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

Skip to comments.

US Supreme Court refuses to block removal of Ten Commandments
Sean Hannity Show ^ | 8-20-03 | Sean Hannity

Posted on 08/20/2003 1:10:06 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed

US Supreme Court refuses to block removal of Ten Ccommandments from Alabama courthouse.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: Alabama
KEYWORDS: aclu; roymoore; scotus; tencommandments
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 801-809 next last

1 posted on 08/20/2003 1:10:06 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Impeach the Supreme Court!
2 posted on 08/20/2003 1:11:05 PM PDT by lilylangtree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lilylangtree
What about this? The supreme court justices need to be punished identially to Moore, including the retired ones, since they have a monument of the 10 Commandments, themselves. And what about congress paying ministers for prayers?
3 posted on 08/20/2003 1:12:59 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March (Don't confuse liberals with the facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
What was the reason given?
4 posted on 08/20/2003 1:13:30 PM PDT by sonsofliberty2000 (The Patriot Paradox: Life, Liberty and Everything Else...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lilylangtree
what a beautiful thought
5 posted on 08/20/2003 1:13:57 PM PDT by tutstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
did the court say they are getting rid of their God references too?
6 posted on 08/20/2003 1:14:29 PM PDT by votelife (Free Bill Pryor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
What's the over/under on the number of posts to this thread?
7 posted on 08/20/2003 1:14:43 PM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sonsofliberty2000
Sodomy between men is a sacred and fundamental right. It's in.

Freedom of religious expression is nowhere in the Constitution. It's out.
8 posted on 08/20/2003 1:14:56 PM PDT by tomahawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: votelife
"...did the court say they are getting rid of their God references too?..."

That's the next step, isn't it? It's their wet dream.
9 posted on 08/20/2003 1:15:27 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March (Don't confuse liberals with the facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sonsofliberty2000
"What was the reason given?

Any court that promotes Sodomy and bases it's findings on the findings of international courts, doesn't really need a reason other then Anti-Americanism. Now if we could just find some way to impeach some of those idiots.

10 posted on 08/20/2003 1:15:48 PM PDT by JustAnAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
The Judge put the Ten Commandments there in the middle of the night. He knew it was the wrong thing to do or he wouldn't have had to sneak in the dark.

Take the monument away and put it on private property.

11 posted on 08/20/2003 1:15:48 PM PDT by OldFriend ((Dems inhabit a parallel universe))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Are the Ten Commandments as generic as "In God We Trust" or are they specific to a particular religion?
12 posted on 08/20/2003 1:16:39 PM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tomahawk
Now, how will they enforce this decision when the House defunded the enforcement?
13 posted on 08/20/2003 1:16:42 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March (Don't confuse liberals with the facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
yeah really, they have the commandments there too
14 posted on 08/20/2003 1:16:46 PM PDT by tutstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw; sinkspur; lugsoul
Much weeping, wailing and teeth gnashing.....
15 posted on 08/20/2003 1:16:52 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine ("what if the hokey pokey is really what its all about?" - Jean Paul Sartre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Supreme Court rejects last-minute Alabama chief justice appeal

GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, August 20, 2003

(08-20) 13:11 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

The Supreme Court refused Wednesday to block the removal of a Ten Commandments monument from an Alabama judicial building, rejecting a last-minute appeal from the judge who installed the display.

The justices said they would not be drawn, at least for now, into a dispute over whether the monument violates the Constitution's ban on government promotion of religion.

The high court was Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's last hope to avoid a federal judge's midnight deadline to remove the display. It was unclear if Moore would comply. Other state officials have said the monument would be moved.

Moore's lawyers told justices in a filing that Moore should be allowed to "establish justice by acknowledging the guidance and favor of Almighty God, placed upon him by his oath of office and the Constitution of Alabama."

Moore installed the 5,300-pound stone monument in the rotunda of the judicial building two years ago after being elected chief justice amid publicity of his support of the Ten Commandments.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of such indoor and outdoor government displays. In 1980, the court barred Ten Commandments from classroom walls in public schools.

