Posted on 08/14/2003 11:48:06 AM PDT by Conservababe
Judge Moore, Chief Justice, is not going to remove the Ten Commandments from the rotunda despite Federal court order.
He will fight all the way to the Supreme Court.
He will be speaking in a few minutes on Fox News.
This one's gonna be a good one...
BTTT!
No, Roy Moore for US Supreme Court! We need justices who will stand up for the Constitution.
No.
Judge Moore put it there after he was elected to the Supreme Court.
Would that be the same Supreme Court that supports Affirmative Action and Gay Rights?
The same reason they are displayed on the wall of the U.S. Supreme Court chambers.
Why?
Ten Commandments Defense Act of 2003
(1) The Declaration of Independence declares that governments are instituted to secure certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with which all human beings are endowed by their Creator and to which they are entitled by the laws of nature and of nature's God.
(2) The organic laws of the United States Code and the constitutions of every State, using various expressions, recognize God as the source of the blessings of liberty.
(3) The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States secures rights against laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof made by the United States Government.
(4) The rights secured under the first amendment have been interpreted by courts of the United States Government to be included among the provisions of the fourteenth amendment.
(5) The tenth amendment reserves to the States respectively the powers not delegated to the United States Government nor prohibited to the States.
(6) Disputes and doubts have arisen with respect to public displays of the Ten Commandments and to other public expression of religious faith.
(7) Section 5 of the fourteenth amendment grants the Congress power to enforce the provisions of the said amendment.
(8) Article I, section 8, grants the Congress power to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court, and article III, section 1, grants the Congress power to ordain and establish courts in which the judicial power of the United States Government shall be vested.
(a) DISPLAY OF TEN COMMANDMENTS- The power to display the Ten Commandments on or within property owned or administered by the several States or political subdivisions thereof is hereby declared to be among the powers reserved to the States respectively.
(b) EXPRESSION OF RELIGIOUS FAITH- The expression of religious faith by individual persons on or within property owned or administered by the several States or political subdivisions thereof is hereby--
(1) declared to be among the rights secured against laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion made or enforced by the United States Government or by any department or executive or judicial officer thereof; and
(2) declared to be among the liberties of which no State shall deprive any person without due process of law made in pursuance of powers reserved to the States respectively.
(c) EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER- The courts constituted, ordained, and established by the Congress shall exercise the judicial power in a manner consistent with the foregoing declarations.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Congress finds the following:
(1) The freedom to practice religion and to express religious thought is acknowledged to be one of the fundamental and unalienable rights belonging to all individuals.
(2) The Framers of the Constitution deliberately withheld, in the main body of that document, any authority for the Federal Government to meddle with the religious affairs or with the free speech of the people. Then, as further and more specific protection for the people, they added the first amendment, which includes the `establishment clause' and the `freedom of speech clause' which are as follows: `Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech . . .'. It is of utmost importance to note that the first amendment is not a grant of authority to the Federal Government. To the contrary, it is a specific restriction upon the exercise of power by the Federal Government.
(3) For over 150 years, the Court held to this historically correct position in interpreting the first amendment. During this period, scant mention was made to `The Separation of Church and State'.
(4) Then, beginning in 1947, and accelerating through the 60's, the Court abruptly reversed its position. This was done with no change in the law, either by statute or by amendment to the Constitution. The Court invented the distorted meaning of the first amendment utilizing the separation of `church and state' in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education when it announced: The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. (Everson v. Board of Education; 330 U.S. 1, 18 [1947]). Over the past five decades, rulings of the United States Supreme Court have served to infringe upon the rights of Americans to enjoy freedom of speech relating to religious matters. Such infringements include the outlawing of prayer in schools and of the display of the Ten Commandments in public places. These rulings have not reflected a neutrality toward religious denominations but a hostility toward religious thought. They have served to undermine the foundation of not only our moral code but our system of law and justice.
(5) In making this abrupt change, the Court ignored all historical precedent established previously by the Court, the wording of the First Amendment, and the intent of its framers. The rulings are legally irrational and without foundation. Although the Court presumed to rely upon the First Amendment for its authority for these rulings, a review of that Amendment reveals that said rulings could not possibly have been based upon its original intent. Consequently, it is incumbent upon this Congress to review not only the rulings of the Court which are in question but the wording and history of the First Amendment to determine the intent of its framers. This abrupt change is found in the following court cases:
(A) `A verbal prayer offered in a school is unconstitutional, even if that prayer is both voluntary and denominationally neutral.' (Engel v. Vitale, 1962, Abington v. Schempp, 1963, Commissioner of Education v. School Committee of Leyden, 1971.)
