NationStates Jolt Archive

Remember him? The guy who wouldn't take down the 10 Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court?

What a great idea! Moore has the qualifications, though he may have a problem getting through the Senate. President Bush needs a guy like Moore on the Court. Do you think he'd do it?

He'd TRY to, but luckily we got a sensible Republican overseeing judicial appointments (Arlen Specter).

Remember him? The guy who wouldn't take down the 10 Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court?

What a great idea! Moore has the qualifications, though he may have a problem getting through the Senate. President Bush needs a guy like Moore on the Court. Do you think he'd do it?
Oh god.


No.

All I know is that, when I saw the title of this thread, I thought someone was confused about the concept of appointed/elected.

did anyone ever figure out how that guy became a judge when he so clearly had no clue about much of anything?

What the hell's wrong with posting the Ten Commandments? The First Amendment clearly says, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a national religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof." [Okay, I probably didn't quote it exactly word-for-word, but it basically says that]

(Emphasis added)

It's funny how liberals vehemently back the first part (the part not in italics), but are completely unaware (or deliberately ignore) the second part (the part in italics). They go absolutely apesh** over any public display of Christianity, or even the very mention of it, as if they were afraid of it.

Tee hee. You called Arlen Specter "sensible." That's funny.

But even as a hard-ass Republican, I would shudder to see ol' Roy join the Supremes. Remember, he kept that monument in there against the will of his fellow state justices. I have more of an issue with that than with any whacked-out interpretation of the establishment clause. That's just too headstrong to be allowed in a judicial job. OTOH, "Moore for Senate" I could see happening...

What the hell's wrong with posting the Ten Commandments? The First Amendment clearly says, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a national religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof." [Okay, I probably didn't quote it exactly word-for-word, but it basically says that]

(Emphasis added)

It's funny how liberals vehemently back the first part (the part not in italics), but are completely unaware (or deliberately ignore) the second part (the part in italics). They go absolutely apesh** over any public display of Christianity, or even the very mention of it, as if they were afraid of it.


Well because planting the 10 commandments in a court house is an endorsement of one Religion.

That jackass was asked hey lets make a reference to the other Relgions since they have a play as well and he said absolutly not!

Also, he had it done in the middle of the night without notice....

Moore on the court?

Absolutly not!

He is not capable of judging the law. He can't be neutral.

What the hell's wrong with posting the Ten Commandments? The First Amendment clearly says, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a national religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof." [Okay, I probably didn't quote it exactly word-for-word, but it basically says that]
If it clearly breaks the first part, the second part is hardly important.

It's funny how liberals vehemently back the first part (the part not in italics), but are completely unaware (or deliberately ignore) the second part (the part in italics). They go absolutely apesh** over any public display of Christianity, or even the very mention of it, as if they were afraid of it.
The second part simply doesn't apply in this case. Roy Moore was a state judge, and endorsing religion in a public building is clearly unconstitutional. He has every right to free exercise of Christianity on his own time.

What the hell's wrong with posting the Ten Commandments? The First Amendment clearly says, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a national religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof." [Okay, I probably didn't quote it exactly word-for-word, but it basically says that]

(Emphasis added)

It's funny how liberals vehemently back the first part (the part not in italics), but are completely unaware (or deliberately ignore) the second part (the part in italics). They go absolutely apesh** over any public display of Christianity, or even the very mention of it, as if they were afraid of it.

Because of the context. A courthouse is part of the state, so therefore it is under the guidelines that you quoted. If the commandments were put alongside moral codes from other religions, then there would be no problem. But having them in the courthouse by themselves is tantamount to the courthouse favoring the one religion in question, and by extension, the state.

Well because planting the 10 commandments in a court house is an endorsement of one Religion.

That jackass was asked hey lets make a reference to the other Relgions since they have a play as well and he said absolutly not!

Also, he had it done in the middle of the night without notice....

Moore isn't the federal government, though.

Tee hee. You called Arlen Specter "sensible." That's funny.
It goes both ways. You probably consider Robert Byrd and Zell Miller sensible Democrats. ;)

Moore isn't the federal government, though.

It doesn't matter.

Do any states have an official relgion in their consitution?....

Moore isn't the federal government, though.

The 14th Amendment made the Bill of Rights applicable to the states as well as the federal government.

The 14th Amendment made the Bill of Rights applicable to the states as well as the federal government.

Thanks but I was going to follow up with that if he took the bait for my question.... ;)

Thanks but I was going to follow up with that if he took the bait for my question.... ;)

Sometimes it's hard for me to be a good conservative with so much knowledge of the Constitution.

I really don't think the president would do anything so daring as to spend all of his "politial capital" on the Supreme Court for Moore, but maybe somebody a little less reactionary and preferably somebody who has flown under the radar of the media.

But it's a good topic of conversation for the NS General Forum, just to see what some of the residents here have to say.

Come on, is that all I get?

Come on, is that all I get?

Well, what do you want? No nutjobs have acclaimed him as a good person yet, so there's nobody to shoot down :p

It goes both ways. You probably consider Robert Byrd and Zell Miller sensible Democrats. ;)
No, I'm pretty sure those two are nutjobs also. :p Maybe Lieberman would be a better example?

