Chief Justice Moore refuses to remove 10 commandments

[Wayne Grabert]

I don't understand how a man could get to be a Chief Justice and have such little understanding of what this country is all about.

He was elected. Can't you appreciate the actions of a man with political aspirations?

 

[Wayne Grabert]

If I went into the Alabama Supreme Court building and attempted to fasten an American Atheists symbol to the wall, do you think Judge Moore would support my right to practice my religion the same way he does?

There's only one sure way to find out. Do it! (Wear a flak jacket.)

 

[Tony]

The SC is enforcing the Constituion.

No, the SC is enforcing their opinion. The constitution is clear on the matter.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

No religion has the right to be state supported.

At the federal level.

No religion should be endorsed in any shape, fashion, for form.

Then I guess chaplans, rabbis and imams in the military and in prisons are unconstitutional.

That is protecting the right of the people to worship as they choose.

No its not.

 

[Wayne Grabert]

4. And a poll on MSNBC is running 2 to 1 in favor of letting the 10 commandments remain in place;

My conclusion is that it is a good thing that the first amendment is in place. I don't want the majority to tell me what my religion will be.

That's an unscientific poll, DrChinese. A scientific poll would likely show a significantly different result. Like 4 to 1 in favor.

Your religion shall be Zoroastrism. Don't argue.

 

[Wayne Grabert]

Uhm, what's X-ian for 'Jihad'?

Crusade. Bigot.

From 1095 until well into the 15th Century the popes regularly proclaimed a series of Crusades --"Holy Wars"-- against various enemies of the Church. The victims of such were initially non-Christians, that is Moslems and pagans, but later Crusades were preached against Christian heretics, and even against quite orthodox folks who happened to have political disputes with the current pope

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

No, the SC is enforcing their opinion. The constitution is clear on the matter.

But their opinion is the only one that counts. Yours doesn't. And in this case their "opinion" matches the constitution exactly. Try reading it some time.

 

[Checkmite]

The Supreme Court is the traitorous party by perverting the constitution.

Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States declares that

Originally posted by the Constitutional Convention

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority...

Read the underlined portion carefully. It says, without ambiguity, that the "judicial" arm of the United States government has jurisdiction over all things dealing with (in addition to other matters) the Constitution itself. Section 1 states that

Originally posted by the Constitutional Convention

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Now, juxtapose the two previous ideas. The result you should come up with, if you're thinking correctly, is that the Supreme Court (and the subordinate Federal courts) are responsible for interpreting the Constitution. In essence, the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. What I, or you, or anyone else thinks the Constitution means is irrelevant.

Well, to be fair that's not entirely true...if a judge does something out of line, his decision can be overturned by the other judges, and even the People, if there's enough dissent. But until there is that dissent, the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means.

My friend, it's becoming increasingly difficult for anybody to deny that Chief Justice Moore is a fanatic. You've read the articles...he says over and over again, "This isn't about religion, it's about God", and continuously uses biblical references to describe himself, the issue, and his opponents. He claims that all he's dedicated to is "bringing a moral base back to the law", but apparently the only way he can find to do that is mounting a big stone idol in the Judicial Building. Then, once he was legally and unanimously countermanded by the Associate Justices, he compared their action to "Judas betraying Jesus" and threatened to have them all thrown in jail! This person is not thinking clearly, can't you see that?

You say this is about "States' Rights". Well, maybe it started out that way, but it is not about States' Rights any longer. It's about a State's Chief Justice's rights and powers, and one man's superiority complex. The State Attorney-General is against him, the rest of the State Supreme Court is against him. All he has left is himself and the supporters standing outside.

States Rights may have been an argument, if the rest of the Judges stood with him; but Chief Justice Moore no longer represents the will of the Alabama State Judiciary in this case, and they have declared this publically. It is no longer the will of the State of Alabama to keep the Ten Commandments monument on display in the Judiciary Building. Thus, Chief Justice Moore is not only defying the will of the Federal courts, he is defying the will of his own State. Can it be made any clearer?

 

[Suddenly]

No religion should be endorsed in any shape, fashion, for form.

Then I guess chaplans, rabbis and imams in the military and in prisons are unconstitutional.

