Alabama Senate Special Election

[Col Hogan]

Thanks to Vox for making this point...

Note - Weiner and the Seattle Mayor aren't in office, and were not supported by the Democratic Party after their crimes became known.

Next.

The Democrat party never withdrew its support of the Seattle mayor after accusation #1, #2, #3, #4...

[BDKJMU]

Links?

Google is your friend.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... sexuality/

Watch him yourself

In this short excerpt, Moore says “homosexual conduct should be illegal” and calls it “immoral” and “detestable.” But the full face-off between Moore and Press is enlightening. Press keeps challenging Moore to explain what portion of the Constitution supports discrimination against gay Americans. Moore counters by contending that it was essentially unconstitutional for judges—including the Supreme Court—to overturn laws against sodomy. At one point, though, Moore notes that “you don’t find morality in the Constitution,” and then he proclaims, “We get our morality from the Holy Bible on which this nation is founded.” He denounces courts for having established a “right” to sodomy.

Of course, Moore goes straight to the bestiality argument. “Do you know,” he asks, “that bestiality—the relationship between man and beast—is prohibited in every state?” Press interrupts to ask if he is comparing homosexuality with bestiality, and Moore says yes: “It’s the same thing…It is a moral precept on which this country is founded.” Apparently, the founders established the United States to protect its citizenry from homosexuality and bestiality.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/14/politics/ ... index.html

Later in the same speech, Moore suggested God was upset at the United States because "we legitimize sodomy" and "legitimize abortion."

GOP Senate candidate Roy Moore has said he doesn't believe Obama is a natural-born citizen

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/22/politics/ ... index.html

Moore never said as you claimed "being gay should be illegal"

And never said "gays caused 9/11".

[Pwns]

Roy Moore gained his political favorability with that 10 commandments stunt. If he were just another hardcore social conservative no one in Alabama knew anything about then Strange probably wins the nomination.

[dbackjon]

Google is your friend.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... sexuality/

Watch him yourself

In this short excerpt, Moore says “homosexual conduct should be illegal” and calls it “immoral” and “detestable.” But the full face-off between Moore and Press is enlightening. Press keeps challenging Moore to explain what portion of the Constitution supports discrimination against gay Americans. Moore counters by contending that it was essentially unconstitutional for judges—including the Supreme Court—to overturn laws against sodomy. At one point, though, Moore notes that “you don’t find morality in the Constitution,” and then he proclaims, “We get our morality from the Holy Bible on which this nation is founded.” He denounces courts for having established a “right” to sodomy.

Of course, Moore goes straight to the bestiality argument. “Do you know,” he asks, “that bestiality—the relationship between man and beast—is prohibited in every state?” Press interrupts to ask if he is comparing homosexuality with bestiality, and Moore says yes: “It’s the same thing…It is a moral precept on which this country is founded.” Apparently, the founders established the United States to protect its citizenry from homosexuality and bestiality.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/14/politics/ ... index.html

Later in the same speech, Moore suggested God was upset at the United States because "we legitimize sodomy" and "legitimize abortion."

GOP Senate candidate Roy Moore has said he doesn't believe Obama is a natural-born citizen

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/22/politics/ ... index.html

Moore never said as you claimed "being gay should be illegal"

And never said "gays caused 9/11".

Your reading comprehension is as good as your fellow klansman Trump

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Real Americans are.

LOL!

WE ELECTED HIM!!!!!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[dbackjon]

Also TWICE removed from Alabama Supreme Court for failing to uphold the Constitution

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alabama-ch ... -marriage/


Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore’s defiance of federal court rulings on same-sex marriage violated judicial ethics, a disciplinary court ruled on Friday before suspending him for the rest of his term.

The punishment effectively removes Moore from office without the nine-member Alabama Court of the Judiciary officially ousting him. Given his age, he will not be able to run for chief justice again under state law.

