Roy Moore - Man of the Year

Pages

I really enjoyed this article, and thought it was well thought out and insightful.

Roy Moore - Man of the Year

Uttering the standard liberal cliché a few years ago, Richard Reeves described "representatives of the new South" as "Republicans of old Puritan definition, righteous folk afraid that someone, somewhere, is having fun." (I'll skip the context of Reeves' insight, except to note that apparently aging liberals view sodomy with the chubby intern in the back office as "having fun.")

Like all beliefs universally held by liberals, Reeves's aphorism is the precise opposite of the truth.

It's the blue states that are constantly sending lawyers to the red states to bother everyone. Americans in the red states look at a place like New York City"”where, this year, the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade featured a gay transvestite as Mrs. Claus"”and say, Well, I guess some people like it, but it's not for me.

Meanwhile, liberals in New York and Washington are consumed with what people are doing in Alabama and Nebraska. Nadine Strossen and Barry Lynn cannot sleep at night knowing that someone, somewhere, is gazing upon something that could be construed as a religious symbol.

Ten Commandments

It's never Jerry Falwell flying to Manhattan to review high school graduation speeches, or James Dobson making sure New York City schools give as much time to God as to Mother Earth, or Pat Robertson demanding a crèche next to the schools' Kwanzaa displays. (Is it just me, or is Kwanzaa becoming way too commercialized?)

But when four schools in southern Ohio have Ten Commandments displays, sirens go off in Nadine Strossen's Upper West Side apartment. It will surprise no one to learn that the ACLU promptly sued and the schools are now Ten Commandments-free.

From the Chelsea section of Manhattan, the gay executive director of the ACLU, Anthony Romero, tossed and turned all night thinking about the Ten Commandments display on the Elkhart, Ind., Municipal Building, which had been there, without incident, since 1958. The ACLU sued and the monument was hauled off.

In Ohio, Richland County Common Pleas Judge James DeWeese had a framed poster of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. The ACLU sued and the Ten Commandments came down. Compare that to the late New York judge Elliott Wilk, who famously displayed a portrait of Communist revolutionary Che Guevara on his office wall. (Che, Castro, Hussein"”evidently the only bearded revolutionary these people don't like is Jesus Christ.) And yet, no one from Ohio ever sued Wilk.

The ACLU got word of a Ten Commandments monument in a public park in Plattsmouth, Neb. (pop. 7,000), and immediately swooped in to demand that the offensive symbol be removed. Not being from New York, the people of Plattsmouth didn't want to litigate. Soon cranes were in the park ripping out a monument that had sat there, not bothering anyone, for 40 years.

ACLU busybodies sued Johnson County, Iowa, demanding that it remove a Ten Commandments monument that had been in a public courtyard since 1964. Within a year, the 2,500-pound granite monument was gone.

Moore Didn't Fold

Barry Lynn's "Americans United For Separation of Church and State" sued little Chester County, Pa., demanding that it remove a Ten Commandments plaque that has hung on the courthouse wall since 1920.

The alleged legal basis for removing all of these Ten Commandments monuments is the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. That clause provides: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The vigilant observer will note instantly that none of the monuments cases involve Congress, a law, or an establishment of religion.

Monuments are not "laws," the Plattsmouth, Neb., court-house is not "Congress," and the Ten Commandments are not a religion. To the contrary, all three major religions believe in Moses and the Ten Commandments. Liberals might as well say the Establishment Clause prohibits Republicans from breathing as that it prohibits a Ten Commandments display. But over the past few years, courts have ordered the removal of dozens of Ten Commandments displays.

Only the attack on Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's Ten Commandments got national attention. And it was a newsworthy event: When liberals attacked, Moore didn't fold.

The ACLU began its onslaught against then-Etowah County Circuit Court Judge Moore in 1995, when an ACLU lawyer, apparently depressed that he was not chosen to play Mrs. Claus in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade that year, wrote a letter to all the state judges in Alabama protesting their practice of having a prayer in the courtroom every few weeks. (Obviously you can't have prayer in court: It might distract all the people holding their hand over a Bible and swearing before God Almighty to tell the truth.)

Everything had been going just fine in Alabama"”no defendant had ever complained about the practice"”but upon receiving a testy letter from the ACLU, all the other Alabama judges immediately ceased and desisted from the foul practice of allowing prayer in court. Judge Moore did not.

