US Supreme Court refuses to block removal of Ten Commandments

Sean Hannity Show ^ | 8-20-03 | Sean Hannity

[Atlas Sneezed]

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

[sweetliberty]

When is the bonfire to burn all existing copies of the Constitution? It obviously means nothing any more to those sworn to uphold it. Satan, through the vehicle of liberalism, has won again. How is everyone adapting to the new slavery?

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Regarding post 344, they won't believe their lying eyes. Don't confuse them with the facts. They want us all to bow down to the ACLU and say, "Nice game." This is no game! They can yak about funny televangelist friends. They can talk about criminal behavior. It boils down to one thing, tyranny! It must be defied.

[wardaddy]

Do you want Moore's tablets left in place in the end or not?

[lugsoul]

In the Founders' time. In the Founders' time. In the Founders' time.

Your argument must be pretty weak if you must make up straw men to argue against.

[Southack]

"Your argument must be pretty weak if you must make up straw men to argue against."

You appear not only to suffer from Projectionism, but also from an inability to differentiate between various posters.

I've said not a word about the Founders on this thread, after all...

[Havoc]

they don't have the right to defend the constitution...they have the DUTY to defend the constitution!!!!!!! tell me the last time anyone in the federal goobermint did actually let his/her nuts drops and actually did defend the constitution.

Well no kidding.. they have the duty. Hmm, wonder where I got that idea. Must have been their oath of office. If you want to split hairs, just tell us that you want to argue for the sake of argument. And the last time someone defended our Constitution.. You are either cynical and blind or acting willfully ignorant. Just because Democrats have acted like we live in a socialist regime for 40+ years doesn't mean everyone else has. It takes time to undo 40 years worth of mob rule by a soul-less minority of troglodite megalomaniacs. Rather than sit and jaw flap, why don't you pick up a banner and freep something!

[sweetliberty]

"how can this judge be enforcing a law they cannot make?"

They are not enforcing any law. They are creating one. It's what the courts do now.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"At the very least the judge should apologize for his procedural mistakes and fix as much of them as possible."

I respect the position you are taking. But it's really simple. There should never have been a ruling outside of Federal jurisdiction in the first place. It's really as simple as that. Moore chose his path for whatever reason, it doesn't matter. What matters is, one side stands for the Constitution and the 10 Commandments. The other side stands against the Constitution and the 10 Commandments. Just as GW frequently does, people are running to find a third way, which criticizes Moore's 'maneuverings', ie gamesmanship. One can keep one's sense of honor, and sacrifice Moore at the same time. It's much like the way democrats support the troops.

[lugsoul]

You are truly dense. Let's take baby steps so you can understand.

Arthur said that Moore was defending the faith "like the Founders". In reply, I said that the Founders did not either talk about or have religious displays in courthouses. You took my sentence about "no ten commandments displays in courthouses" completely out of that context and started posting pictures of SCOTUS, built in the 1930s, as if that somehow proved me wrong.

But that is typical for your defective logic.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"The SCOTUS display you SELECTIVELY post from includes MOHAMMED. And Solon. And Hammurabi. And Justinian. And Confucious."

Oh my goodness! They are establishing all those religions?

[The Wizard]

I say the judge NEVER removes it

[lugsoul]

Nope, they are establishing none of them.

[xzins]

Exactly.

Thank you.

[Conservababe]

The issue is personal to me, but has nothing do do with a hatred of God. What it does have to do with is my personal experiences practicing law before a judge who wears his religion his robe.

So, as a lawyer, when your client is sworn in to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth....who does he swear to, the judge or God?

[Sangamon Kid]

Rumor from another thread says that protesters are being forcibly removed as we speak.

[beelzepug]

That was a fine example of an intelligent retort. Did you mean I think like the Taliban? Don't forget who it was that blasted down the ancient Buddahs because of religious intolerance. I'd say I'm more the anti-taliban. Can we look forward to the ACLU, howitzer in tow, leveling anything they deem to be religious?

[lugsoul]

Not your God. His or her God. It really wouldn't matter much if someone who believed in a deity other than yours swore to yours, now would it?

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"Yes, Governor James, ex-Democrat who also saw no problem with violating the Ten Commandments in private, as long as it was 'a private conversation between two gentlemen'."

So here we have a democrat governor, publicly and dramatically standing up for states' rights with the national guard. We have the House dramatically defunding this judicial act. Sounds to me that regardless of the governor's sense of ethics, this is a hot button issue, and I have a lot of people agreeing with me, and I don't think they are all stupid. The fact that people are turning against Moore over the same issue now is irrelevant.