(B) `Freedoms of speech and press are guaranteed to students and teachers unless the topic is religious, at which time such speech becomes unconstitutional.' (Stein v. Oshinsky, 1965, Collins v. Chandler Unified School District, 1981, Bishop v. Aronov, 1991, Duran v. Nitsche, 1991.)
(C) `It is unconstitutional for students to see the Ten Commandments since they might read, meditate upon, respect, or obey them.' (Stone v. Graham, 1980, Ring v. Grand Forks Public School District, 1980, Lanner v. Wimmer, 1981.)
(D) `If a student prays over his lunch, it is unconstitutional for him to pray aloud.' (Reed v. Van Hoven, 1965.)
(E) `The Ten Commandments , despite the fact that they are the basis of civil law and are depicted in engraved stone in the United States Supreme Court, may not be displayed at a public courthouse.' (Harvey v. Cobb County, 1993.)
(F) `When a student addresses an assembly of his peers, he effectively becomes a government representative; it is therefore unconstitutional for that student to engage in prayer.' (Harris v. Joint School District, 1994.)
(G) By interpreting the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in any public place, the Supreme Court necessarily violates the free speech clause of the very same first amendment.
These rulings of the Court constitute de facto legislation or Constitution-amending. This is a serious violation of the doctrine of separation of powers, as all legislative authority bestowed by the people through the Constitution is bestowed upon the Congress and the Congress alone.
(6) A fundamental maxim of law is, whenever the intent of a statute or a constitution is in question, to refer to the words of its framers to determine their intent and use this intent as the true intent of the law.
(7) The intent of the First Amendment was and is clear on these two points: The Federal Government was prohibited from enacting any laws which would favor one religious denomination over another and the Federal Government has no power to forbid or prohibit any mention of religion, the Ten Commandments or reference to God in civic dialog.
(8) In its rulings to prohibit Americans from saying prayers in school or from displaying the Ten Commandments in public places, the Court has relied heavily upon the metaphor, `Separation of Church and State'. Note that this phrase is nowhere to be found in the First Amendment or any other place in the Constitution.
(9) The metaphor, `Separation of Church and State', was extracted, out of context, from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in reply to a letter from them expressing concern that the Federal Government might intrude in religious matters by favoring one denomination over another. Jefferson's reply was that the First Amendment would preclude such intrusion.
(10) The Court, in its use of Separation of Church and State, has given to this phrase a meaning never intended by its author; it took it out of context and inverted its meaning and intent. The complete text of Jefferson's letter is found in Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802.
(11) Justice William Rehnquist made an extensive study of the history of the First Amendment. In his dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree (472 U.S. 38, 48, n. 30 [1984],) he stated: `There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the `wall of separation' that was constitutionalized in Everson. . . . But the greatest injury of the `wall' notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. . . . [N]o amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The `wall of separation between church and state' is a metaphor based on bad history. . . . It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. . . . Our perception has been clouded not by the Constitution but by the mists of an unnecessary metaphor. It would come as much of a shock to those who drafted the Bill of Rights, as it will to a large number of thoughtful Americans today, to learn that the Constitution, as construed by the majority, prohibits the Alabama Legislature from endorsing prayer. George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God. History must judge whether it was the Father of his Country in 1789, or a majority of the Court today, which has strayed from the meaning of the Establishment Clause.'
(12) As Justice Rehnquist states, the greatest injury of the `wall' notion is its `mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. . . .' It is necessary to review not only Jefferson's intent in his use of this `wall', but his involvement or noninvolvement in the drafting of the First Amendment, and the intent of the framers of the First Amendment.
(13) Jefferson was neither the author of nor a coauthor of the First Amendment. He cannot be considered as a source of legal authority on this subject. The Court, if it had wished to rely upon Jefferson to determine the true and original intent of the First Amendment, could have served themselves and the American people well by referring to Jefferson's admonition to Judge William Johnson regarding the determination of the original intent of a statute or a constitution: `On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.' (Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor [Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830, Vol. IV., p. 373,] to Judge William Johnson on June 12, 1823).