The justices' refusal to intervene was not a surprise. An appeals court had twice refused to give Moore a stay.

"It's not like somebody's about to face execution, if the court doesn't enter a stay the person will be dead and the appeal will be moot," said David Frederick, a Washington attorney who specializes in Supreme Court practice. "If the Supreme Court were to decide it's constitutional, it can always be put back."

Moore had pledged last week to defy the judge's order. His emergency stay request was filed Wednesday with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who oversees cases from Alabama. Kennedy referred it to the full court, which said in a one-sentence order that it was rejected.

Moore has already asked the Supreme Court to consider whether the judge overstepped his bounds in the case, and a second appeal in the Ten Commandments case is expected. Those could take months to resolve.

Groups that challenged the monument filed papers at the Supreme Court arguing that Moore should be required to obey the lower court's mandate. His compliance "will promote the public interest and will uphold the integrity of the federal judiciary in the face of Moore's attack," wrote Ayesha Khan, legal director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

In Alabama, Moore's supporters held a candlelight vigil early Wednesday.

"Even if they should remove this monument -- and God forbid they do -- they'll never be able to remove it from our hearts," said the Rev. Greg Dixon of Indianapolis Baptist Temple.

U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson has said he may fine the state about $5,000 a day if the monument is not removed by the end of the day Wednesday. He has said it would be permissible for the monument to be moved to a less public site, such as Moore's office.


On the Net:

Supreme Court: www.supremecourtus.gov/


16 posted on 08/20/2003 1:17:07 PM PDT by Brian S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tomahawk
bingo
17 posted on 08/20/2003 1:17:09 PM PDT by tutstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
Im with you 100% - SCOTUS is so hypocrits - Time to impeach them.
18 posted on 08/20/2003 1:17:18 PM PDT by sasafras (sasafras (The road to hell is paved with good intentions))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
The supreme court justices need to be punished identially to Moore, including the retired ones, since they have a monument of the 10 Commandments, themselves.

Your analogy to the Moses Sculptures in the Supreme Court building shows your total lack of understanding of the legal priciples at issue. The Moses sculpture in the Supreme Court building is not a large granite object placed smack in the middle of the retunda for everyone to trip over as they enter and exit the building for the sole purpose of promoting the religious beliefs of a particular sitting judge. Indeed, of the dozens of times I've entered the Supreme Court building, I never even noticed the sculpture and until it was recently brought to my attention. And unlike Moore's monument, the sculpture doesn't actually contain the text of the Ten Commandments, but rather shows the tablets symbolically as part of an artistic exhibit of the history of our legal system.

19 posted on 08/20/2003 1:17:21 PM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
1003
20 posted on 08/20/2003 1:17:25 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine ("what if the hokey pokey is really what its all about?" - Jean Paul Sartre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Would like to know the vote on this.

Where do people think our notions of crime and punishment come from? Right/wrong?

The Ten Commandments are the Moral Keystone from which our laws evolve from. From that perspective alone. . .historical. . .they should stand.

. . .and now the 'Pledge of Allegiance'. . .the Libs are winning; our Country, culture, society and future are losing.

21 posted on 08/20/2003 1:17:44 PM PDT by cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
It wasn't the middle of the night. It started at 6 PM after work hours because it was a 5.5 ton piece of rock being moved by a crane.

They did it that way for safety because the public is all over the rotunda.

Any safety conscious person would have done it the same way.
22 posted on 08/20/2003 1:18:14 PM PDT by xzins (In the Beginning was the Word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
The Judge put the Ten Commandments there in the middle of the night. He knew it was the wrong thing to do or he wouldn't have had to sneak in the dark.

That's not true and I bet you know it's a lie. The people were scheduled to come in the afternoon but were late in delivering it.

Libelous attacks on a conservative judge. Not too good . . .

23 posted on 08/20/2003 1:18:22 PM PDT by JohnnyZ (I don't know but I been told - Eskimo ***** is mighty cold - Tastes good - Mm good)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
they just refused to hear the case. They don't have to give a reason.

