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.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

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.

[JohnnyZ]

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.

[Saundra Duffy]

Oh, no. Now what?

[HurkinMcGurkin]

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.

[Imal]

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.

[OldFriend]

The only defiance of the law I thought worth fighting was for Elian.........

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

[sonsofliberty2000]

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

Patriot Paradox

[bedolido]

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.

[Lurking Libertarian]

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.

[Modernman]

Looks like the SCOTUS hasn't made a decision here- they've just refused to grant a stay while the appeal is pending.

[djf]

The whole point here is that there is a higher law that man can only approximate, barely understand, and never author.

[Grando Calrissian]

You're not a fan of the ludicrous straw man argument?

[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.

[I still care]

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.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

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.

[Lurking Libertarian]

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?

[Chancellor Palpatine]

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?

[VRWC_minion]

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.

[george wythe]

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

[kegler4]

"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.