OK, so let me get this straight: the moron is not disbarred (yet), but he was fired from the job as Chief Justice and therefore is not that anymore, but he’s also no longer a judge at all?
And Milum, I think you’d be happier with the Pit thread on this.
This was posted on Fark.com
I can’t find a cite to corroborate this but would love to see one!
I just got cited, and as an authoritative source of info! Too cool, rjung.
people are always complaining about the “homosexual agenda” whateve rit is, and now this thing is called Christian Supremicist views".
I would like to know what that entails, being a Christian, I haven’t been told I have any “supremicist” views or agenda.
Sure thing** rjung**, glad to oblige. I’ll take it slowly so that everyone here can follow the associations.
The wording of the United States Constitution and the Amendments delimits the the intercourse between the government and the people governed. No other parameter of devise can augment or supersede the meaning of the wording within this fundamental document other than an additional amendment.
No twist of semantics can a sane man find in the US Constitution and attendant Amendments a single sentence that prohibits Former Chief Justise Roy Moore from putting his obsequiously tacky monument in the rotunda of the Hall of Justice in Montgomery.
Yet the Federal Court of Apeals ordered the monument removed.
Judge Moore refused to remove the momument and appealed their ruling to the US Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court refused a hearing of the decision.
The Federal Court ordered the Alabama State Attonery General to remove the monument from the rotunda or else go to jail and pay ever ballooning fines.
He removed the monument.
A panel of state Judges removed Chief Justice Roy Moore from his elected job as Chief Justice of the state of Alabama for refusing to obey the order of the Federal Court.
Today we have a crisis within our judicial system. Laws are being made by Judges who do not obey the the obligatory rule of the semantics of our laws. Other than our constitution what else, I ask, is there to protect the citizenry from the government?
**************** :eek: ***************
I dunno** Mehitabel**, I’ve been to the pit and this is more fun. Listen…
** Dinsdale** : So long asshole.
I hope your self martyrdom is rewarded by a rapid departure from the public conscience.
Mehitabel : OK, so let me get this straight: the moron is not disbarred (yet), but he was fired from the job as Chief Justice…?
Jeevmon :If you’re going to post in Great Debates, you could make at least an attempt to act as though you had the slightest scintilla of a clue as to what you’re talking about.
Heh, yeah, I’m well aware of the opinions of Alabammmitans and “rights”, like the “right” to have Jim Crow, the “right” to have slavery…
More Dogface : He can join that other “great” Bammie guvnuh: “Segregation now, segregation forevah!” What a proud heritage Bammieland has.
minty green : The man is no Christian. He’s just a media whore.
Etc…
What class! What eloquence! What * modèle de la rhétorique* ! What fun! No no ** Mehitabel** thanks anway but the people here are much more mature and refined than those uncouth gassers that you meet in the Pit. 
I do hope the omission of the letter “r” from the bolded text was inadvertent.
stpauler quoted:
Moore was not removed for acknowledging God. He was justly removed for defying a court order. End of story. Whether or not you agree with his stance is irrelevant.
He knew the consequences of his actions. Let him live with them.
Moore did not remove the monument, it was removed for him, over his objections.
I guess free speech only protects speech, if I WRITE something you don’t like, the government can prevent me, as long as I’m not a member of the press… right?
Why no, kaylasdad99, the omission of the letter “r” was not inadvertent. It was an amusement. Why?
Yes, that’s true, if you look at the situation with no peripheral vision, ththe court order was to remove the monument and he didn’t, but if you look at the reason the court was made one might find the irony there, at least I do.
Milum, what kind of a judge is this jerkoff when he refuses to acknowledge the rulings of the legal bodies superior to him? If he hadn’t gone out of his way to grandstand and had, you know, obeyed the law, this wouldn’t have happened. He willingly brought this upon himself.
The law is not supposed to have room for “peripheral vision.” It’s black and white. If you break it, you pay the price, regardless of what your opinion of the law may be.
If there’s an actual *fault *with the law, then the upper courts will overturn it. Until that day, whether or not you agree with it, while a law is in place, you must obey it, or be prepared to face the consequences.
I may believe that keeping the speed limit at 55 is ridiculous, but if I drive at 60 MPH, I’d better be prepared to pay the ticket. My personal objection to the speed limit is not an excuse for me to disobey the law.
Frankly, I don’t see any irony in praying before the judicial hearing. Perhaps it’s my regretable lack of “periperal vision” again. They were not defying a * court order* by praying.
I know that some Christians want to turn this into an “attack on God” but it just doesn’t fly. It’s simply a case of a man defying the courts and being punished for it, as well he should be.