(14) The principal authors of the First Amendment, the record reveals, were Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, not Thomas Jefferson. Others who participated were John Vining of Delaware, Daniel Carroll and Charles Carroll of Maryland, Benjamin Huntington, Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, William Paterson of New Jersey, and James Madison and George Mason of Virginia. Thomas Jefferson is not found in the record as having participated. (The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States [Washington, D.C.; Gales and Seaton, 1834], Vol. I, pp. 440-948, June 8-September 24, 1789.)
(15) George Mason, a member of the Constitutional Convention and recognized as `The Father of the Bill of Rights', submitted this proposal for the wording of the First Amendment: `All men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.' (Kate Mason Rowland, The Life of George Mason [New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1892,] Vol I, p. 244.)
(16) The Father of the Constitution, James Madison, submitted the following wording for the First Amendment: `The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established.' (The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States [Washington, D.C.; Gales and Season, 1834,] Vol. I, p. 451, James Madison, June 8, 1789.)
(17) The true intent of the First Amendment is reflected by the proposals submitted by Fisher Ames, George Mason and James Madison and the wording finally adopted.
(18) Justice Joseph Story, considered the Father of American Jurisprudence, stated in his Commentaries on the Constitution: `The real object of the [First A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohometanism [sp], or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy [a denominational council] the exclusive patronage of the national government. (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States [Boston; Hilliard, Gray and Company, 1833], p. 728, par. 1871.)
(19) Proof that the intent of the framers of the First Amendment did not intend for the Federal Government to restrict the exercise of free speech in religious matters in civic dialog is found in various statements by George Washington, who was President when the Congress adopted the First Amendment. The following is found in his `Farewell Address': ` . . . of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness.' (George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States. . . . Preparatory to his Declination [Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge, 1796], pp. 22-23.
(20) James Wilson was a very active member of the Convention and was later appointed by President George Washington as an original Justice on the United States Supreme Court where he coauthored America's first legal text on the Constitution. Wilson never mentioned a `separation of church and state'. To the contrary, he declared the correlation between religion and civil laws: Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. (James Wilson, The Works of James Wilson, Bird Wilson, editor. Philadelphia; Bronson and Chauncey, 1804. Vol. I, pp. 104-106.)
(21) It was Fisher Ames of Massachusetts who provided, on the 20th of August, 1789, the final wording for the First Amendment as passed by the House of Representatives. Fisher Ames, who should be considered the foremost authority on the intent of the First Amendment, never spoke of a separation of church and state. (Fisher Ames, Works of Fisher Ames, Boston; T.B. Wait & Co. 1809, p. 134, 135.)
(22) Because the Court does not seem to be disposed to correct this egregious error, it is incumbent upon the Congress of the United States to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, by the use of its authority to apply checks and balances to other branches of the government, when usurpations and the exercise of excesses of power are evident. The Congress must, then, take the appropriate steps to correct egregious problem.
(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`(a) IN GENERAL- The district courts of the United States, the District Court of Guam, the District Court of the Virgin Islands, and the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands shall not have jurisdiction to hear or determine any religious freedom-related case.
`(b) DEFINITION- For purposes of this section, the term `religious freedom-related case' means any action in which any requirement, prohibition, or other provision relating to religious freedom that is contained in a State or Federal statute is at issue.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`1369. Exclusion of jurisdiction over religious freedom-related cases.'.
(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 91 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`(a) IN GENERAL- The United States Court of Federal Claims shall not have jurisdiction to hear or determine any religious freedom-related case.
`(b) DEFINITION- For purposes of this section, the term `religious freedom-related case' means any action in which any requirement, prohibition, or other provision relating to religious freedom that is contained in a State or Federal statute is at issue.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 91 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`1510. Removal of jurisdiction over religious freedom-related cases.'.
The amendments made by this Act shall apply to cases filed on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
"Conservatives and libertarians who once viewed the judiciary as the final bulwark against government tyranny must now accept that no branch of government even remotely performs its constitutional role. ...It's time for the executive and legislative branches to show some backbone, appoint judges who follow the Constitution, and remove those who do not." --Ron Paul 13 August 2003, Federalist No. 03-33, Wednesday Chronicle
The following explains why judge Myron Thompson is wrong:
The electorate must demand that Congress act in accordance with the testimony presented in Congress, the Court, and the Constitution
...the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.... The judiciary...has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.
