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

I've read the decision-- it includes a strongly-worded warning to Judge Moore not to try to defy the court's order.

The decision is by Judge Carnes, a Bush Sr. appointee. The two concurring judges were appointed by Clinton and Reagan.

1 posted on 07/01/2003 2:47:13 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last
To: Lurking Libertarian
The ACLU started this and their judges (non partison) haters of God and the America of its founders....
Another....Sad day for America
Diversity, Sodomy, Alchemy and con-servatives delivering conservatives to the god of the new world order
152 posted on 07/01/2003 6:38:56 PM PDT by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lurking Libertarian
A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that a Ten Commandments monument the size of a washing machine must be removed from the Alabama Supreme Court building.

Didn't Old Hickory say something about the "Supreme Court has spoken, now let them enforce it?"

Someone posted that on another thread the other day and it jogged my memory.

164 posted on 07/01/2003 6:55:19 PM PDT by Mulder (Live Free or die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Travesty.
218 posted on 07/01/2003 7:41:40 PM PDT by varina davis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lurking Libertarian
I've read the decision-- it includes a strongly-worded warning to Judge Moore not to try to defy the court's order.

I've read the decision also and the court of appeals is absolutely right on. If the "Amercian Taliban" had its way, only born again Christians would have access to the courthouse and pre-marital sex would be punished by death by stoning.

222 posted on 07/01/2003 7:43:48 PM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lurking Libertarian
He shouldn't have done it in the first place and he knew it. That's why he did it during the cover of night.
287 posted on 07/01/2003 9:24:14 PM PDT by Porterville (I support US total global, world domination; how's that for sensitive??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lurking Libertarian
He shouldn't have done it in the first place and he knew it. That's why he did it during the cover of night.
288 posted on 07/01/2003 9:24:14 PM PDT by Porterville (I support US total global, world domination; how's that for sensitive??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lurking Libertarian
This makes our Declaration if Independence in violation, our money inviolation, our oaths of office in violation, our country and our way of life in violation.
296 posted on 07/01/2003 9:44:50 PM PDT by PatrioticAmerican (If the only way we can be Americans is to hide that fact, it's time for war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Disgusting. As I see more and more of this going on, sometimes I wonder if Andrew Jackson was right, "The Supreme Court (well here the 11th "short" Circuit Court) made their decision, let them enforce it." What if the local court decided to "flip 'em the bird" and say, we are keeping the Ten Commandments up? I dunno, I'm just blowing off steam here, but it seems like these libertines are getting their way, sometimes I wonder if we actually won the Cold War, militarily yes, economically yes, spiritually and ethically, no.

IIRC, the 11th Circuit is the one that signed Elian Gonzales to his fate three years ago, so why should I be surprised.
299 posted on 07/01/2003 9:47:08 PM PDT by Nowhere Man ("Laws are the spider webs through which the big bugs fly past and the little ones get caught.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lurking Libertarian
I've read the decision-- it includes a strongly-worded warning to Judge Moore not to try to defy the court's order.

Obviously, the Court of Appeals recognizes that enforcing its decision is going to be very difficult. He is under no obligation to remove it himself. If the Court of Appeals wants it removed, assuming that the USSC does not reverse, who is actually going to remove it. Furthermore, exactly whose Constitutional Rights have been violated. If there is no victim, there can be no cause of action.

354 posted on 07/01/2003 11:35:13 PM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lurking Libertarian
It is time to start ignoring these activist, insane, decisions and just say no. It is time for a little civil disobediance.

I'm for hopping in the car, taking a stand in front of the monument, to only be removed by a duly appointed officer.
355 posted on 07/01/2003 11:38:02 PM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lurking Libertarian; All

This is what I believe (and I debated someone on my radio show concerning this story).

The Ten Commandments should have a right to stay in judicial buildings, especially state justice areas. I believe that our country was founded upon Judeo-Christain values, ethics, and principles, which the 10 commandments bring out. Many of our laws are based upon the 10 commandemnts, in that our laws provide punishment for some of the commandments, such as Thou Shall not Murder. What's more, all these people who say they are offended by it, I do not understand. Are they saying they are offended by the wording "Thou shall not murder" or some of the other commandments? Are they saying they do feel those commandments are wrong? Or are they doing so only because they hate religion no matter what it says?

The fact of the matter is, these 10 commandments are there to remind us of our history and what values inspired our founding fathers. It is not just about religion. What's more, its not like the Judges use a bible in court to make their decisions. The placement of the 10 commandments is just like a historical aspect to our nation. It is just like if it were in a federal-museum (which the Smithsonian has in DC). If you take it out of these government buildings, you would have to take it out of our government run museums, monuments, etc.

This is another decision which is wrecking our country. And not only our country, but distorting how our great nation was founded.

370 posted on 07/02/2003 12:56:30 AM PDT by yonif
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lurking Libertarian
More legislation from the bench. Clearly the 1st amendment is for protecting individual rights, not the rights of the non-entity Govt!

The separation of church and state doctrine was invented in 1947 in the Everson ruling under Hugo Black. There is no mention of this in the Constitution or the Constitutional convention, and the nation thrived for 175 years before 1947 - precedent and the Constitution militates against this legal usurpation.

Let it be known that this metaphor was extracted from a letter by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, who, (now ironically) - were worried about persecution from the govt! Jefferson was a full supporter of the Christian faith and attended services in the CHAMBERS OF CONGRESS! He invited the Marine Corps band to play worship! Some separation!

398 posted on 07/02/2003 8:06:50 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lurking Libertarian
There is no seperation of church and state in our Constitution. Justices and their inferiors have no authority to write our Constitution. This ruling is not Constitutional because the fruit falls from the same dead tree as the first creatively scheming ruling.

In your face blackrobes with 'who ya' gonna believe? Me or those dead white guys?' is not honored by citizens.

Until these rogue blackrobe rulers are impeached and removed from office for usurping our Law of our Land, as they drive their agenda of power over lawful authority, we'll be faced with more of this bully talk.

"Compelling State interests" are the pass words for the unlawful "living" constitution bullies.

Our ratified Constitution is the very "controlling legal authority" which provides rogue blackrobes their jobs. Making things up, under penalty of law for you and me, is not "good behavior", the requirement for keeping their lucrative, "not for life, boys and girls" jobs.
541 posted on 07/02/2003 11:59:28 PM PDT by SevenDaysInMay (Federal judges and justices serve for periods of good behavior, not life. Article III sec. 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last

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