ACLU Bullying

For resisting the ACLU's bullying, Moore became High Value Target No. 1. Soon the ACLU and their ilk were filing lawsuits and anonymous ethics complaints against Moore. The ACLU, along with the Southern Poverty Law Center, sued Moore for having a Ten Commandments plaque in his courtroom. (Poverty had been nearly eliminated in the South until a poor person happened to gaze upon Moore's Ten Commandments"”and then it was back to square one.)

Another judge found that the Ten Commandments plaque violated the 1st Amendment. Apparently, in a little-noticed development, Judge Moore had become "Congress," his Ten Commandments plaque was a "law," and the plaque established a national religion. The Taliban had better legal justification to blow up centuries-old Buddha statues in Afghanistan.

The then-governor of Alabama, Fob James, responded to the inane ruling by saying he'd send in the Alabama National Guard if anyone tried to take down Moore's Ten Commandments.

That's all it took. The Alabama Supreme Court backed off from a confrontation with the governor by dismissing the ACLU's suit on technical grounds.

James went on to reelection as governor, and Moore won election as chief justice of the state Supreme Court. Liberals reacted to the overwhelming popularity of the state officials who resisted the ACLU by accusing them of stirring up the Ten Commandments dispute as a publicity stunt. The president of the Alabama ACLU said "the whole thing is political" and the officials were using it as an election issue. The ACLU sued, and for not surrendering immediately, Moore and James were media-whores.

Inasmuch as the Ten Commandments turned out to be extremely popular nationwide, claiming Moore was a publicity hound became the left's rallying cry. As Time magazine described Judge Moore's wily ploy: "Sessions of Congress open with prayer, the attorney general holds prayer meetings each morning in his office, the Supreme Court routinely asks that 'God save the United States and this honorable court.' All that seems required for such conduct to persist unchallenged is not to call attention to it." (Emphasis added.)

Just don't call attention to it? That strategy didn't work out so well for Johnson County, Iowa; Plattsmouth, Neb.; Elkhart, Ind.; and dozens of other towns, schools and courthouses across the nation that have been forced over the last few years to remove their Ten Commandments displays.

Yet according to Time, Judge Moore has been on a "crusade" since"”in Time's own words"”"he defended his right to display" the Ten Commandments. Thus, the magazine continued, "it should have surprised no one" when Moore installed the Ten Commandments monument in the courthouse lobby and "forced a showdown by refusing to remove it."

In other words, he defended himself from one ACLU lawsuit and then"”as if that weren't enough"”he did not instantly surrender when the ACLU filed a second lawsuit! That guy sure knows how to get publicity.

Indeed, Moore maintained his disagreement with the ACLU's interpretation of the Constitution as creating a universal ban on God right up until he was out of a job.

A lot of conservatives said Moore was wrong to refuse to comply with the court's idiotic ruling. Conservatives keep trying to play fair in the faint hope that, someday, liberals will play fair too. Note to conservatives: That will never happen.

The conservative argument for enforcing inane court rulings is that the only other option is anarchy. But we are already living in anarchy. It's a one-sided, Alice-in-Wonderland anarchy in which liberals always win and conservatives always lose"”and then cheerfully enforce their own defeats. Oh, you see an abortion clause in there? Okay, I don't see it, but we'll enforce it. Sodomy, too, you say? Okay, it's legal. Gay marriage? Just give us a minute to change the law. No prayer in schools? It's out. Go-go dancing is speech, but protest at abortion clinics isn't? Okie-doky. No Ten Commandments in the courthouse? Somebody get the number of a monument removal service.

What passes for "constitutional law" can be fairly summarized as: heads we win, tails you lose. The only limit on liberal insanity in this country is how many issues they can get before a court.

If a federal judge can issue an opinion premised on the finding that Chief Justice Moore is "Congress," why can't Moore, in his capacity as "Congress," tell the judge he's impeached? But we can't do that, conservatives say, because that's not really what the liberals mean. And if we don't give liberals everything they want, when they want it, it will lead to anarchy.

Apparently the only thing standing between a government of laws and total anarchy is the fact that conservatives are good losers. If we don't obey manifestly absurd court rulings, the argument goes, then liberals won't obey court rulings when they lose.

Point one: They almost never lose.

Point two: They already refuse to accept laws they don't like. They do it all the time"”race-discrimination bans, bilingual education bans, marijuana bans. If you don't let them win every game, they walk off with the football.