...It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. ... from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.
1 The celebrated Montesquieu, speaking of them, says: "Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing.'' "Montesquieu: The Spirit of Laws.'' vol. i., page 186. The Avalon Project : Federalist No 78
Why bother voting when the judiciary can knock down laws like so many bowling pins? The Case for Impeaching Rogue Judges & A Republic, If You Can Keep It
Citizens Organize Events to Support Chief Justice Moore
Court ordered him to remove Ten Commandments monument by August 20.
Federal judge Myron Thompson has ordered Chief Justice Roy Moore to remove the Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Judicial Building by August 20, 2003. In response, Christian leaders are calling on Christians to come to Montgomery, Alabama, to show support for religious freedom.
Preliminary details are:
Restore the Commandments rally on August 16 at 10:00 a.m. on the steps of the Alabama Supreme Court, sponsored by Vision America.
Rally on August 19 at 8:00 p.m. Check sponsor Christian Defense Coalition for details.
Candlelight prayer vigil on August 20 at 12:01 a.m. at the Alabama Supreme Court, sponsored by Christian Defense Coalition.
From August 20 forward, Christians will gather at the Alabama Supreme Court every day at 8:00 a.m., 12:00 noon, and 6:00 p.m. Evening rallies will be at 7:30 p.m. at locations to be announced.
Christian Defense Coalition director Rev. Pat Mahoney stated, "We are going to peacefully and prayerfully kneel in front of the court to prevent the removal of the monument and will stay as long as necessary."
America21 has established a 24-hour prayer vigil for Chief Justice Moore for the week of August 10. Anyone can sign up for one or more time slots to pray.
Roy Moore, elected as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court in 2000, pledged in his campaign to bring the Ten Commandments to the State Supreme Court. He first gained national prominence as a state circuit judge when the ACLU sued him for posting a hand-carved wood plaque of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom and opening court sessions with prayers led by local clergymen. The case was dismissed because the ACLU lacked standing to challenge Judge Moore’s actions.
On August 1, 2001, he oversaw the installation of a monument to the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building. The 4-foot high, 2-ton monument also bears quotes from the Declaration of Independence, the National Anthem, the Pledge of Allegiance, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, the Constitution of Alabama, and the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Private citizens commissioned the monument, which used no state funds for its creation or installation. Chief Justice Moore explained that it was installed at night, in after-duty hours, to not interfere with the work of the Court. The building manager, security, the marshals of the court and the legal staff were informed.
At a presentation ceremony the following day, Chief Justice Moore stated:
The institutions of our society are founded on the belief that there is an authority higher than the authority of the State; that there is a moral law which the State is powerless to alter; that the individual possesses rights, conferred by the Creator which government must respect.
On October 31, 2001, the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Southern Poverty Law Center filed two federal lawsuits against Chief Justice Moore. They represent several lawyers who practice in Alabama and found the Ten Commandments and statements from America’s founders "offensive" and therefore, in their view, unconstitutional.
The offense, the complaint states, is that the Ten Commandments monument communicates the belief that "the law of God is the foundation of—and superior to—the law and institutions of the citizenry, and that God is necessary to the administration of justice."
On November 18, 2002, U.S. District Court Judge Myron Thompson ruled that the monument was an endorsement of religion by the state, and ordered Chief Justice Moore to remove it within 30 days. But Thompson stayed (postponed) that order to await a decision from a federal appeals panel. The appeals panel upheld Thompson’s order last month.
On August 5, Judge Thompson lifted the stay and ordered the removal within 15 days. If not, Judge Thompson said he might fine the state each day the monument remains in place. This ultimatum raises serious questions, such as how a federal judge would collect the money and whether the state can refuse to pay.
One day before the order, Chief Justice Moore filed a brief contending Alabama’s Constitution allows the acknowledgement of God by the state, and that Judge Thompson did not have the authority to deprive the state of that right. He will also appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Moore told The New American, "Anytime you deny the acknowledgement of God you are undermining the entire basis for which our country exists. Rights come from God, not from government. If government can give you rights, government can take them away from you. If God gives you rights, no man and no government can take them away from you. That was the premise of the organic law of this country, which is the Declaration of Independence. Because, if there is no God, then man’s power is the controlling aspect, and therefore power will be centralized."