Moore was found to have encouraged probate judges to deny marriage licenses to gay couples six months after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that everyone has a fundamental right to marry in all 50 states.

Moore vehemently denied that his administrative order was an act of defiance and said his personal beliefs had nothing to do with it.

The same panel removed the outspoken Republican in 2003 because he refused to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building. Voters later re-elected him as chief justice after he lost a race for governor.

This time, Moore sent an administrative order to the state’s 68 probate judges, maintaining that the Alabama Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ban remained in “full force and effect” despite the ruling from the nation’s highest court.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

It's totally OK for Moore to have his opinion on various things. He is a smart enough guy to separate his personal feelings and do the job ELECTED to do and follow the law.

Just like Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Eric Holder........

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

Also TWICE removed from Alabama Supreme Court for failing to uphold the Constitution

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alabama-ch ... -marriage/

I think he was actually UPHOLDING the Constitution on those two occasions. I think they were circumstances in which it was obvious that the US Supreme Court did NOT follow the Constitution in making its rulings. Moore's position was that he took an oath to uphold the Constitution and he placed the Constitution above the Supreme Court. If the Constitution clearly says one thing and the Supreme Court says something else, the Constitution should rule. Or if the Constitution clearly does NOT say something that the Supreme Court says it does, again, the Constitution should rule. The Constitution should control the Court rather than the Court controlling the Constitution.

I actually think we need for people to proceed according to that principle. One of the institutional checks on the Federal Judiciary's power is supposed to be just ignoring it when it is obvious that it didn't proceed according to the Constitution. We NEED for people, and especially people like Presidents and Federal Officials, to be willing to say "The Supreme Court has ruled but the Supreme Court obviously didn't follow the Constitution."

Having said that he hasn't been consistent. He has endorsed a religious test for public office and that is clearly and literally unconstitutional.

[Skjellyfetti]

He can disagree with the ruling - but, he has to follow the rulings of higher courts. He was kicked off the bench TWICE for refusing to follow court orders.

If he wants to fight it, he should do so in court... and, if he loses, he should comply with the court orders. It's really not hard. He was a fucking Judge.

What happened to "Rule of Law" Republicans?

[kalm]

Also TWICE removed from Alabama Supreme Court for failing to uphold the Constitution

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alabama-ch ... -marriage/

I think he was actually UPHOLDING the Constitution on those two occasions. I think they were circumstances in which it was obvious that the US Supreme Court did NOT follow the Constitution in making its rulings. Moore's position was that he took an oath to uphold the Constitution and he placed the Constitution above the Supreme Court. If the Constitution clearly says one thing and the Supreme Court says something else, the Constitution should rule. Or if the Constitution clearly does NOT say something that the Supreme Court says it does, again, the Constitution should rule. The Constitution should control the Court rather than the Court controlling the Constitution.

I actually think we need for people to proceed according to that principle. One of the institutional checks on the Federal Judiciary's power is supposed to be just ignoring it when it is obvious that it didn't proceed according to the Constitution. We NEED for people, and especially people like Presidents and Federal Officials, to be willing to say "The Supreme Court has ruled but the Supreme Court obviously didn't follow the Constitution."

Having said that he hasn't been consistent. He has endorsed a religious test for public office and that is clearly and literally unconstitutional.

Pretty sure we're not a theocracy, John.

[JohnStOnge]

Real Americans are.

LOL!

WE ELECTED HIM!!!!!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

No, "we" didn't. I think it's important to remember that the other major Party candidate got more votes. He got a lower percentage of the overall vote than Mitt Romney did.

We have a system and he won according to the rules of that system. But We, the People, did not elect him.

[JohnStOnge]

He can disagree with the ruling - but, he has to follow the rulings of higher courts. He was kicked off the bench TWICE for refusing to follow court orders.

If he wants to fight it, he should do so in court... and, if he loses, he should comply with the court orders. It's really not hard. He was a **** Judge.

What happened to "Rule of Law" Republicans?