Liberals disagreed with the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore and consequently refuse to allow the President to appoint judges. (And consider that the media consortium recount has now proved that under any recount ordered by any court or requested by any party in Bush v. Gore, Bush would still have won Florida.) Texas Democrats fled rather than accept lawful re-districting. Frank Lautenberg entered the New Jersey Senate race after the deadline when it became clear the Democrats' lawful candidate was going to lose. Clinton openly perjured himself, hid evidence and suborned the perjury of others rather than obey court rulings. So we had better take down those Ten Commandments pronto"”otherwise liberals won't respect the rule of law!

The perfect example of liberal fair play comes from Chief Justice Moore's own case.

The great conservative attorney general of Alabama, Bill Pryor, openly disagreed with the court's ruling in the Ten Commandments case. But he said, as attorney general, he would have to enforce it. His nomination to a federal appellate court is still being blocked by Senate Democrats"”because, they say, he won't enforce laws he disagrees with. No way will they let Pryor through. So that's worked out well.

But someday, perhaps, liberal hearts will be warmed by conservative magnanimity and they will start playing fair, too. We've been waiting for that result for 40 years.

Of course, it's easy for me to say conservatives should start ignoring the unending barrage of inane court rulings: I am not a government official, so I don't have to do it. I don't even have to talk to liberals and I know how tiresome that can be.

But if I were a man rather than part of the frivolous, nonproductive chattering class, Roy Moore is the man I'd like to be. He lost his judgeship because he did what was right. He took an oath to uphold the Constitution, not to uphold whatever blather a liberal judge manages to put on paper. He followed the real law, not liberals' make-believe law. He put principle above his personal interest or comfort. He was actually brave"”and this is the only newspaper in the country that will say so. The Ten Commandments monument was removed, but this time, not without a fight.

Seems like a bunch of spin to conceal the basic fact of the situation. Regardless of whether you agree with the ruling or not, eventually every citizen has to submit to the rule of law.

Roy Moore refused.

I''m wondering what will happen if a political party formed around a non-christian religion should ever come into power in this country. If this was a muslim who had been disbarred for refusing to accept a ruling ordering he remove a monument to the Quran, would anyone who supports Roy Moore also support this hypothetical Ahmed Al-Moore and call him Man of the Year?

I seriously doubt it.

every citizen has to submit to the rule of law

For the benefit of our audience, could you please point out the law that Roy Moore broke?

Regardless of whether you agree with the ruling or not, eventually every citizen has to submit to the rule of law.

But the rule of law means that everyone has to follow the law, and the courts have stopped doing so. They are instead rewriting the law, which is outside their authority. At some point, they are going to come up against a state legislature or governor who is not a coward, and the path will turn back towards democracy or continue towards fascism.

If this was a muslim who had been disbarred for refusing to accept a ruling ordering he remove a monument to the Quran, would anyone who supports Roy Moore also support this hypothetical Ahmed Al-Moore and call him Man of the Year?

I seriously doubt it.

You''d be wrong in your doubts. This is a good illustration - just because you oppose someone based on your particular take on an issue, doesn''t mean that the rest of us can''t support him on principle. The federal courts, based on the Constitution have no authority to tell the State of Alabama or its public officials what displays they can have on their property. Period.

That would be the law against willfully disobeying a court order. Or were you under the impression that you''re allowed to pick and choose which court orders to follow?

Oh wait you probably think Republicans can right?

Okay...let''s take this a bit farther, since I wasn''t very clear. The Court has to have a specific law that it issues a court order to uphold. What law was the court order issued to uphold, that Roy Moore broke?

Like all beliefs universally held by liberals, Reeves''s aphorism is the precise opposite of the truth.

Laughable. So all beliefs held by liberals are the ""precise opposite of the truth""?

Americans in the red states look at a place like New York City"”where, this year, the Macy''s Thanksgiving Day parade featured a gay transvestite as Mrs. Claus"”and say, Well, I guess some people like it, but it''s not for me.

SURE they do. All those hyper-religious people in the ""RED"" states are saying it''s OK for you to do whatever you want in your own personal life, and not holding up signs that say ""GOD HATES FAGS"".

Meanwhile, liberals in New York and Washington are consumed with what people are doing in Alabama and Nebraska.

