.
 | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
General discussion
Extremist removed from office.
It's about time this loon was ousted. How much do we have to spend in time, money, and effort to get the inevitable to come about? The outcome of this episode was obvious from day one. This nut ought to be forced to pay the costs he's forced apon the people.
Dan
Discussion is locked
1 - 30 of 120 Posts
- Collapse
- Collapse -
Moore read comments Pryor made in 1997, defending Moore for displaying the Ten Commandments in his courtroom as a northeast Alabama circuit judge.
Isn't this the same Bill Pryor that Senate Democrats call a "dangerous extremist" and are filibustering his nomibation to the U.S. Court of Appeals?
I included the paragraph about Pryor's 1997 remarks so that I can note that he was a state legislator at the time, and as such, was not responsible for administering the law as it is written; now he is responsible, and he has faithfully complied with the rule of law - without regard to his personal beliefs.
Some "extremist", don't you think?
- Collapse -
He didn't have much of a choice. There was a federal court order to be enforced and contempt sanctions to be avoided. The article does not say how he would act if he were the federal judge on this case.
***
With Thompson threatening to fine the state $5,000 a day for defying his order, Pryor and Gov. Bob Riley refused to support Moore.
Both men are Republicans and self-professed conservative Christians who supported the monument's installation, but they said Moore was bound to obey Thompson's order.
***
- Collapse -
Hmmmmmmmmm. I didn't know there was 'a federal court order' and 'contempt sanctions' compelling him to file charges against Judge Moore. I thought those were concerned with the display of the monument, and that it had already been renewed.
You might want to check Yahoo news for the following quote apparently made today.
"Whether we agree or not with a court's decision, at the end of the day, when the courts resolve controversies, we respect those decisions," said Attorney General Bill Pryor, who prosecuted Moore.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=716&e=2&u=/ap/20031113/ap_on_re_us/ten_commandments
- Collapse -
My point was that, during the last two years of vitriolic appeals to naked fear and loathing, emotionally charged rhetoric and out and out lies, the Senate Democrats in charge of this effort - Daschle, Kennedy, Biden and the rest of the looniest left - would have us believe that these nominees were wild eyed radicals who had no respect for the rule of law. Attorney General Prior's remarks and actions give the lie to those allegations.
These nominees are men and women who will not legislate from the bench - something the left has no problems with when it's their judges doing it, which is the only way much of the left's agenda could earn the force of law, as they've been manifestly unable to obtain it through the legislative process...
- Collapse -
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore seems to be another from a growing list of hypocrites who have entered the public stage of late. Rush Limbaugh favors the war on drugs and harsh penalties until it is revealed that he is a drug addict himself. Then he prefers the kid glove treatment for himself...
Now we have a judge who has chastised and scolded many who have appeared in front of him for violating the law and he has issued harsh penalties for doing so. Then when he refuses to follow the laws of his state and federal government, as well as judicial orders from a federal judge and the federal appeals court, he feels justified in defying the law and court orders simply because this chief justice has placed himself above the law. How did anyone like Roy Moore ever become a Chief Justice in the first place? This is the typical do as I say, not as I do mentality running rampant in this country today...
Should his protesting supporters be considered unpatriotic since they support defiance of the law and the judiciary???
- Collapse -
>How did anyone like Roy Moore ever become a Chief Justice in the first place?<
He was elected.
>Should his protesting supporters be considered unpatriotic since they support defiance of the law and the judiciary???<
Let's all bow down and worship the judges while we suppress the first amendment.
- Collapse -
Let's all bow down and worship the judges while we suppress the first amendment. - Kiddpeat
LOL KP, I was only being sarcastic. In the not so distant past, those who disagreed and protested against GW's policies and agenda were labeled unpatriotic and un-American. Now we have another group that disagrees with a Federal Judge and the Federal Appeals Court. So to be consistent, if those who protest against GW and his misguided agenda are un-American and unpatriotic, then those who protest against a Federal Judge and the Federal Appeals Court should also be labeled...
I didn't think the label was valid before, nor do I consider it valid now. That is a Conservative tool to silence those who disagree with them. For some strange reason, it doesn't feel as good when the shoe is on the other foot...
- Collapse -
Blake, your dislike of people who you classify as Conservative, seems to show a bias in "fitting shoes".
On one hand, we had a Judge who disobeyed an order of the Supreme court. On another hand, we recently had a President who violated another legal rule, he lied under oath.