I disagree with that outlook. To me the rule of law is the rule of the Constitution. And what do you do when it's clear that the Supreme Court is not following the Constitution. Do you take the position of following the Constitution or do you do what the Supreme Court says?

The Federalist papers, in assuring us that making the Judges couldn't be a threat pointed out that they had no power to enforce their judgements. That's part of the control on their power. At some point it is totally legitimate to say, "Ok. They've gone to far. We're not listening to them." That's how the idea that they could not be removed from office was sold to people who were to ratify the Constitution.

We have to get out of this thing of saying that what the Supreme Court says goes regardless of how absurd it is. If we don't do that we are essentially consenting to government by oligarchy.

A public official swears allegiance to the Constitution. If it gets to the point where the Constitution clearly says one thing and the Supreme Court clearly says something else, that oath requires that the Public official tell the Supreme Court to screw off.

If you say that what the Supreme Court goes no matter what, you are saying that a panel of unelected, life term officials who can't be removed from office rule with no accountability whatsoever. Whatever they say goes regardless of how absurd it is. Taking that position is insane.

Yet we have been taking it in this country for decades.

[HI54UNI]

Note - Weiner and the Seattle Mayor aren't in office, and were not supported by the Democratic Party after their crimes became known.

Next.

The Democrat party never withdrew its support of the Seattle mayor after accusation #1, #2, #3, #4...

Don't forget the support for Robert Byrd.

[BDKJMU]

Moore never said as you claimed "being gay should be illegal"

And never said "gays caused 9/11".

Your reading comprehension is as good as your fellow klansman Trump

=
Moore never said as you claimed

Thinks being gay should be illegal

Now go back and re read what he said. I'll give you a hint: "conduct". And "acts" is not the same as "being".

Thinks Gays caused 9/11

Nope. Never said “Gays caused 9/11”

Next time you want to claim someone said this and someone said that, you should try directly quoting them so you don't look like a dumbass.

[kalm]

Your reading comprehension is as good as your fellow klansman Trump

=
Moore never said as you claimed

Thinks being gay should be illegal

Now go back and re read what he said. I'll give you a hint: "conduct". And "acts" is not the same as "being".

Thinks Gays caused 9/11

Nope. Never said “Gays caused 9/11”

Next time you want to claim someone said this and someone said that, you should try directly quoting them so you don't look like a dumbass.

You're differentiating between conduct and being? Seriously?



I'd go easy with accusing others of being dumbases. You're sounding about as rational as Moore.

[BDKJMU]

=
Moore never said as you claimed

Now go back and re read what he said. I'll give you a hint: "conduct". And "acts" is not the same as "being".

Nope. Never said “Gays caused 9/11”

Next time you want to claim someone said this and someone said that, you should try directly quoting them so you don't look like a dumbass.

You're differentiating between conduct and being? Seriously?



I'd go easy with accusing others of being dumbases. You're sounding about as rational as Moore.

It's typical of gays. They'll totally overdramatize anything not pro gay rights agenda. Say (insert conservative here) is against gay marriage they change into ___________ hates gays or wants to make being gay illegal.

[kalm]

You're differentiating between conduct and being? Seriously?



I'd go easy with accusing others of being dumbases. You're sounding about as rational as Moore.

It's typical of gays. They'll totally overdramatize anything not pro gay rights agenda. Say (insert conservative here) is against gay marriage they change into ___________ hates gays or wants to make being gay illegal.

I listened to the interview. You should too.

Here's a hint: sexuality is part of the word.

But it's just the conduct that should be illegal.

[SDHornet]

Don't know anything about either candidate, but a McConnell backed candidate loss is a win for America.

