Poll: Judge Roy Moore leads competitors in runoff

[Madison320]

Well that's your right and I respect that. But I trust him because he's always been consistent. I might disagree with him and be annoyed at him some times, but he's not going to wake up tomorrow and start voting like a RINO.

I can see how attention seeking would turn you off. But to me that's the least of my worries in politics I just care about how someone's going to vote on legislation and where they are pushing the ball. Strange is the second coming of Lindsey Graham. Brooks is Sessions/Cruz/tea party lite, endorsed by Hannity, Lamar Smith, and Mark Levin. Moore is a devout evangelical with a high regard for defending the Constitution as he understands it. Seems to me Moore is the best thing we could realistically get out of this race looking at the polls.

Yuch, I'll just leave my ballot blank.

Btw what do you think about Trip Pittman? He's running for senate also and he's a legislator who supported Ron Paul.

I never heard of him but if he likes Ron Paul then he's probably worth voting for.

 

[William Tell]

Yuch, I'll just leave my ballot blank.




I never heard of him but if he likes Ron Paul then he's probably worth voting for.

I found this a while back.
http://theresurgent.com/trip-pittman...esponsibility/

 

[specsaregood]

Maybe if you heard some of his speeches. He reminds me exactly of this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzIs51GUVgg

So to back up your claim, you link to a clip of a comedy, fictional movie? Well that's about all I need to know.

 

[Madison320]

If having the 10 commandments in court makes a nation a theocracy we already are one, lots of times people swear oaths on the bible in court. I don't see why a monument is so controversial. The whole nation is going the opposite way, even if Roy was a theocrat he'd never accomplish anything like that. And considering the only thing he will have a chance to maybe accomplish is voting to shrink our out of control government I see exactly zero downside to electing him.

It was the way he did it, and the way he spoke (god this, god that, amen brothers and sisters). I don't get the sense that he even believes in god. To me it seemed like an act to get elected.

 

[Madison320]

So to back up your claim, you link to a clip of a comedy, fictional movie? Well that's about all I need to know.

It's an analogy. Duh.

I'll see if I can find some actual footage of the Judge for ya.


Here you go, AMEN BROTHER!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90M4DEuM0V8

 

[dannno]

He's also in favor of unconstitutional religious displays

I wasn't aware the Constitution prohibited religious displays

and ignoring court orders he doesn't agree with

Could be good, could be bad.

stemming from his effectively telling Alabama probate judges to ignore the U.S. Supreme Court's Obergefell decision and to refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

So he is pro states rights?

 

[AuH20]

Strange was a Never Trumper. This is the downside of Trump.

 

[Keith and stuff]

Strange was a Never Trumper. This is the downside of Trump.

Trump endorsed him, even though he is the worst candidate in the primary race. Sad.

 

[Madison320]

I wasn't aware the Constitution prohibited religious displays

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

I would argue that displaying a big monument with the 10 commandments in a courthouse is the first step in establishing an official religion.

Aren't judges supposed to be impartial? The whole thing stunk. What about the Christian group that payed for the monument? And they made a video of moving the monument and sold it. You don't think they might get preferential treatment? A judge should keep a low profile.

What if a muslim judge moved a statue of Muhammad into the courthouse and displayed the koran? And it was funded by a Islamic group? You'd be ok with that?

 

[Sonny Tufts]

I wasn't aware the Constitution prohibited religious displays

It does when you place the display in a government building with the explicit purpose (as Moore admitted) of acknowledging the supremacy of the Judeo-Christian deity.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, made binding upon the States through the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The question presented to this court is whether the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court violated the Establishment Clause when he placed a slightly over two-and-a-half ton granite monument--engraved with the Ten Commandments and other references to God--in the Alabama State Judicial Building with the specific purpose and effect, as the court finds from the evidence, of acknowledging the Judeo-Christian God as the moral foundation of our laws...

Based on the evidence presented during a week-long trial and for the reasons that follow, this court holds that the evidence is overwhelming and the law is clear that the Chief Justice violated the Establishment Clause. But, in announcing this holding today, the court believes it is important to clarify at the outset that the court does not hold that it is improper in all instances to display the Ten Commandments in government buildings; nor does the court hold that the Ten Commandments are not important, if not one of the most important, sources of American law. Rather the court's limited holding, as will be explained below in more detail, is that the Chief Justice's actions and intentions in this case crossed the Establishment Clause line between the permissible and the impermissible...

Both in appearance and in stated purpose, the Chief Justice's Ten Commandments monument is an "extreme case"; it is nothing less than "an obtrusive year-round religious display" installed in the Alabama State Judicial Building in order to "place the government's weight behind an obvious effort to proselytize on behalf of a particular religion," the Chief Justice's religion...