Grey area. The "no establishment" and "freedom of religion" parts of the first amendment have a tension with one another. This is a place where the latter trumps the former. The above bold statement is not precisely correct, as the govenment must also take reasonable steps to protect freedom of religion, and this includes making clergy available to servicemen, and to a lesser extent, prisoners.

 

[Checkmite]

Here's another example of Moore's imbalance:

"I hear others talk of a rule of law," the chief justice said. "If the rule of law means to do everything a judge tells you to do, we would still have slavery in this country. If the rule of law means to do everything a judge tells you to do, the Declaration of Independence would be a meaningless document."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/21/ten.commandments/index.html

In other words, he's saying that if you don't agree with an order issued by a judge, you don't have to follow it. That statement, if followed, renders the entire Judicial process impotent. Who is trying to subvert the Constitution here?

His argument itself is even irrational. It was orders from judges that ended slavery, and forced (most) discrimination out of the government. And the Declaration of Independence was a political statement, but was indeed legally meaningless...that's kind of why the U.S. had to fight a war for independence. Thus, the Declaration doesn't even belong in this argument. Will you, Tony, ignore history for the sake of supporting what this man says?

 

[Tony]

But their opinion is the only one that counts. Yours doesn't.

Well ◊◊◊◊, stupid me for daring to think for myself, I guess we should just bow to our fascist overlords.

 

[Tony]

....is that the Supreme Court (and the subordinate Federal courts) are responsible for interpreting the Constitution. In essence, the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. What I, or you, or anyone else thinks the Constitution means is irrelevant.

Im aware of this, and Ive already said this is the fundamental flaw with the judicial system. If the SC can pervert the constitution to mean what they want, why have a constitution and a bill of rights in the first place? It seems rather pointless if they are all subject to the whims and "interpretation" of a few robed tyrants.

My friend, it's becoming increasingly difficult for anybody to deny that Chief Justice Moore is a fanatic. You've read the articles...he says over and over again, "This isn't about religion, it's about God", and continuously uses biblical references to describe himself, the issue, and his opponents. He claims that all he's dedicated to is "bringing a moral base back to the law", but apparently the only way he can find to do that is mounting a big stone idol in the Judicial Building. Then, once he was legally and unanimously countermanded by the Associate Justices, he compared their action to "Judas betraying Jesus" and threatened to have them all thrown in jail! This person is not thinking clearly, can't you see that?

Ive already said I could care less about judge moore and the ten commandments. Personally, I think the issue is stupid. My problem is with the perversion of the constitution. Either by the SC or the congress.

 

[Tony]

Grey area. The "no establishment" and "freedom of religion" parts of the first amendment have a tension with one another. This is a place where the latter trumps the former. The above bold statement is not precisely correct, as the govenment must also take reasonable steps to protect freedom of religion, and this includes making clergy available to servicemen, and to a lesser extent, prisoners. [/B]

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[DavidJames]

"Im aware of this, and Ive already said this is the fundamental flaw with the judicial system. If the SC can pervert the constitution to mean what they want, why have a constitution and a bill of rights in the first place?"

Specifically then, how would you propose to resolve constitutional questions?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Well ◊◊◊◊, stupid me for daring to think for myself, I guess we should just bow to our fascist overlords.

Yes, stupid you. We have already determined that. But thanks for the reminder!

 

[Checkmite]

Specifically then, how would you propose to resolve constitutional questions?

Perhaps according to the way Tony thinks the Constitution should be interpreted.

 

[Tony]

Yes, stupid you. We have already determined that. But thanks for the reminder!

We all know it take a smart lemming like yourself to obey with-out question.

 

[Tony]

Specifically then, how would you propose to resolve constitutional questions?

It depends on the issue.

 

[Tony]

Perhaps according to the way Tony thinks the Constitution should be interpreted.

What, to ensure freedom and individual rights for all?

I dont see anything wrong with that.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Roy Moore makes it clear that the Ten Commandments, and only a Christian (borrowed from Judeism) symbol would be there to acknoledge the Christian God. If that's not government violating the establishment clause, I don't know what is.

This is Moore's Waterloo. He's been building towards it for years. The question now is, is he Wellington or Napoleon?

Psst... Tony, it's "I couldn't care less." If you "could care less" then apparently you'd have some vestige of passion for the issue rather than general apathy.

 

[a_unique_person]

From reading the CNN biography of him, he sounds like a real Frank Burns, (the film version of MASH, not the TV series).