O'Connor resigns - Let's Get Judge Roy Moore IN!!!

I just suggested this in another thread.
Tom

 

I'd like to see that. Just imagine how Howard Dean would react!

 

Roy Moore had to bring in Gods word at the cloak
of midnight under the cover of darkness...that in
and of itself told me a lot about the guy ...Gods
word does not need to be snuck in or sneaked through...It is the light and deserves the light.
You are free to exalt him but count me out!

 

I would support him simply because the Democratic party hates him.

 

The Bush administration does not like Judge Roy Moore, even if they got millions of request like LE's, I'm afraid they would be falling on deaf ears.

 

Oh....oh...can I state my opinion? Please? Please?

 

Go ahead, KJ.

 

How would you feel about a Judge who fits the following:

Appointed to the Federal Courts by Ronald Reagan.
Baptist Deacon.

Decisions reached: Tannahill vs Lockey Independent School District.

Case Highlights: LISD decided to force all students to undergo mandatory drug testing, stating students whose parents did not sign the consents to the testing would be considered "in poor standing" and unable to participate in school events.

Court Ruling: The "just cause" to search is a basic constiutional right. The school district cannot demand students submit to drug testing without first producing evidence of reason for suspicion.

Buster Welch, et al; Against the US Air Force.

Background: Welch and other farmers around certain air force bases, including farmers who have landing strips on their property, sued the Government claiming that the noise from the local airbase was having a negative environment impact on their livestock.

Ruling: The farmers exaggerated their claims of damage. They had originally insisted the bomber crews were frightening endangered species, but when the Air Force asked them to identify habitates of the endangered species the farmers could not. The Farmers also failed to proof financial damage due to the noise. Ruling against the farmers.

Case: Defendant Timothy Joe Emerson ("Emerson") moves to dismiss the Indictment against him, claiming that the statute he is prosecuted under, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), is an unconstitutional exercise of congressional power under the Commerce Clause and the Second, Fifth, and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Emerson’s Motion to Dismiss.

Background: BACKGROUND

On August 28, 1998, Emerson’s wife, Sacha, filed a petition for divorce and application for a temporary restraining order in the 119th District Court of Tom Green County, Texas. The petition stated no factual basis for relief other than the necessary recitals required under the Texas Family Code regarding domicile, service of process, dates of marriage and separation, and the "insupportability" of the marriage. The application for a temporary restraining order—essentially a form order frequently used in Texas divorce procedure—sought to enjoin Emerson from engaging in various financial transactions to maintain the financial status quo and from making threatening communications or actual attacks upon his wife during the pendency of the divorce proceedings.

On September 4, 1998, the Honorable John E. Sutton held a hearing on Mrs. Emerson’s application for a temporary restraining order. Mrs. Emerson was represented by an attorney at that hearing, and Mr. Emerson appeared pro se. Mrs. Emerson testified about her economic situation, her needs in the way of temporary spousal support and child support, and her desires regarding temporary conservatorship of their minor child.

During the hearing, Mrs. Emerson alleged that her husband threatened over the telephone to kill the man with whom Mrs. Emerson had been having an adulterous affair. However, no evidence was adduced concerning any acts of violence or threatened violence by Mr. Emerson against any member of his family, and the district court made no findings to that effect. Furthermore, the court did not admonish Mr. Emerson that if he granted the temporary restraining order, Mr. Emerson would be subject to federal criminal prosecution merely for possessing a firearm while being subject to the order.


CONCLUSION

Because 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) violates the Second and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Court GRANTS Emerson's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment. A judgment shall be entered in conformity with this opinion.

University free speech zones were ruled unconstitutional last week by U.S. district judge ...... (The background. A Christian asked to speak against homosexuality at a State Owned University. The University said, "Okay, but ONLY in the "free speech zone." A small area tucked away from the main traffic of the University. To speak IN the free speech zone you had to have the approval of the schools Studetn Affairs office. They refused the permit to the kid. The Christian sued, saying, "You don't require gays to stay in that one area, you shouldn't require others to." )

The ruling basically said, freedom of speech cannot be "over ridden" by zoning it out of existence or "permiting" it out of existence and the right to free speech overrides that kind of thing. The ruling came down as, "Freedom of speech must not be limited."

 

I could not support someone for SCOTUS who was kicked off his bench for refusing to honor the direct order of a federal court. An honorable judge upholds the law and the courts, regardless of his or her personal feelings.

If Moore was nominated, I think you'd see the end of the government, and the beginning of revolution.

 

Stefan, thanks. I honestly don't know anything about this. I was just hopin to get a laugh. I am out of this post now cuz I really don't know about it.

 

In all seriousness, I would not favor the nomination of Roy Moore. I'd rather see a different justice. Even so, I'd rather have him than someone like Stevens or Ginsburg.

 

I agree with your idea, LadyEagle. Unfortunately, there is no chance it will happen.

 

I would prefer Luttig or Garza.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Moore as a Supreme Court Justice? What a great idea. But outside of Divine intervention, I don't really think it'll happen either.

 

This is from an email I recieved today from Howard Phillips:

Vienna, VA. "President Bush should nominate former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore to replace Sandra Day O'Connor in the U.S. Supreme Court", Howard Phillips, Chairman of The Conservative Caucus, said today.

"Sandra Day O'Connor's appointment by Ronald Reagan was a foreseeable disaster," Phillips continued. "As I pointed out in 1981, Mrs. O'Connor was a pro-abortion member of the Arizona State Senate and a liberal judge on the Arizona Court of Appeals. She was chosen because of her gender and a desire to attract to the GOP the support of feminists.

"Judge Roy Moore also has a track record. He is a rock-solid defender of the right to acknowledge God, a foe of sodomy and abortion, and a critic of the ‘legal positivism' embraced by David Souter, Anthony Kennedy, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Steven Breyer.

Phillips concluded: "Roy Moore is the best choice that President Bush could make."

 

Anyone out there doesn't think that Bush has been working on this for a couple of years and that the fix is in?