In the Chief Justice's understanding, the Judeo-Christian God is sovereign over both the church and the state in this country, and both owe allegiance to that God... The court appreciates that, as a matter of conscience, one may believe that the Judeo-Christian God is sovereign over the state. In fact, the court understands that it is just this type of belief that the Free Exercise clause and the Establishment Clause are meant to protect. Thus, the court stresses that it is not disagreeing with Chief Justice Moore's beliefs regarding the relationship of God and the state. Rather, the court disagrees with the Chief Justice to the extent that it understands him to be saying that, as a matter of American law, the Judeo-Christian God must be recognized as sovereign over the state, or even that the state may adopt that view...

The court appreciates that there are those who see a clear secular purpose in the Ten Commandments, for they command not only such things as "I am the Lord thy God" and "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me" but also, among other things, that "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal," and that we should "Honour thy father and thy mother." If all Chief Justice Moore had done were to emphasize the Ten Commandments' historical and educational importance (for the evidence shows that they have been one of the sources of our secular laws) or their importance as a model code for good citizenship (for we all want our children to honor their parents, not to kill, not to steal, and so forth), this court would have a much different case before it. But the Chief Justice did not limit himself to this; he went far, far beyond. He installed a two-and-a-half ton monument in the most prominent place in a government building, managed with dollars from all state taxpayers, with the specific purpose and effect of establishing a permanent recognition of the "sovereignty of God," the Judeo-Christian God, over all citizens in this country, regardless of each taxpaying citizen's individual personal beliefs or lack thereof. To this, the Establishment Clause says no. Glassroth v. Moore, No. 01-T-1268-N (M.D. Alabama 2002)

So he is pro states rights?

No, he's pro Roy Moore and thinks that his opinions are superior, as a legal matter, than those of the United States Supreme Court.

 

[William Tell]

I voted for one of these Champions. Wish I could vote for the other. Defend the Constitution August 15th, Alabama!

 

[r3volution 3.0]

If having the 10 commandments in court makes a nation a theocracy we already are one, lots of times people swear oaths on the bible in court. I don't see why a monument is so controversial. The whole nation is going the opposite way, even if Roy was a theocrat he'd never accomplish anything like that. And considering the only thing he will have a chance to maybe accomplish is voting to shrink our out of control government I see exactly zero downside to electing him.

My concern with Moore isn't his religious policy per se, but that he might focus on that to the exclusion of things that actually matter.

There's a similar problem on the other side, e.g. with Libertarians and pot.

Basically I have no interest in electing any more culture warriors, of any stripe.

Where are the politiques?

 

[William Tell]

My concern with Moore isn't his religious policy per se, but that he might focus on that to the exclusion of things that actually matter.

There's a similar problem on the other side, e.g. with Libertarians and pot.

Basically I have no interest in electing any more culture warriors, of any stripe.

Although I guess I can see your point I frankly don't think it holds up as an objection when you think about it. Yeah, the headlines Roy makes may be about his own priorities, but senators make thousands of votes. He's going to be on the right side of more of them than everyone but Rand and maybe Lee. Same thing goes for Libertarians and pot. Every legit statesman has pet issues. For Ron it was the Fed and wars, for Rand it seems to be NSA spying/privacy. If you were elected you'd have some pet issue, and it might not be mine but as long as you stand strong on most issues you will be an asset to the cause.

#Pragmatism

 

[Swordsmyth]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

I would argue that displaying a big monument with the 10 commandments in a courthouse is the first step in establishing an official religion.

Aren't judges supposed to be impartial? The whole thing stunk. What about the Christian group that payed for the monument? And they made a video of moving the monument and sold it. You don't think they might get preferential treatment? A judge should keep a low profile.

What if a muslim judge moved a statue of Muhammad into the courthouse and displayed the koran? And it was funded by a Islamic group? You'd be ok with that?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

It says nothing about anyone but congress (you could try to stretch it to encompass the state legislature), and it prohibits nothing but the making of laws to establish a religion. If the people don't like a cultural/religious display in a court house they can through the legislature or the ballot box seek to change the judiciary or prohibit the display, the Feds have no say whatsoever.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Although I guess I can see your point I frankly don't think it holds up as an objection when you think about it. Yeah, the headlines Roy makes may be about his own priorities, but senators make thousands of votes. He's going to be on the right side of more of them than everyone but Rand and maybe Lee. Same thing goes for Libertarians and pot. Every legit statesman has pet issues. For Ron it was the Fed and wars, for Rand it seems to be NSA spying/privacy. If you were elected you'd have some pet issue, and it might not be mine but as long as you stand strong on most issues you will be an asset to the cause.

#Pragmatism

Sure, but isn't that true of Brooks as well?

As I see it, Brooks is pretty much the same as Moore, but without the distracting culture war stuff.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

It says nothing about anyone but congress (you could try to stretch it to encompass the state legislature)

What you call a stretch has been the law for quite some time. Most of the Bill of Rights has been made applicable to the States via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

It never ceases to amaze me how some believers see no problem with government officials promoting a particular religious belief (as long as it's theirs, of course).

 

[Swordsmyth]

What you call a stretch has been the law for quite some time. Most of the Bill of Rights has been made applicable to the States via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

A prohibition against establishing a religion is not a "privilege" or an "immunity" held by a citizen, that would have to be phrased "the people shall not be subjected to an established religion", in any case I don't want the states to "establish" a religion either but that is a legislative function and distinct from placing a monument in a courthouse.