In both cases, the parties admitted what they had done. In both cases, there was a legal penalty for doing what they did. In both cases, taking them to task for what they had done and the question if there would be a penalty called for a formal, legal proceedure. In the case of that judge, the penalty of removing him from office was imposed by the legal body whose duty it was to decide that. In the case of that President, the legal body that had the power and duty to deal with that situation imposed impeachment. In the case of the President it was two-stage, the legal body who tried did not invoke the removal from office penalty that that impeachment allowed to be considered.
In both cases, there is an extended legal proceedure that was followed, by the letter. Neither was the judge penalized automatically as he was a Conservative, nor that President because he was a Liberal. In both cases the well laid out proceedures of the law were followed, even though they both took time and expense. Such is our system of laws.
However, in this case you appear wish to bring such words as "Conservative tool to silence those who disagree with them" into play as a political move. In the case of that President, didn't you also try to bring into play such assusations also as a political adgenda?
I again see an obvious political adgenda as the main point.
- Collapse -
Apparently you haven't been following this case very closely. The Supreme Court decided not to review this case since the original decision by the Federal Judge and the follow-up decision by the Appeals Court found that Moore had crossed way over the line of separation of church and state as set forth in the Constitution and Alabama State law. Chief Justices shouldn't be breaking laws. When they do, it invalidates our whole judicial system. Since Moore feels that he is above the law, he chose to ignore the decisions from both the Federal Judge and Appeals Court. As a result, he lost his high paying job and is likely to be disbarred. Even then, he will still be able to exercise his Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion...
On another hand, we recently had a President who violated another legal rule, he lied under oath. - J. Vega
Just recently, you were chastising DK for using the Nixon fiasco in his posts. You claimed that he had no right to use that since the episode is so old. Now you are here bringing up Clinton which has absolutely nothing to do with this case. Do you see any hypocrisy in what you said to DK and what you are doing here? Do you believe that Conservatives are the only ones who have a right to continually drag the trash issues of the other party into these discussions? Do you believe that there is a cut-off period where events that occurred prior to a given date are off limits and if so, what is that period???
Blake, your dislike of people who you classify as Conservative, seems to show a bias in "fitting shoes". - J. Vega
Aha, now we're getting to the root of the problem. You may not know or believe this, but I do not dislike people who hold Conservative views. I get very angry at mean-spirited, hateful, and intolerant people though...
Most of my local friends are Conservative and we get along just fine. I disagree with many of their views though, especially if they hold extremely radical Conservative views that I feel, if implemented, will do harm to this country and everyone I love. I'm sure my friends don't care for many of my views either. But that doesn't prevent us from being friends and getting along. It makes for some very interesting and intellectually challenging discussions as well...
- Collapse -
There is a big difference between Nixon and Clinton in the context that you mentioned, Blake. Nixon left office 30 years ago and has been "6 feet under" for a long time.
Bill Clinton was the perevious administration. We constantly saw him in action in the media working for his political party as recently as the California recall election. Bill Clinton is still an active player in the political arena, and his actions still have an effect on the vote. Although his "trial baloon" of mentioning the possibility of a change in the law allowing him to seek another term went over like the proverbial "lead baloon", his wife, the former First Lady and now Senator is also in active political play. Considering there has recently been a lot of talk about her entering the current Presidential race, I'd say what went on when both she and her then President husband lived in the White House is of current interest. When either her husband is working politically for her or another canidate or she is doing the same or running herself, I think that their former actions are worthy of consideration.
Bottom line: I expect both Bill and Hillary Clinton to continue to be active players in the political arena, have an effect on the vote, and therefore the country. I don't expect Richard Nixon to arise from the grave and do anything.
- Collapse -
Do you really expect people to forget history just because the players are all dead? Nixon felt that he was above the law and he chose to abuse his office and power to adversely affect the whole political process. The lie about oral sex with Monica doesn't even remotely compare to the abuses of Nixon. It doesn't make any sense to keep trashing Clinton while trying to convince others that Nixon is off limits. Nixon's abuses don't go away simply because he is dead and buried...
If we forget history, we are bound to repeat it. If we have anything to do with it, Nixon's abuses will never be forgotten no matter how hard you try to silence his numerous critics...
- Collapse -
So... Who show we follow as a role leader? Bill Clinton? A duck(Ha Ha)? And about Rush Limbaugh: At least he admitted his problem and is dealing with it. How many people admit it when they are in the wrong. Ummmmmm. How about... ALMOST NOBODY!!!! and one more thing, do you really know if Rush does/does not support the war on drugs? I'm kind of curious about the last point, please get back to me on that one.
- Collapse -
Hi, Sunstar.
