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 previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 801-809 next last
To: lugsoul
Full court. That says an awful lot about the future of Moore's appeal.

Or more precisely, the lack thereof.

51 posted on 08/20/2003 1:26:46 PM PDT by HurkinMcGurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: sport
"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."

These comments are so tiresome and so juvenile. Could you come up with something original, please? After hearing practically the same thing 532 times, it gets pretty boring.
52 posted on 08/20/2003 1:26:50 PM PDT by kegler4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
And the Lord said" Hide thy word in thy heart where NO MAN can steel it or remove it"!!
53 posted on 08/20/2003 1:26:59 PM PDT by RoseofTexas (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
"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."

I guess you are angry with the House and the Supreme Court as well, then. You don't believe in hypocracy, do you?

54 posted on 08/20/2003 1:26:59 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March (Don't confuse liberals with the facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
First, be clear on what the ruling today was - Moore asked for a stay of the enforcement of the order. He didn't get it at the lower court because he waited until after his time had run out to ask for it. There is no legal basis for SCOTUS to give him a stay if he didn't follow proper procedure to get one.

Second - as for the authority, why not just read the opinions. Or the 27 threads where that issue is discussed extensively.

55 posted on 08/20/2003 1:27:07 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Consort
I believe the Ten Commandments are specific to all Christian and Jewish faiths. They are the foundation of our laws, you know, like how it's against the law to commit murder--"Thou Shalt Not Kill," and it's against the law to steal--"Thou Shalt Not Steal."

However, since the days of Moses (he was the one who went up on a mountain and came back with these ten laws, supposedly from God), the law has blossomed into millions of volumes of books and frankly, I think we don't need the Ten Commandments anymore, they're so old fashioned. You know, I just read a 28-page, 20,000 word law review article on the meaning of the words, "foreign state." I mean, how can ten commandments, probably comprising a total of about 80 words, even compare with the learned treatise I read today?

We are surely living in interesting times, Consort.
56 posted on 08/20/2003 1:27:28 PM PDT by Auntie Mame (Why not go out on a limb, isn't that where the fruit is?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

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

Of course. Like their refusal to hear the New Jersey Senate election case. I felt confident that, had they heard the case, they would slap down the Jersey court for writing election law. I feel confident that they would slap down the federal order to remove the monument.

But my confidence has been greatly shaken since Justice O'Connor jumped the shark.

57 posted on 08/20/2003 1:27:41 PM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: JustAnAmerican
The problem is that these Supreme Court judges are strongly support and ADMIRED by most members of Congress! Impeachment of the judges is not on the beltway radar screen.
58 posted on 08/20/2003 1:28:08 PM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
"You really bought that 'separation of church and state' manure."

The man's been flat defeated everywhere he's turned. I reckon I'm not the only one.
59 posted on 08/20/2003 1:28:22 PM PDT by kegler4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: kegler4
Who was holding a gun on you making you read it?

Do you know how to scroll past a post?
60 posted on 08/20/2003 1:28:37 PM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Then we need a 9-0 impeachment of the bench. These gavel jockeys need to be put in their place! Now they are enforcing the law with illegal resources. Any federal resources used will be illegally used, since funding for this decision is forbidden.
61 posted on 08/20/2003 1:28:43 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March (Don't confuse liberals with the facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: kegler4
Sorry, but even though not true this doesn't come anywhere close to the standard of libel.

Libel: A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.

The act of presenting such material to the public.

Sure, Judge Moore's reputation won't be damaged by one loser on the internet, but the intent was an attack on his reputation as a truthful, God-fearing individual, whether or not you think he's an idiot.

62 posted on 08/20/2003 1:29:00 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 39 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Oh, no. Now what?
63 posted on 08/20/2003 1:29:06 PM PDT by Saundra Duffy (For victory & freedom!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kegler4
These comments are so tiresome and so juvenile. Could you come up with something original, please? After hearing practically the same thing 532 times, it gets pretty boring.

But its all they got. I'm sure Clinton will be dragged into this sooner or later. Heck, the "anti-christ" was on another thread.

64 posted on 08/20/2003 1:29:13 PM PDT by HurkinMcGurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
The issue in the case of "separation of church and state" isn't God, but law.

There is no basis in the U.S. Constitution for the edicts of federal judges trying to remove religious symbols from public property. The "separation of church and state" doctrine is formed from an unsupported and overly broad application of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution to apply federal jurisdiction to all levels of government. Such an interpretation is clearly invalid and itself stands in clear violation of the Tenth Amendment, thus rendering this doctrine unenforceable under law.

It is nothing more than judicial fiat, and judicial fiat is nothing more than judicial tyranny. Those federal judges issuing orders to remove religious symbols and words from public property are doing so without basis in law, and are therefore acting illegally.

Judges issuing orders without a foundation in law should be impeached in accordance with Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the U.S. Constitution. We do not tolerate lawlessness in our streets, we should not tolerate it in our courts, either.

65 posted on 08/20/2003 1:29:22 PM PDT by Imal (The World According to Imal: http://imal.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
The only defiance of the law I thought worth fighting was for Elian.........