It never ceases to amaze me how some believers see no problem with government officials promoting a particular religious belief (as long as it's theirs, of course).

You never answered the rest of my comment, so I will repeat it.

It prohibits nothing but the making of laws to establish a religion. If the people don't like a cultural/religious display in a court house they can through the legislature or the ballot box seek to change the judiciary or prohibit the display, the Feds have no say whatsoever.

 

[Keith and stuff]

My concern with Moore isn't his religious policy per se, but that he might focus on that to the exclusion of things that actually matter.

There's a similar problem on the other side, e.g. with Libertarians and pot.

Basically I have no interest in electing any more culture warriors, of any stripe.

Where are the politiques?

William has the right to support any statist he wants! Sure he supports the anti-liberty candidate Moore, and that is fine. Just like he had the legal right to support Obama or Clinton. Just because his chosen candidate hates us and liberty doesn't matter. His rights come first!

Trip Pittman is the Ron Paul Republican, Mo Brooks is the only libertyish person with a chance, then there are the many anti-liberty candidates likes Moore. This is a somewhat free country (well, at least it is in New Hampshire), and people have the right to vote to destroy it!

 

[Sonny Tufts]

It prohibits nothing but the making of laws to establish a religion. If the people don't like a cultural/religious display in a court house they can through the legislature or the ballot box seek to change the judiciary or prohibit the display, the Feds have no say whatsoever.

The Establishment Clause means much more than that. As much as you may not like it, the real law regarding the Clause that will be applied by the courts (except, of course, by courts in Moore's theocratic fantasyland) is determined by the Supreme Court, subject to the Court's reversing itself or the Constitution's being amended. And a long line of SCOTUS decisions leads to the inescapable conclusion that no government, whether federal, state, or local, can promote a particular religions belief. As the Court of Appeals noted in affirming the ruling against Moore:

The First Amendment does not say that no government official may take any action respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It says that “Congress shall make no law” doing that. Chief Justice Moore is not Congress. Nonetheless, he apparently recognizes that the religion clauses of the First Amendment apply to all laws, not just those enacted by Congress. See Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 15, 67 S. Ct. 504, 511 (1947) (holding that the Establishment Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment). Even with that concession, his position is still plenty bold. He argues that because of its “no law” language, the First Amendment proscribes only laws, which should be defined as “a rule of civil conduct . . . commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong.” Brief of Appellant at 19 (quoting 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *44). Any governmental action promoting religion in general or a particular religion is free from constitutional scrutiny, he insists, so long as it does not command or prohibit conduct. The monument does neither, but instead is what he calls “a decorative reminder of the moral foundation of American law.” Brief of Appellant at 19. The breadth of the Chief Justice’s position is illustrated by his counsel’s concession at oral argument that if we adopted his position, the Chief Justice would be free to adorn the walls of the Alabama Supreme Court’s courtroom with sectarian religious murals and have decidedly religious quotations painted above the bench. Every government building could be topped with a cross, or a menorah, or a statue of Buddha, depending upon the views of the officials with authority over the premises. A crèche could occupy the place of honor in the lobby or rotunda of every municipal, county, state, and federal building. Proselytizing religious messages could be played over the public address system in every government building at the whim of the official in charge of the premises.

However appealing those prospects may be to some, the position Chief Justice Moore takes is foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent. County of Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 12, 109 S. Ct. at 3110, which held unconstitutional the placement of a crèche in the lobby of a courthouse, stands foursquare against the notion that the Establishment Clause permits government to promote religion so long as it does not command or prohibit conduct. Id., 109 S. Ct. at 3110 (“To be sure, some Christians may wish to see the government proclaim its allegiance to Christianity in a religious celebration of Christmas, but the Constitution does not permit the gratification of that desire, which would contradict ‘the logic of secular liberty’ it is the purpose of the Establishment Clause to protect.”) (citation omitted).

If you really want to know the applicable law in this area, please read the appellate court's opinion here: https://web.archive.org/web/20040112235506/http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/ops/200216708.pdf

 

[Swordsmyth]

The Establishment Clause means much more than that. As much as you may not like it, the real law regarding the Clause that will be applied by the courts (except, of course, by courts in Moore's theocratic fantasyland) is determined by the Supreme Court, subject to the Court's reversing itself or the Constitution's being amended. And a long line of SCOTUS decisions leads to the inescapable conclusion that no government, whether federal, state, or local, can promote a particular religions belief. As the Court of Appeals noted in affirming the ruling against Moore:



If you really want to know the applicable law in this area, please read the appellate court's opinion here: https://web.archive.org/web/20040112235506/http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/ops/200216708.pdf

Then nothing the government does is unconstitutional because the supreme court gives them permission?
I don't care what nonsense the supreme court has said in the past, Moore's actions were not unconstitutional and shouldn't be, we should all be fighting for a restoration of the constitution as it should be and I have proven what it has to say on this subject.