To read an interview with Chief Justice Moore, as published in CWA's magazine, Family Voice, click here.
According to The Birmingham News,
seventy percent of respondents support Chief Justice Moore's granite display, which includes the Ten Commandments, and statements from our nation's Founding Fathers that document America's Christian heritage. Only twenty percent disapprove of the monument's display, which was privately funded by Chief Justice Moore, and cost the taxpayers of Alabama nothing. The other ten percent were unsure. Tom Gordon, "Poll: Most back Moore on Ten Commandments," The Birmingham News, September 15, 2002Chief Judge Moore needs four votes from the US Supreme Court to take the case, five to win. I count three votes: Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist, as in the O'Bannon case of the last court session.
Additionally, had Chief Judge Moore requested a stay from federal court judge Thompson while he appealled to the Supreme Court, it probably would've been granted, thus obviating the need for him to file a writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus.
Touché...
Because the Ten Commandments are the foundation of our Legal system.
sw
(But first nominate Ann Coulter so we can watch her slice and dice Teddy "Girls-Don't-Float" Kennedy during the confirmation hearings.)
Same reason they and a plethora of religious images from several religions and even mythology dot our public buildings all over the country.....tradition.
No, I'm not, thanks. Nor do I hope that you're really as arrogant, rude and obnoxious as you come across.
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.
JUST ANOTHER POPULAR CHECK ON THE RENEGADE FEDERAL JUDICARY. THE NEXT TO NOTHING FEDERAL JUDICARY, THAT IS.
We are Christians, Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox, denouncing the Democratic party as constitutionally anti-Christian. DNC: The Godless Party, Practical Atheism - Touchstone, April, June 03
Now, 25 years later, I am ashamed to be a Democrat. More than that, I have come to fear my own party. Hatred and corruption - the roots of fascism - are on the march in America as they have never been before, and leading this march is the Democratic Party. Increasingly, mainstream Democrats are uncomfortable with what we see in our party. We may not have a real name for it, but we know it is dangerous. DNC Fascists -WorldNetDaily, Bob Just, July 25, 2000
Aldrich is afraid the Hard-Left might use American national security and our War on Terrorism as a veil for its goal of a massive authoritarian government. Book Review: Thunder on the Left by Gary Aldrich
The rest of the table demonstrates that secular voters and most religious minorities fell squarely in the Democratic camp. Secular voters favored Gore over Bush by an almost two-to-one margin. FT October 2001: America Fifty/Fifty
Remember the outrage for the american public when they tried taking God out of the pledge? .. They try doing this, I'm guessing a number of americans will have something to say
Before everybody starts "oorah-ing", lets recap:
Roy Moore, Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court was elected as "the 10 Commandments Judge", based on some litigation he got into in 1998 over posting the 10 Commandments in his courtroom. In the course of that litigation, Coral Ridge Ministries, a TV ministry affiliated with Paul and Jan Crouch (shes the one with the purple hair and big fake boobs) paid the excessive sum of $170,000 to his "defense fund". Coral Ridge Ministries is a 60 million dollar a year enterprise, of which 3.8 million is directly spent on fundraising, and which has an affiliated political arm. The pastor of that "ministry" has been deeply involved with fundraising with the Crouches, and is a devotee of "Christian astrology".
When this stone idol to the 10 Commandments was installed in 2001, it was done under cover of night, with no consultation with or consent of the other justices of the state supreme court, but it was paid for and filmed by Coral Ridge Ministries, and used for extensive fundraising. Since then, Moore has been making statements which show his intent to put that monument up to the exclusion of other faiths, and to show some theocratic basis to American government. He has defied the court orders to take them down, meanwhile, Coral Ridge has paid over the sum of $375,000.00 for his overly excessive "defense fund"; some FReepers call for him to be President, and many have had harsh words about the conservative Reagan appointee that wrote the appellate opinion. At this point, a large rally is being gathered and Coral Ridge continues to benefit from donations - the language used to rally people in favor of Roy Moore's stone idol is inflammatory, and may spur some to violent acts.
Why?
For self-serving publicity, to precipitate the current litigation and get in the news. He started the same fight when he was a circuit judge of no particular distinction in a small county, and used the state-wide publicity to get elected chief justice. It seems it still works.
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.