That''s funny. No, really. Consumed? I don''t think so.

That would be the law against willfully disobeying a court order.

No, what law did he violate that cause the court order to be issued?

Or were you under the impression that you''re allowed to pick and choose which court orders to follow?

Oh wait you probably think Republicans can right?

You''ll note that said monument is gone. No it''s Democrats who ignore the rule of law when it suits them. See illegal immigration, euthanasia, and medicinal marijuana for examples...

"ralcydan" wrote:

No it''s Democrats who ignore the rule of law when it suits them. See illegal immigration, euthanasia, and medicinal marijuana for examples...

Euthanasia and Medicinial Marijuana are legal in the states that are performing it.

SURE they do. All those hyper-religous people in the ""RED"" states are saying it''s OK for you to do whatever you want in your own personal life, and not holding up signs that say ""GOD HATES FAGS"".

No different than the nutjobs who hold up signs of George Bush with a Hitler moustache - and they get a lot more attention in the press.

Also, you don''t see people from Tennessee taking their God hates Fags and filing lawsuits in San Francisco, so there isn''t much of an analogy here.

That''s funny. No, really. Consumed? I don''t think so.

Some of them sure are, or they wouldn''t feel the need to keep bringing frivolous lawsuits in tiny towns 10 states away...

Euthanasia and Medicinial Marijuana are legal in the states that are performing it.

I note you didn''t try to defend the acts of cities and states when it comes to illegal immigration. However, these states are in violation of federal law. Based on your opinion in the 10 Commandments case, I would assume you think that federal judges should be allowed to overrturn these laws and lock up anyone who disagrees.

...and the courts have stopped doing so. They are instead rewriting the law, which is outside their authority. At some point, they are going to come up against a state legislature or governor who is not a coward, and the path will turn back towards democracy or continue towards fascism.

Ah I see so a judge imposing his religious preferences on the minority is doing nothing wrong, but the other judges who tell him to stop are the fascists? Interesting, but beside the point.

If you feel the judges interpreted the law wrong or are plain making things up, then work to either change the law and/or remove the judges within the system. You can''t just refuse to comply to court rulings because you don''t like them. That way lies anarchy.

If you feel the judges interpreted the law wrong or are plain making things up, then work to either change the law and/or remove the judges within the system. You can''t just refuse to comply to court rulings because you don''t like them. That way lies anarchy.

You''re dodging the question. What law was Moore in violation of, that caused the court to issue its order?

Ah I see so a judge imposing his religious preferences on the minority

From Dictionary.com:

Impose:
1. To establish or apply as compulsory; levy: impose a tax.
2. To apply or make prevail by or as if by authority: impose a peace settlement. See Synonyms at dictate.
3. To obtrude or force (oneself, for example) on another or others.

What Moore did was ''Display''. Also from Dictionary.com:

Display:

1. To give evidence of; manifest.
2. To exhibit ostentatiously; show off.

If Moore ''imposed'', he would have forced people in his court to swear allegiace to Christ, or profess that they were born again Christians, etc.

Moore ''displayed'' a carving of the Ten Commandments, which isn''t even uniquely Christian.

To use Belt''s examples: Redneck bigots ''display'' signs saying ""God Hates Fags"". The ACLU ''imposes'' their belief that the Ten Commandments are offensive by having them forcibly removed.

Either way...what was the law that Moore broke again?

Sorry, I stopped reading here:

""Like all beliefs universally held by liberals, Reeves''s aphorism is the precise opposite of the truth.""

"LeapingGnome" wrote:

Sorry, I stopped reading here:

""Like all beliefs universally held by liberals, Reeves''s aphorism is the precise opposite of the truth.""

It''s usually never a good idea to insult the audience you are attempting to persuade.

I''m not the one dodging anything here. He disobeyed a court order, whether you agree with him or not, or think the order was based on bad judicial process is utterly irrelevant. If you''re ever in front of a judge who orders you to do something, see what happens if you say ''No''.

It''s usually never a good idea to insult the audience you are attempting to persuade.

I doubt the author was under the mistaken belief that people who hold tightly to opinions diametrically opposed to reality can be persuaded...

I''m not the one dodging anything here. He disobeyed a court order, whether you agree with him or not, or think the order was based on bad judicial process is utterly irrelevant. If you''re ever in front of a judge who orders you to do something, see what happens if you say ''No''.

