legal defense to contempt of court, or dereliction of duty.
And it sounded like Pryor was demonstrating that the defense did not have merit.
If Moore thought Pryor was merely trying to shame him, More or his attorney (if he had one) would have objected. But you will notice that Moore does not object to the questioning, in all likelihood because he knew they were legally relevant to the issues at hand.
Moore wanted to be civilly disobdient apparently in service of a higher law. That is all well and good, but you cannot also claim immunity from what the human law actually says.
If you want to be a hero, be a hero.
When it doesn't Lord help this country.
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other." ~~ President John Adams
His defense mainly rested on the 10th and 11th amendments since you asked.
11th amendment... below.
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
The answer to the first question is no, the answer to the second question is yes.
Can’t say much about Pryor but Moore’s schtick has worn a little thin...seems like he gloms onto an issue to as you mentioned...”get camera time”...I don’t dislike him...I just wish he would have a plan of attack when he grabs an issue instead of just mouthing off red meat to his supporters or whoever he thinks would support him.
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.