This is not a win win for conservatives....JMO

66 posted on 08/20/2003 1:30:24 PM PDT by OldFriend ((Dems inhabit a parallel universe))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: sport
Ewww! Gross! Is that outside the Barney Frank Memorial Library and Gay bar?

Patriot Paradox

67 posted on 08/20/2003 1:30:38 PM PDT by sonsofliberty2000 (The Patriot Paradox: Life, Liberty and Everything Else...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
But my confidence has been greatly shaken since Justice O'Connor jumped the shark

This Supreme Court is scarier then the Warren court of the 70's. I don't trust them to judge on the constitution since their last judgement trampled all over it.

68 posted on 08/20/2003 1:31:16 PM PDT by bedolido (None of us is as dumb as all of us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: votelife
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...

The 11th Circuit decision in Moore's case explained why the Supreme Court's display-- and another display of the Ten Commandments the 11th Circuit had upheld in another case 2 weeks earlier-- were different from what Moore was doing. The Supreme Court mural depicts the history of law-- it shows Moses, Mohammad, Hammurabbi, Greek and Roman lawgivers, etc.-- without singling out a particular religion as being endorsed by the Government.

69 posted on 08/20/2003 1:31:23 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
Looks like the SCOTUS hasn't made a decision here- they've just refused to grant a stay while the appeal is pending.
70 posted on 08/20/2003 1:31:34 PM PDT by Modernman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
The whole point here is that there is a higher law that man can only approximate, barely understand, and never author.
71 posted on 08/20/2003 1:32:18 PM PDT by djf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: kegler4
You're not a fan of the ludicrous straw man argument?
72 posted on 08/20/2003 1:32:58 PM PDT by Grando Calrissian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
No need to spend Federal money. There is a little thing called contempt of court. The trial judge will just fine the state into compliance.
73 posted on 08/20/2003 1:33:09 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: VxH
I seem to remember years ago there was a statue of Jesus in a public park that had been there many years. When they were sued by the atheists (or ACLU, one and the same), the liberal judge ruled they had to take it off public land.

They sold the land that it was on to a private foundation. The judge, ticked off that people still could see the statue while in the park, ruled that a 10 ft fence be put in front of the statue so that no one could see it.

I may be wrong in a particular or two but that is the gist of the story as I remember it.

We are in a war against people that hate God, no matter what logical sounding arguments people use that is the crux of the matter.

People hate and are afraid of accountability to a higher power. They attack with a hate that those of us on the other side have difficulty understanding, and we need to wake up and realize it is a war.
74 posted on 08/20/2003 1:33:34 PM PDT by I still care
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
The burden of proof is on the accuser. Or has the liberal court changed that, as well? What law was legislated by congress that the court used? Or did the court legislate? Is the law the court used constitutional? Was it one of the enumerated powers? I can tell you right now, there is no enumerated power for the Federal government to interfere with states in religious matters, other than to uphold one's freedom of religion.
75 posted on 08/20/2003 1:34:10 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March (Don't confuse liberals with the facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
Any federal resources used will be illegally used, since funding for this decision is forbidden.

No, it's not. The House voted to forbid it, but the Senate hasn't voted and the President hasn't signed it.

Remember from "Schoolhouse Rock" that bit about how a bill becomes a law?

76 posted on 08/20/2003 1:35:07 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March; Catspaw; lugsoul
So now you want to impeach Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas because they didn't fall for Roy Moore's fundraising stunt on behalf of Coral Ridge and TBN?
77 posted on 08/20/2003 1:35:16 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine ("what if the hokey pokey is really what its all about?" - Jean Paul Sartre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: kegler4
These comments are so tiresome and so juvenile. Could you come up with something original, please?

Here goes. When I go to my local department of motor vehicle I get to watch a board that prints various things like news updates etc. Included in the displayed materials are daily horoscopes. I happen to believe that the occult is against God and should be avoided at all costs. Having to watch these be published in a gov't building is offensive to me, but I would not want to make an issue of it because I can just look the other way.

78 posted on 08/20/2003 1:35:52 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 52 | View Replies]

It's time for this judge to act like a Christian and obey the secular authorities. He needs to read Romans 13
79 posted on 08/20/2003 1:35:56 PM PDT by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ
"Libel: A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.

The act of presenting such material to the public.

Sure, Judge Moore's reputation won't be damaged by one loser on the internet, but the intent was an attack on his reputation as a truthful, God-fearing individual, whether or not you think he's an idiot."

Come on now, libel is much more complicated than a dictionary definition. You forgot to expalin to us how being a public figure, like the judge, changes the whole equation. Much, much worse things have been said about George Bush but he wouldn't have a prayer of winning a libel case.
80 posted on 08/20/2003 1:36:49 PM PDT by kegler4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
"No need to spend Federal money. There is a little thing called contempt of court. The trial judge will just fine the state into compliance."

And they can pay the judge with cow chips, since there is no legal power to enforce. Just let the fictitious fines pile up, since it would be illegal to use Federal resources to enforce the playhouse ruling.
81 posted on 08/20/2003 1:36:51 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March (Don't confuse liberals with the facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
What in the world are you talking about, if you know?