So you agree that Judge Moore violated no law that would require a court to pass judgement on his actions.

I''m not the one dodging anything here. He disobeyed a court order, whether you agree with him or not, or think the order was based on bad judicial process is utterly irrelevant.

Okay, then indulge me. What law was the court enforcing? Moore objected to following the court order because he stated (correctly) that the Federal court had no jurisdiction in this matter.

The court order was eventually enforced. So, what law was it enforcing?

I doubt the author was under the mistaken belief that people who hold tightly to opinions diametrically opposed to reality can be persuaded...

Maybe you should take his advice.

Maybe you should take his advice.

Rat, I''ve actually reduced you to the point where you are offering no argument other than ""Shut up!"". This is a sad day indeed.

No, I''ve read your arguments and responded to them lately with as much time and effort they deserve.

So you agree that Judge Moore violated no law that would require a court to pass judgement on his actions.

In no way. But I never came in arguing the (in)validity of his actions. I only pointed out that IMO there''s no way a liberal or non-christian in a similar position of publically disobeying a court order would ever be labelled ''Man of the Year'' and hailed by conservatives.

You and Johnny want to force me into an argument over why you think Moore''s actions were entirely appropriate. But since I think he has purposely engineered the whole controversy for political gain and couldn''t give a whit about the 10 commandments, I really have little interest in debating it with you both. It''s certainly not going to change any of our minds.

What I find interesting about the way this thread has moved is that there are a number of people who seem unwilling to finish reading the article.

So, let me direct the conversation a bit.

1) Can anyone find anything in the Constitution that supports the examples of the ACLU having the Ten Commandments removed?

2) If you disagree with the author''s assessment that only liberals seem to travel in an effort to litigate their crusade in states that find no offense in these ''offensive displays'', can you point out a countering examples of conservatives travelling to litigate in another state?

3) Does anyone here argue that the courts haven''t become too powerful? Does anyone think that the current trend of judicial activism is a good thing?

4) Like him or not, Moore stood up for what he believed in. In today''s ''whatever''s easiest'' an instant gratification society, I personally think that is worthy of respect.

You and Johnny want to force me into an argument over why you think Moore''s actions were entirely appropriate. But since I think he has purposely engineered the whole controversy for political gain and couldn''t give a whit about the 10 commandments, I really have little interest in debating it with you both. It''s certainly not going to change any of our minds.

In other words, ""I was really just trying to make a dig against you guys. Why do you have to be mean and point out that I don''t know what I am talking about?""

More like ""I''d like to state my own opinion without Ralcydan putting words in my mouth.""

But of course that''d be too much to hope for.

No, I''ve read your arguments and responded to them lately with as much time and effort they deserve.

Please don''t get the impression I was complaining. I greatly enjoy your current level of participation.

I only pointed out that IMO there''s no way a liberal or non-christian in a similar position of publically disobeying a court order would ever be labelled ''Man of the Year'' and hailed by conservatives.

Give me an example, and let''s see if you''re right.

But since I think he has purposely engineered the whole controversy for political gain and couldn''t give a whit about the 10 commandments

So you think that Moore conspired with the ACLU to bring a lawsuit against himself for political gain? Or do you think that since he had reached the highest office for a judge in the state, he is shooting for more?

Trying to guess where you are going with this, I suppose I could see how you would think. Moore won the previous lawsuit with the ACLU and rode the wave into the highest judgeship in Alabama. You think he is going for Governor, so he purposefully put in a bigger display to draw further lawsuits from the ACLU, assuming he would win and it would catapult him into the Governor''s mansion. Sounds plausible.

Of course, even if that were his motivation, it doesn''t change the fact that he was, and is, right about the legal matters. He broke no law. There is no legal justification for the removal of the plaque. And the Federal Court has no jurisdicition over that display.

More like ""I''d like to state my own opinion without Ralcydan putting words in my mouth.""

Or (to put words in your mouth), ""I''d like to state my own opinion, but without being asked any pesky questions which might make it painfully clear that I can''t support said opinion.""

But of course that''d be too much to hope for.

Apparently so.

There is no legal justification for the removal of the plaque. And the Federal Court has no jurisdicition over that display.

If it''s really that cut and dried, then please explain to me why the Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal? You seem so certain about it, so tell me why they didn''t just take the case and say the ruling was illegal or that the court had no jurisdiction?

Pages