Rush had previously opined on more than one occasion that drug users should be in jail... There were several links to such quotes on the old ZDNet version of the forum, but (alas) they're no longer available. Let's see if a search can find one quickly. Yes -- this is an admittedly anti-Rush site, but it has a number of the "tough on drugs" quotes from his radio and TV shows: What Rush Limbaugh Thinks About People Who use Drugs.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
- Collapse -
Hi Dave,
As I recall, the quotes were from 10 years ago, with three coming from one showdate. First off, it is absurd to equate painkiller addiction following being prescribed them with recreational use of crack and heroine. The portrayal of Rush as some moralizer anti-drug crusader is pathetically misguided.
Evie 
- Collapse -
The man stood up for what he believes in, God and His Word! A lot of people in Montgomery also agreed with him. I am tired of the atheists in our country forcing their beliefs on Christians! I applaud this man as not once would he deny what he believes! It is time more Christians stood up for their beliefs.
Glenda
- Collapse -
As with every other American, former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore has the right to believe in God and worship in any manner as he sees fit. But being a Chief Justice of Alabama, he also had to maintain the separation of church and state. Since he chose to try to combine the two, a move that not only violates our Constitution, but violates an Alabama law, he was in clear violation of the laws. When judges are allowed to violate the laws, our judicial system collapses...
Even though a federal judge and the federal appeals court ruled against him, former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore chose to ignore their rulings. The Supreme Court refused to intervene since it was a slam dunk decision. So former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore is no longer fit to serve as a Judge in any US state. He will probably be disbarred...
Roy Moore still maintains his right to worship God in any way he sees fit and he still has his right to freedom of speech. Roy Moore has lost nothing but his job and that loss was his choice...
- Collapse -
as you only see what you think, and no other point of view.
I don't believe our founding Fathers meant that God was not to have a place in our government, but that the law was put in to stop the State from having a government religion like England did and other countries have.
Glenda
- Collapse -
I think our Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they added the separation of church and state clause. This helps prevent theocratic governments like the Taliban in Afghanistan and Iran. Currently there are moves in Algeria, Pakistan, Egypt, Sudan, Turkey, and other Islamic countries to become theocratic forms of government...
When a government becomes a theocratic state, only those who believe in the religious views of the state have any rights. In the US, Freedom of Religion means that anyone can worship any religion they choose. Or they can choose to be Atheists. That is their right and freedom. If the barriers between church and state break down, those who don't belong to the government religion become second class citizens which defies the purpose of our existence...
We are a melting pot society with many forms of Christian and non-Christian beliefs. Unless we want our government to be more like the Taliban, then it is in everyone's interest to fight to maintain Separation of Church and State in the US...
with your beliefs, it is not even worth talking as you only see what you think, and no other point of view. - Glenda
Perhaps you suffer from the same problem? I can't remember you ever agreeing with anyone who you normally disagree with. You seem to feel that I have no right to my views. But most of your views make me cringe as well. So why should I ever agree with a point of view that makes my skin crawl???
- Collapse -
Maybe you should only talk to people who agree with you. If you're not interested in hearing alternative views, then you are wasting everyone's time, including your own. I suppose if you believe that you know everything and nothing else is relevant, then there is clearly no reason to listen to anything or anyone else. Unless you are God, it's your loss if you exclude everyone you disagree with from your life because you will miss out on so much and rarely learn anything new. But if that's what you want, then that is the choice you should choose...
- Collapse -
- Collapse -
Glenda,
I hope you find it worth talking to me.
The idea behind a strict interpretation behind the separation of church and state is that not only is a formally adopted state religion a danger, but favoratism shown towards a particular religion is a danger also. It may seem silly to make a federal case out of seemingly harmless activities, but there is no harm done by a camel's nose, either.
Dan
- Collapse -
as you only see what you think, and no other point of view.
I don't believe our founding Fathers meant that God was not to have a place in our government, but that the law was put in to stop the State from having a government religion like England did and other countries have.
I believe this is what I stated that the founding Father's DID NOT want a STATE religion because of the way they were treated in other countries and wanted Freedom of religion. Not NO religion. As usual Blake reads what he chooses to see, not what was written. I don't choose to get into discussions with Blake as he never see's anyone's point but his own and He has to be right! A discussion goes nowhere with him until he has beaten the door down with his arguments! I don't have the time to waste on him! I disagree with quite a few people here and usually just ignore what they believe, If it is something other than religion I might
even agree with them. I do not have a closed mind as Blake likes to portray, Just an utter contempt of him personally.
Glenda
CNET Forums
Operating Systems
Software
Electronics & Gadgets
Hardware
Tablets & Mobile Devices
General Help
Roadshow Autos
Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic