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.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..you can't just discard America's legal system. It has to work or the whole system, not just the judicial branch, collapses...

What in the name of Great Caesar's Salad are you on about, amigo?

Moore is standing up for the very foundations of your legal system. The Ten Commandments is the keystone of it. It is not Moore's monument which threatens that system- it is the Wacos, the Elians, the OJ Simpsons.

C'mon, mate. Get this into some kind of rational proportion- please?

[rwfromkansas]

I interpret preference as pretty narrow. But, the only way to know for sure is to read what was considered when it was first passed.

I would hope I would stomach the Koran posting, but I can't guarantee that since I believe Islam is blasphemous. But, it would be hard to find an establishment clause violation in even that, nor a free exercise clause violation.

[lugsoul]

Right. The Liberty Bell is a religious display. Got any more?

[Dog Gone]

Look, you took statements of mine out of context to try to build your case. Put me at the bottom of your new ratings system. I think I might welcome that.

What Judge Moore is doing is serious stuff which challenges the entire role of the judiciary. Some may welcome that, but there's really no viable alternative. If the courts aren't the final arbiter, who is? The people? That's mob rule. If we're going to be nation governed by the Rule of Law, then there has to be a final word that we all agree is that final word.

For 200 some years, we've agreed that it will be the courts. Now you want something else to be the final rule, although you haven't articulated that yet that I've noticed.

[rebel]

There is no commandment to obey all secular authorites without distinction.

The most often quoted one Romans 13 says. It says to obey the "governing authorities". In this country the "authority" is the U.S. Constitution. All officals swear to protect and defend it.

So Christians are not bound to obey unconstitutional rulings or laws.

It goes without saying the Christians must "obey God rather than man". There is no contest there.

[Tribune7]

You can't just discard America's legal system.

The ACLU did. It's time we fought back.

[GretchenEE]

One more indication that the battle is raging behind the scenes (spiritually and naturally) for control of the USSC ... whoever controls the nominations will control an enormous part of this country, far greater than one can fathom, for decades to come.

There is a rallying cry for all who intercede for America. The USSC and our nation's Senate, and the presidency, need massive amounts of prayer.

To the victor go the spoils. These things are worth fighting for.

[cornelis]

For 200 some years

It was the Roman days, 200 BC; and the Greek days, 600 BC, that woke the mob. Read Solzhenitsyn on how a law matures.

[rwfromkansas]

Nice defense.

[singsong]

The issue has nothing to do with monuments. The issue is whether a judge can use his public office to promote his particular religious views.
If this is the case it's easy - he can, as long as he does not force others into said views. There is not text that claims otherwise. Mule interpretations don't count!

[Tribune7]

Right. The Liberty Bell is a religious display.

If Judge Moore had made bell inscribed with something from Leviticus, would you object?

[Dog Gone]

You, too, are not understanding my argument. I'm not saying that Moore is wrong for what he wants to do. I'm saying that he is wrong for defying the court order.

Maybe it's necessary to be an attorney to understand the vast difference between those two arguments. If so, I apologize for not being able to articulate this in terms that are understandable. But they are very real.

[SedVictaCatoni]

Can you understand the difference? It's not a subtle difference.

Pearls before swine, DG... it's like cows watching a plane go by overhead.

[rwfromkansas]

Well, the SCOTUS GAVE ITSELF the role of final say on things in M. v. Madison. I don't know what the alternative would be, as we need the courts to check the legislature and executive branch.

At the same time, the courts have much more power than they originally had.

[MatthewViti]

very well said!

[jwalsh07]

Look, you took statements of mine out of context to try to build your case. Put me at the bottom of your new ratings system.

I don't as a rule take statements out of context. You show me where I did and if I think I was out of line, I'll apologise.

I think I might welcome that.

Lighten up Dog. I don't keep lists and I don't have a ratings system. Ladders are plentiful though.

What Judge Moore is doing is serious stuff which challenges the entire role of the judiciary. Some may welcome that, but there's really no viable alternative.

Judge Moore is exercising his rights as an American citizen and a jurist in the great tradition of our country. He and his fellow travelers are doing it peacefully and with conviction. What better example for American youth?

If the courts aren't the final arbiter, who is? The people? That's mob rule. If we're going to be nation governed by the Rule of Law, then there has to be a final word that we all agree is that final word.

The final arbiter is the Congress of the Unites States of America elcted by the citizens of same. It's all in the COnstitution. All we need do is honor it the way it is written or amend it. Either is fine with me.

For 200 some years, we've agreed that it will be the courts. Now you want something else to be the final rule, although you haven't articulated that yet that I've noticed.

For that same 200 years voluntary prayer in school and the posting of the decalogue were Constitutional. Only in the past 50 years have they somehow morphed into UnConstitutional. To ignore that is fooly, no?

As for articulating my thoughts on rneegade courts, I've been doing it here for quite some time now. Congress should slap them down via the purse or laws proscribing the courts from making laws or they should simply be impeached.

All Constitutional, all within the rule of law.

[rwfromkansas]

Your tagline shows where you stand in regards to your religious bigotry and speaks volumes about your position onthis matter...

[Dog Gone]

I'm just getting beat up on this thread by my friends like I'm a baby seal on a Canadian ice shelf.

I'm not having much fun.

[rwfromkansas]

As for judicial review, this is a very interesting quote:

"The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not [Marbury v. Madison], not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislative and executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch." Thomas Jefferson

[MatthewViti]

that would be "art"