The 14th Amendment made the Bill of Rights applicable to the states as well as the federal government.
Ugh, don't get me started on a rant about the doctrine of incorporation. Suffice it to say that the Alabama constitution has its own version of the establishment clause, making any talk of federal law almost overkill. Behold! (http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeOfAlabama/Constitution/1901/CA-245534.htm)

Then again, both clauses only refer to written laws, not actions of rogue judicial officials... not like it's right to use that fact as a loophole.

Then again, both clauses only refer to written laws, not actions of rogue judicial officials... not like it's right to use that fact as a loophole.

Hmmm so it could be argued that the fathead violated the state law.

That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.

Hmmm so it could be argued that the fathead violated the state law.

That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.It could be argued that way, but this is Alabama where Supreme Court Justices are elected, and no judge who wants to continue being a judge would find against Moore on state law grounds, not when there's a perfectly good federal judge who the press could publicly blast as liberal who would take the heat for them. They just sort of wrung their hands and said "there's nothing we can do." Politically, it was a smart thing to do. Personally, I think they should have cowboyed up and upheld their own law, but that's just me.

Well because planting the 10 commandments in a court house is an endorsement of one Religion.
It was not an endorsemant of any specific religion. The ten commandments, on which most western laws are based, was only a small part of the monument.


TOP PANEL

"Ten Commandments" excerpts


The monument depicts the moral foundation of law in America, and bears excerpts from the text of the Ten Commandments of God. The monument also bears quotes from: the Declaration of Independence ("Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"); our National Motto ("In God We Trust"); the Pledge of Allegiance ("One Nation Under God, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All"); and the Judiciary Act of 1789 ("So Help Me God").

FRONT PANEL

"The laws of nature are the laws of God; whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth." George Mason 1772

"Laws of nature and of nature's God" Declaration of Independence 1776

"The transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed." James Madison

"This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God Himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; ?upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these." William Blackstone

LEFT SIDE PANEL

"The inclusion of God in our pledge therefore would further acknowledge the dependence of our people and our government upon the moral directions of the Creator." Legislative History

"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Pledge of Allegiance, 1954

"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine." James Wilson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" Thomas Jefferson

BACK PANEL

"Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?" George Washington

"So help me God." Judiciary Act of 1789

"The greater part of evidence will always consist of the testimony of witnesses. This testimony is given under those solemn obligations which an appeal to the God of Truth impose; and if oaths should cease to be held sacred, our dearest and most valuable rights would become insecure." John Jay

RIGHT SIDE PANEL

"We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama." Constitution of Alabama


"In God we trust." National Motto 1956

"O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
between their lov'd home and the war's desolation!
Blest with vict'ry and peace may the heav'n rescued land
praise the power that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto 'In God Is Our Trust'
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave." National Anthem

That jackass was asked hey lets make a reference to the other Relgions since they have a play as well and he said absolutly not!
No! Wrong! Un-Uh!

Also, he had it done in the middle of the night without notice....It was a gigantic monument, it needed to be moved in when the court was closed.

Research, look into it.

It was not an endorsemant of any specific religion. The ten commandments, on which most western laws are based, was only a small part of the monument.

It was a gigantic monument, it needed to be moved in when the court was closed.

Research, look into it.Sorry, but you're the one who has it wrong. It was an endorsement of Christianity--no particular sect or branch perhaps, but certainly of the Christian faith as a whole and that's enough to disqualify it. The example that is most often referred to in these types of cases is the mural at the Supreme Court which includes the Ten Commandments and Moses, but also includes Justinian, Hammurabi, and King John and Magna Carta, just to name a few. This statue only mentioned Christianity and even the little historical context that was included referred to the christian god repeatedly. It was an easy case for the Feds.

And as to your excuse about the size of the monument, the secrecy was more of the type that Moore authorized the monument itself without consulting any of his fellow justices, and then had it moved in without any previous notice to anyone else. Face it--he tried to present a controversial statue as a done deal and was counting on either no one calling him on it or on the fact that he could raise his statewide stature if someone did call him on it--he could play the martyr. He got what he wanted.

The ten commandments, on which most western laws are based, was only a small part of the monument

the idea that most western laws are based on the ten commandments is utterly laughable. have you ever seen our laws?

as for being only a small part of the monument...

http://www.morallaw.org/logos_graphics/the_monument.jpg

did anyone ever figure out how that guy became a judge when he so clearly had no clue about much of anything?
alabama judges are elected

The ten commandments, on which most western laws are based,
Like keeping the Sabbath holy, and not taking God's name in vain, and not worshipping idols...yeah, most western laws sure are based on the commandments. :p

It could be argued that way, but this is Alabama where Supreme Court Justices are elected, and no judge who wants to continue being a judge would find against Moore on state law grounds, not when there's a perfectly good federal judge who the press could publicly blast as liberal who would take the heat for them. They just sort of wrung their hands and said "there's nothing we can do." Politically, it was a smart thing to do. Personally, I think they should have cowboyed up and upheld their own law, but that's just me.
alabamians dont like moore, well the southerners might its all the outside states that like moore - florida, mississippi, tennesee, alaska (especially florida)

alabamians dont like moore, well the southerners might its all the outside states that like moore - florida, mississippi, tennesee, alaska (especially florida)
Really? I'd heard he was wildly popular after this whole incident, that there was talk he had positioned himself for a run at the Governorship after this. Has he fallen out of favor?