I heard it on Hannity too.

24 posted on 08/20/2003 1:18:31 PM PDT by bedolido (None of us is as dumb as all of us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
>>Take the monument away and put it on private property.

Leave the monument there and sell the property to a private foundation.
25 posted on 08/20/2003 1:18:51 PM PDT by VxH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Consort
Good question. Mentioning the trusting of God in our currency, what were the Founding Fathers thinking? Our modern, 'new and improved' judges will take care of that!
26 posted on 08/20/2003 1:19:08 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March (Don't confuse liberals with the facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw; sinkspur
Moore had pledged last week to defy the judge's order. His emergency stay request was filed Wednesday with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who oversees cases from Alabama. Kennedy referred it to the full court, which said in a one-sentence order that it was rejected.
27 posted on 08/20/2003 1:19:21 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine ("what if the hokey pokey is really what its all about?" - Jean Paul Sartre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
It's Keyes' message that's the issue. It is the same message as Judge Moore's. And it is a clear view of those same words that the liberals use to confuse the 1st amendment.

It is forbidden for Congress to touch this question! It is forbidden for Congress to address it! It is forbidden for Congress to deal with it! [cheering, applause]."

It’s a sound argument, but what follows is what’s vitally important:

"If Congress is forbidden to make a law, how can this judge be enforcing a law they cannot make?.. There is, I believe, going on right now a violation of the Constitution. There is, I believe, a lawless act against which we must stand. But it is the lawless act of the federal judges who seek now to wrest from us that liberty which is ours--not by right of the Constitution, but by grant and right of the Creator, God. "

Awesome reading. And it fits the text.

Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION.

If the topic were gun sales, a parallel wording would be: "Congress shall make NO law IN REGARDS TO a GUN SALES ESTABLISHMENT."

If the topic were liquor sales, a parallel wording: "Congress shall make no law REGARDING an establishment that sells liquor."

If the topic were religious denominations, a parallel wording would be: "Congress shall make no law IN REGARDS TO/RESPECTING/REGARDING any ESTABLISHMENT that deals with Relgion."

1. Need to determine if "establishment" is used that way elsewhere in that era.

2. Need to determine if "respecting" is used that way elsewhere in that era.

28 posted on 08/20/2003 1:19:56 PM PDT by xzins (In the Beginning was the Word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
so its okay to show art about Moses and the tablets, but writing down commandments on the tablets is where the wall between church and state comes crashing down? bring me up to speed here...
29 posted on 08/20/2003 1:19:59 PM PDT by votelife (Free Bill Pryor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: lilylangtree
Why? For ruling that Roy Moore doesn't have to comply with the same time requirements everyone else has to abide?
30 posted on 08/20/2003 1:20:10 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Shall they remove their freize of Moses and the 10 ?
31 posted on 08/20/2003 1:20:24 PM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
Thank you for verifying the monument I mentioned. LOL.
32 posted on 08/20/2003 1:20:28 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March (Don't confuse liberals with the facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
Take the monument away and put it on private property.

I agree. It's over, and Justice Moore lost. As a Chief Justice of a state supreme court, he should re-affirm the rule of law by complying with the order, even if he disagrees with it.

33 posted on 08/20/2003 1:20:39 PM PDT by kesg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: lilylangtree
whoops - meant "not ruling"
34 posted on 08/20/2003 1:20:46 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Good. Take the thing out. Roy Moore should shut up and go back to work ruling for the plaintiff's bar just like he always does.
35 posted on 08/20/2003 1:21:11 PM PDT by BamaG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
Now, how will they enforce this decision when the House defunded the enforcement?

A meaningless political stunt in the absence of an equally meaningless political stunt in the Senate.

36 posted on 08/20/2003 1:21:15 PM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: xzins; OldFriend
"Because it weighed 5,300 pounds they had to wait until the courthouse was closed," Scarborough told Baptist Press.