Hmm, I guess I definitely disagree with you about this. The law isn’t black and white. THere wouldn’t need to be debates about the First and Second Amendments ad nauseum if they had been written in clear, definitive, inarguable black and white. The legal system DOES have peripheral vision. If someone is being brought up on charges, their prior record as an offender is admissible.
Irony is quid pro quo. The religion that possessed ex-Justice Moore to believe that he was doing the work of the lord is the same religion being invoked by the people who are ejected him. Yes, the situations are different but that doesn’t mean that I don’t see the irony as an atheist.
You start from the assumption that all that is necessary is to read the Constitution and all questions will be resolved - poof!
The law in this case is the Constitution of the US, plus all the court decisions regarding constitutional questions that involve religious activities by government officials in their official capacity.
You are hereby referred to them. Findlaw.com is a pretty good place to start.
And, since the Federal Court that ordered the monument removal followed the applicable precedents you can also find their justification for their decision, probably in the above cited web site. How do I know they followed the precedents? Well, the Supreme Court let their decision stand. Or does that also mean nothing to you?
Do you own damned research. Your opponents here are satisfied that the courts, both Federal and those of Alabama, acted properly so why should we bother to rejustify what those courts have already justified on their own?
**
This is not a Constitutional issue. This is about a man who defied a court order. Plain and simple.
**
Mitigating circumstances and prior bad acts are not the same as arguing that one’s beliefs exempt them from following the law. They may lessen a defendant’s punishment, but they don’t exempt him. Besides, criminal court (as in your example) is not the place to challenge the morality of a law. That’s for the higher courts to decide.
Not necessarily. I haven’t seen a text of the prayer. Did it specifically invoke the Christian God, or did they just ask for the assistance of the “Almighty” (or whatever euphamism)? Prayer to an unnammed deity is much different than that which mentions Jesus.
Nor do I see any irony in Christians sitting in judgement on this man. The judges may have been hard-core, fundamentalist “Bible-thumpers” and it still wouldn’t have mattered one whit. The * ONLY* question at hand, was whether he defied a court order, not the validity of his beliefs or their appropriateness in a public setting. All they were doing was what is legally required of them. Their personal philosophy has no bearing on the matter.
I agree. But the question goes beyond Roy Moores reasons, whatever they may be, for disobeying the federal court’s ruling. This confrontation against the power of our court system is of pivotal importance in the course of human events. The larger question is whether the words of our Constitution can protect a free people from an emerging theocracy of politically motivated judges, in effect, rule by judicial decree.
Meanwhile I wait patiently for a member of this board to give me a cite in our Constitution that would allow the Federal Judicial Branch of our government to take away from Judge Roy Moore his two ton granite rock.
Tic…tic…tic…tock…tock…tock…November…
December…2004…2005…2006…
Sigh, I never said this was a constitutional issue. I used the First and Second Amendments however to elucidate my point that the law is not black and white.
The law looks at enxtenuating circumstances, history and precedent. My point being is that law takes other factors in to make it’s decision which moves it even further away from the black and white that you’re seemingly clinging to.
Nor have I seen a text of the prayer (as I’ve stated before, I’m not even sure the prayer even happened, so this all circumspect.) I’d reckon however that were the prayer to have been done, it would have been Christian considering its venue.
The question that the board decided on was whether Moore violated the court order, correct. If the court order was about the way Moore parked his car in front of the court house, a secular incident with no religious promotion or attachment, no, the irony wouldn’t be there. Since Moore’s piousness dropped him in this quagmire, yes, I still see the irony.*
However, should the prayer never have happened or if it were a buddhist prior, I remove my flag from on top of Mt Irony for this one.
Now that** Mr. Simmons**, is a frightning concept.
Pray, Mr. Simmons, that we always question those who govern us , if not, then pray that we enjoy slavery.
Your posts get weirder and weirder. Why does it frighten you to hear that the Federal Court and the Alabama judicial panel have amply justified their decisions? And why should you be frightened to read the decisions to see what the justification is?
Way back you posted this: “We in Alabama dare defend our rights.”
I don’t know how you presume to speak for all citizens of Alabama. The Alabama Supreme Court suspended Moore for refusing to follow the court order. The Alabama Attorney General brought an action to remove him as Chief Justice and the Alabama Judiciary removed him from that office.
This may come as a complete shock to you but I think, and I daresay so do many others hereabouts, that those agents are at least as representative of the opinions of the citizens of Alabama and and are as capable of defending their rights as you are.
Your arguments tend to become tiresome.
I have to admit that as an Alabama born freethinker
Funny. I thought freethinkers had original opinions and disagreed with the majority.