Okay, so what did Judge Roy Moore do wrong...

I would love to ask Moore this question;

"If appointed to the Supreme Court, would you expect other people to have a higher regard for the federal courts than you showed when you chose to ignore the federal court system?"

 

You know, I was just about to type that I agree with you folks who say a Supreme Court Justice has to obey the laws of the court when it hit me........

John Rutledge and James Wilson were both delegates to the Constitutional Congress, boht signers of the Declaration of Independence, both rebels, both traitors to their country (England), both Supreme Court Justices

So maybe God should matter more to the current Justice we elect than the "current law does", just as "freedom" mattered more to Rutledge and Wilson than "the current law".

 

For your post to have validity we would have to totally replace the Constitution.

Rutledge and Wilson have nothing to do with Moore unless he is the be a judge in some new government.

He cannot expect others to obey a court system that he will not obey.

 

The bottom line is that Bush is not going to nominate Moore regardless of great an idea it would be.

 

And for that I am grateful.

Hate to leave in the middle of such a fun debate - but it is bedtime over here.

 

I agree with you 100%.

That would be completely wrong. The highest standard a SCOTUS judge should adhere on rulings is the Constitution. Otherwise, we'd be a Theocracy.

 

So we should kick all former civil rights activists out of congress and judicial seats because they refused to obey a system they now expect others to obey?

Sounds like a case of whose ox is being gored. </font>[/QUOTE]Two wrongs do not make a right. I would oppose any federal court appointee who did not think that the federal courts need to be obeyed. </font>[/QUOTE]How about when the federal courts were wrong?

Are we now a nation that believes men should be ruled by men rather than law? Is a judge's opinion now simply to be obeyed because he holds an office rather than because it supports the Constitution? Is it more important to march lock-step than to obey conscience, conviction, and right?

Our founders were all considered traitors and criminals by their sovereign government. Thank goodness the American people didn't hold your opinion then.

 

Sorry - had to pop back in one more time.

So do you think liberals who disagree with Supreme Court rulings of which a future Jusitce Moore was a part should have the freedom to ignore them?

Judge Moore did not follow proper procedure. He should have obeyed the ruling and then fought it. His political grandstanding did no good for the cause.

I'll have to read your answer in the morning.

 

Depends on what their basis for disobedience was and for that matter the particulars of the case.

In the case in question, a judge created a law from the bench that isn't said nor implied by the documents he was supposedly basing his judgment on.

That would have been the pragmatic thing to do but sometimes good men must make a decision between doing what is more convenient and doing what they believe is right... if we are going to hold on to any semblance of liberty and justice.

FTR, I have some mixed feelings on it though my kneejerk reaction is to support such displays.

At the same time, I have to ask myself how I would like it if a Catholic donated an image of Mary that was promptly placed in the center of the Missouri Supreme Court.

I can say with certainty that if Americans would truly adopt a libertarian philosophy of the size and scope of government... I would have no problem restricting things like this from "public property"... of course, there wouldn't be a whole lot of public property as all of the schools and many of the services would be privatized.

 

ScottJ, I think you may have a misunderstanding of the timeline in Moore's case.

It wasn't the Supreme Court that was the issue at all, though the media made it seem that way.

When the issue first came to court, it was ruled that the monument had to be removed. At that time, Moore had the option of filing an appeal and asking for a stay of judgement until the appeal could be heard. This was a simple thing to do and the appeal would have almost certainly been granted.

Unfortunately, for reason that have never been given, Moore CHOOSE not to file the appeal. Instead he decided that civil disobedience was the way to go and simply defied the order.

At the last, he tried for a Supreme Court ruling, but because proper procedure's hadn't been followed they refused. Good for them! Even judges should have to follow the rules.

Somewhere around here is another thread which has links to the pertinant documentation on this case.

 

In all honesty, I agree with C4K. The law makers should not be law breakers. There are other ways to reward Judge Moore. Now, give the job to the justice I wrote about.

 

Just imagine if a Buddhist judge wanted a Buddha in the court.

 

If the majority of the population was Buddhist, then I wouldn't have a problem with that.

 

If memory serves, the argument was that the federal court had no jurisdiction in the matter. It would be like a Kansas City cop interpreting and enforcing laws in Dallas.

Did the federal court have jurisdiction in this matter? I don't want arm-chair legalists attempting to answer this question. I want someone who really knows.

If they didn't, the court was the rogue, not Judge Moore.

 

Let me see - does that make twice in our history we have agreed ?

Judge Moore blew his future. I agree with him on the constitutional reasons for his decision, but a Supreme Court justice cannot have a record of ignoring the federal courts. </font>[/QUOTE]That court had absolutely no business ruling in that case. Moore knew that, the nation knew that, but the left saw political gain in destroying Moore for standing for constitutional truth..

 

sorry, I see that many of you covered what I said, but better. I get excited about a thread and respond without reading it all. sometimes.

 

But that's the point. In our country, it is not pure majority rule. The rights of minorities are protected. This is important. If some day you are in a minority, Ken, you will appreciate this.

 

Let me see - does that make twice in our history we have agreed ?

Judge Moore blew his future. I agree with him on the constitutional reasons for his decision, but a Supreme Court justice cannot have a record of ignoring the federal courts. </font>[/QUOTE]That court had absolutely no business ruling in that case. Moore knew that, the nation knew that, but the left saw political gain in destroying Moore for standing for constitutional truth.. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, but it was not Moore's perogative to interpret the constitution differently than the federal court. By definition, his acts were a violation.

 

But that's the point. In our country, it is not pure majority rule. The rights of minorities are protected. This is important. If some day you are in a minority, Ken, you will appreciate this. </font>[/QUOTE]Excellent post!

 

Unfortunately, in our country, it is getting pretty close to pure minority rule.