Sorry, but you're the one who has it wrong. It was an endorsement of Christianity--no particular sect or branch perhaps, but certainly of the Christian faith as a whole and that's enough to disqualify it. The example that is most often referred to in these types of cases is the mural at the Supreme Court which includes the Ten Commandments and Moses, but also includes Justinian, Hammurabi, and King John and Magna Carta, just to name a few. This statue only mentioned Christianity and even the little historical context that was included referred to the christian god repeatedly. It was an easy case for the Feds.

And as to your excuse about the size of the monument, the secrecy was more of the type that Moore authorized the monument itself without consulting any of his fellow justices, and then had it moved in without any previous notice to anyone else. Face it--he tried to present a controversial statue as a done deal and was counting on either no one calling him on it or on the fact that he could raise his statewide stature if someone did call him on it--he could play the martyr. He got what he wanted.
No, you are wrong. It was not an endorsement of religion. One small part of the monument was a part of christianity. Perhaps if you were not so rabidly anti-christian, you would not be blinded by your own bogotry. THis was a monument to law. Face it.

Remember him? The guy who wouldn't take down the 10 Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court?

What a great idea! Moore has the qualifications, though he may have a problem getting through the Senate. President Bush needs a guy like Moore on the Court. Do you think he'd do it?

It's an interesting idea. It doesn't really matter that much about the Senate. Moore could be appointed during the Senate recess. One previous time in American history a Supreme Court judge was a recess appointment.

It's not going to happen though. While Democratic presidents like Clinton can quite easily get appointed liberal feminist pro-abortion extremists like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the GOP doesn't have the nerve to push someone like Moore. Not yet anyway. Maybe if they have 60+ Senators in 2006 they might...

That's the thing about Bush. He doesn't have the strength of his convictions. He needs to be careful though. The Republicans won this election because of the evangelical support they received. Nothing less than someone who opposes abortion is acceptable when a Supreme Court vacancy arises. But Moore is not the one, just too controversial.

One small part of the monument was a part of christianity.

indeed. only those huge prominently placed stone tablets on the top of it - which were the focal point of the entire thing and the only bit you could read without crouching down - had to do with christianity. and the quoting of the 1950's era unconstitutional addition to the pledge. and a whole bunch of other references to the christian god that covered the rest of it. that certainly isn't showing favoritism or anything...

Well because planting the 10 commandments in a court house is an endorsement of one Religion.

That jackass was asked hey lets make a reference to the other Relgions since they have a play as well and he said absolutly not!

Also, he had it done in the middle of the night without notice....
Ah, but it isn't an act of Congress, it doesn't create a state religion, and it isn't a law. Therefore, by the elements of the law, it is not in violation of the Constitution to post such a monument.

Ah, but it isn't an act of Congress, it doesn't create a state religion, and it isn't a law. Therefore, by the elements of the law, it is not in violation of the Constitution to post such a monument.

Actually it is. The fact it appears on State property is an endorsement. Especially if other Religions are overtly denied access.

If the Jackass had planted the 10 commandsments with a couple other Relgions then the ACLU would have nothing to argue. The fact they would only the 10 commandments is why they lost.

No, you are wrong. It was not an endorsement of religion. One small part of the monument was a part of christianity. Perhaps if you were not so rabidly anti-christian, you would not be blinded by your own bogotry. THis was a monument to law. Face it.
Dude--you don't know shit about me, and if you were as christian as you seem to be claiming you are, you wouldn't be so hasty as to pass judgment on me.

Furthermore, which God was it that Mason and Jefferson and Jay and all the others were referring to when they connected the laws of nature and the laws of God? Allah? Brahma? Vishnu? Yahweh? Any god but the Christian one? Give me a break. Moore himself argued that the Alabama constitution required recognition of the christian god--no other god, just the Christian one.

And for the record, I am certainly not anti-Christian. I think that if you want to preserve the sanctity of the church and faith in general, you need to keep it separate from the secular influence of the state and the corrupting influence of political power. Where Christianity has gone horribly wrong is when it seeks power over the temporal world instead of staying involved in the betterment of the human spirit.

It's not going to happen though. While Democratic presidents like Clinton can quite easily get appointed liberal feminist pro-abortion extremists like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the GOP doesn't have the nerve to push someone like Moore. Not yet anyway. Maybe if they have 60+ Senators in 2006 they might...

Where do you get the idea that Ruth Bader Ginsberg is a "feminist pro-abortion extremist"? Ruth Bader Ginsberg is pro-choice, but what makes her an extremist? Or are you simply defining all pro-choice people, regardless of their views on other issues, as "extremists"?