[JohnStOnge]

I think he was actually UPHOLDING the Constitution on those two occasions. I think they were circumstances in which it was obvious that the US Supreme Court did NOT follow the Constitution in making its rulings. Moore's position was that he took an oath to uphold the Constitution and he placed the Constitution above the Supreme Court. If the Constitution clearly says one thing and the Supreme Court says something else, the Constitution should rule. Or if the Constitution clearly does NOT say something that the Supreme Court says it does, again, the Constitution should rule. The Constitution should control the Court rather than the Court controlling the Constitution.

I actually think we need for people to proceed according to that principle. One of the institutional checks on the Federal Judiciary's power is supposed to be just ignoring it when it is obvious that it didn't proceed according to the Constitution. We NEED for people, and especially people like Presidents and Federal Officials, to be willing to say "The Supreme Court has ruled but the Supreme Court obviously didn't follow the Constitution."

Having said that he hasn't been consistent. He has endorsed a religious test for public office and that is clearly and literally unconstitutional.

Pretty sure we're not a theocracy, John.

That is true. However, the Constitution does not say that a State court cannot have a 10 commandments monument on its grounds. Please tell me how a State Court having a 10 commandments monument on its grounds is the US Congress making a law with respect to the establishment of religion.

He was right when he said the Supreme Court wasn't following the Constitution in that case. Same with things like the Supreme Court saying the Constitution prohibits things like public school principals reading prayers over the intercom at the start of a school day, prayers being read over PA systems prior to public school football games, etc. None of that stuff is a violation of what the Constitution itself actually says. Also none of it violates what any reasonable person would say was intended at the time based on how Congress conducted itself very shortly thereafter with things like holding Christian Church services in the House chamber. With Thomas Jefferson attending them by the way. I mention that because of the way his words in a letter to the Duxbury Baptists were distorted and seized upon to justify what's been done. He would NEVER have countenanced the US Supreme Court telling a State Court it couldn't have a 10 commandments monument or telling a local school system its principals couldn't pray in front of their students. It's all a complete fabrication of the Federal Judiciary.

[Skjellyfetti]

The Constitution is very clear about federal judicial supremacy.

If state level courts determined for themselves what is or is not constitutional... It would be chaos. And we'd have a loose confederation of 50 states.

It was one of the major motivations behind the Constitution. Read Federalist 78. Without a federal judge states couldn't resolve conflicts between them. A state judge ignoring rulings of higher courts is not what the founders intended. It's the opposite.

[Jjoey52]

I was glad McConnell campaigned, he is the reason Moore won. Alabama hates McConnell more than Urban Meyer.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Baldy]

The Constitution is very clear about federal judicial supremacy.

If state level courts determined for themselves what is or is not constitutional... It would be chaos. And we'd have a loose confederation of 50 states.

It was one of the major motivations behind the Constitution. Read Federalist 78. Without a federal judge states couldn't resolve conflicts between them. A state judge ignoring rulings of higher courts is not what the founders intended. It's the opposite.

jelly quoting the Federalist Papers?

[kalm]

The Constitution is very clear about federal judicial supremacy.

If state level courts determined for themselves what is or is not constitutional... It would be chaos. And we'd have a loose confederation of 50 states.

It was one of the major motivations behind the Constitution. Read Federalist 78. Without a federal judge states couldn't resolve conflicts between them. A state judge ignoring rulings of higher courts is not what the founders intended. It's the opposite.

Not to mention:

SECTION 3

Religious freedom.

That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.

Alabama State Comstitution.

[Ibanez]

LOL!

WE ELECTED HIM!!!!!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

No, "we" didn't. I think it's important to remember that the other major Party candidate got more votes. He got a lower percentage of the overall vote than Mitt Romney did.

We have a system and he won according to the rules of that system. But We, the People, did not elect him.

We, the People, did elect him.

Actually, you the people. I didn't vote.

[Skjellyfetti]

jelly quoting the Federalist Papers?

I don't know if you're being sarcastic, but I do it all the time. Liberals tend toward Hamilton and conservatives tend toward Madison.
Though, you and JSO would probably prefer the Anti-Federalist papers on the whole.