Is the law they used Constitutional? It WAS the Constitution.

"I can tell you right now, there is no enumerated power for the Federal government to interfere with states in religious matters, other than to uphold one's freedom of religion."

Are you saying that the states are bound by the Free Exercise Clause, but not by the Establishment Clause? That on part of the sentence applies to them and another does not? That's crazy.

82 posted on 08/20/2003 1:37:11 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
"It's time for this judge to act like a Christian and obey the secular authorities. He needs to read Romans 13"

I hope to God we are not Rome yet! Over my dead body!
83 posted on 08/20/2003 1:38:15 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March (Don't confuse liberals with the facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
The Supreme Court mural depicts the history of law-- it shows Moses, Mohammad, Hammurabbi, Greek and Roman lawgivers, etc.-- without singling out a particular religion as being endorsed by the Government.

Sound lame. So, if Moore simple adds a few more displays ie Roman and Greek lawgivers then it would be ok ?

84 posted on 08/20/2003 1:38:40 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 69 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
The 1st Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

#1: Judge Moore is not Congress, he is free to do that which Congress may not do under the 1st Amendment.

#2: Putting a monument showing the Ten Commandments does not constitute "establishing religion" or "abridging the free excersize thereof". No one is being compelled to worship anyone or anything or is being prevented from doing the same. No one is even compelled to read the text of the monument. It can be freely ignored and/or disregarded.
85 posted on 08/20/2003 1:38:54 PM PDT by Abe Froman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: cricket
The challengers to Moore are not simply liberals, they are anti-pluralists, much like many of the quasi-Conservatives here who denounce Moore.
86 posted on 08/20/2003 1:38:55 PM PDT by wardaddy (lost in a knuckledragger wilderness of my own making)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Grando Calrissian; sport
"You're not a fan of the ludicrous straw man argument?"

Definitely not. But sport wants to foist it on us until he runs out of breath.
87 posted on 08/20/2003 1:39:04 PM PDT by kegler4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul; Robert_Paulson2
These true scholars pick and choose the stuff they like, and toss the stuff they don't.
88 posted on 08/20/2003 1:39:08 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine ("what if the hokey pokey is really what its all about?" - Jean Paul Sartre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
No need to spend Federal money. There is a little thing called contempt of court. The trial judge will just fine the state into compliance.

Right. You have no legal or moral right to ignore a decision of a court just because you don't like it, especially when the appeals process is still going on.

89 posted on 08/20/2003 1:39:09 PM PDT by Modernman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
The abuse of the Constitution is crazy. That's my point.
90 posted on 08/20/2003 1:39:42 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March (Don't confuse liberals with the facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: sonsofliberty2000
What was the reason given?

They're all heathens.

91 posted on 08/20/2003 1:40:23 PM PDT by Lijahsbubbe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
"Right. You have no legal or moral right to ignore a decision of a court just because you don't like it, especially when the appeals process is still going on."

Oh I see. If a judge tells you to bend over so he can slip something up you, you must comply? Be a man!
92 posted on 08/20/2003 1:40:45 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March (Don't confuse liberals with the facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
So, if Moore simple adds a few more displays ie Roman and Greek lawgivers then it would be ok ?

As discussed probably several hundred times on FR, Moore was already given that option, but declined. I'm sure you knew that.

93 posted on 08/20/2003 1:41:08 PM PDT by HurkinMcGurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Here is an article written by Jay Sekolow on why this whole thing has him nervous;

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/965229/posts
94 posted on 08/20/2003 1:41:41 PM PDT by I still care
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #95 Removed by Moderator

To: sonsofliberty2000
"What was the reason given?"

Unfortunately, if the SC denies certiorari, they don't have to give anybody a reason. They can refuse to hear a case "Just because...".

96 posted on 08/20/2003 1:41:47 PM PDT by Middle Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Name the enumerated power, then.
97 posted on 08/20/2003 1:42:24 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March (Don't confuse liberals with the facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
Yes, by all means, move it to a God friendly country.
98 posted on 08/20/2003 1:42:35 PM PDT by F.J. Mitchell (Our enemies within are very slick, but slime is always treacherously slick, isn't it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
"Here goes. When I go to my local department of motor vehicle I get to watch a board that prints various things like news updates etc. Included in the displayed materials are daily horoscopes. I happen to believe that the occult is against God and should be avoided at all costs. Having to watch these be published in a gov't building is offensive to me, but I would not want to make an issue of it because I can just look the other way."

That was definitely much better than the idiotic suggestion
that the court would be amenable to a plaque showing men engaging in oral sex.

However, you can believe all you want that horoscopes represent a religion, but I don't think you'd find many who believe the same. The Ten Commandments most definitely represent religion. No question about it. In fact, Judge Moore says so.

Sorry, but that strawman doesn't work. It was much more original and interesting, however.
99 posted on 08/20/2003 1:43:09 PM PDT by kegler4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

Comment #100 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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