The movers hired to install the monument arrived after the doors closed at 6 o'clock but soon discovered they didn't have enough men, Scarborough said, adding that it took them "hours" to get it lifted and in place.

link

37 posted on 08/20/2003 1:21:42 PM PDT by JohnnyZ (I don't know but I been told - Eskimo ***** is mighty cold - Tastes good - Mm good)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
What constitutional right does the Federal Court have to make this demand, particularly when the House made sure to defund the enforcement of it?
38 posted on 08/20/2003 1:21:49 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March (Don't confuse liberals with the facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ
"Libelous attacks on a conservative judge."

Sorry, but even though not true this doesn't come anywhere close to the standard of libel. And the conservative judge is a friggin' idiot. Being conservative doesn't automatically make you perfect.

He will keep on losing for good reason, and everybody knows it.
39 posted on 08/20/2003 1:22:20 PM PDT by kegler4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sonsofliberty2000
Well, for one thing, it was the Ten Commandments.

Now if it had been a plaque depicting two men giving each other oral sex or depicting two men engaged in sodomy the Court would mandate that the plaque remain in place.
40 posted on 08/20/2003 1:22:35 PM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
I read some information to the effect that wasn't really correct.
I am trying to find the article.

Something to the effect that the workmen were supposed to put it in after the court session was over. (That would place it in the evening).

That said, I can see why the supreme court doesn't want to take it. The whole argument is illogical. After awhile, when your arguments are faulty, it gets awful hard to have your judgements make sense.
41 posted on 08/20/2003 1:23:11 PM PDT by I still care
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
"Now, how will they enforce this decision when the House defunded the enforcement?

A meaningless political stunt in the absence of an equally meaningless political stunt in the Senate."

That stunt you refer to is the Balance of Powers. Without the Balance of Powers, we would, and in fact are witnessing, tyranny.

42 posted on 08/20/2003 1:23:29 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March (Don't confuse liberals with the facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Full court. That says an awful lot about the future of Moore's appeal.
43 posted on 08/20/2003 1:24:23 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
Mentioning the trusting of God in our currency, what were the Founding Fathers thinking?

The motto was not added until 1864.

44 posted on 08/20/2003 1:24:45 PM PDT by AdamSelene235 (Like all the jolly good fellows, I drink my whiskey clear....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
The Supremes should review this situation carefully and finally put to rest what people think the constitution contains--a "separation of church and state" clause--which we know that it doesn't, but is relevant since the ACLU perpetrated it on the public's consciousness since the mid-40s.
45 posted on 08/20/2003 1:24:54 PM PDT by lilylangtree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Some other points others are missing. This was an action seeking a stay. There will be no prejudice or harm done by denying the stay. The issue can reach the Supreme Court on the merits, but I doubt it will go that far.

If fact the decision to deny a hearing on the stay is a conservative decision.

46 posted on 08/20/2003 1:25:02 PM PDT by cynicalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kesg
Moore's defiance of the law is giving the left much ammunition about 'certain' judges being unable to uphold the law against their own personal beliefs.

This Judge needs to comply immediately and make a statement to the fact that he will uphold the law despite his personal feelings in the matter.

47 posted on 08/20/2003 1:25:43 PM PDT by OldFriend ((Dems inhabit a parallel universe))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: kegler4
"He will keep on losing for good reason, and everybody knows it."

You really bought that 'separation of church and state' manure. Ate it up heartilly, I'd say.
48 posted on 08/20/2003 1:25:46 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March (Don't confuse liberals with the facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
My prediction was that this would be a 9-0 decision. Betcha I was right.
49 posted on 08/20/2003 1:26:18 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine ("what if the hokey pokey is really what its all about?" - Jean Paul Sartre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
The location of the ten commandments and/or its size is irrelevant to the fact that it exists in the Supreme court. The issue isn't its size. The issue is its content.

Using yoru logic Moore should be allowed to replace the monument with an exact replica of the portion of the Freize that contains Moses and the ten commandments. What do you think the shelf life of that replacement would be before the ACLU sues again ?

50 posted on 08/20/2003 1:26:24 PM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 801-809 next last

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.

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