Printable View
The poll found that Moore leads Strange 34-32, with 35 percent undecided, in a hypothetical runoff. A matchup between Moore and Brooks has Moore garnering 43 percent support to Brooks’ 20 percent, with 37 percent undecided.
A matchup between Strange and Brooks has Strange leading Brooks 42-22, with 36 percent undecided.
More at: https://www.conservativereview.com/a...tors-in-runoff
Go Roy Moore.
Brooks is the most pro-liberty of the 3. Trump endorsed Strange, the least pro-liberty of the 3.
Seriously? I live in Alabama. Roy Moore is an idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by William Tell
Maybe that's why William supports him? A lot of people voted for Trump not because they like him, but because he is entertaining.Quote:
Originally Posted by Madison320
Seriously. I'd trade you Ted Cruz for Roy Moore any day. Moore wants the government completely out of education and healthcare and he opposes unconstitutional wars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Madison320
He's also in favor of unconstitutional religious displays and ignoring court orders he doesn't agree with, both of which got him removed as from the Alabama Supreme Court in 2004. After he was subsequently reelected to the court he was charged with six ethical violations, all stemming from his effectively telling Alabama probate judges to ignore the U.S. Supreme Court's Obergefell decision and to refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses. The charges included:Quote:
Originally Posted by William Tell
1.Violation of the Alabama Canon of Judicial Ethics, for disregarding a federal injunction.
2.Violation of the Alabama Canon of Judicial Ethics, for demonstrated unwillingness to follow clear law.
3.Violation of the Alabama Canon of Judicial Ethics, for abuse of administrative authority.
4.Violation of the Alabama Canon of Judicial Ethics, for substituting his judgment for the judgment of the entire Alabama Supreme Court, including failure to abstain from public comment about a pending proceeding in his own court.
5.Violation of the Alabama Canon of Judicial Ethics, for interference with legal process and remedies in the United States District Court and/or Alabama Supreme Court related to proceedings in which Alabama probate judges were involved.
6.Violation of the Alabama Canon of Judicial Ethics, for failure to recuse himself from pending proceedings in the Alabama Supreme Court after making public comment and placing his impartiality into question.
On April 20, 2017 a special Alabama Supreme Court affirmed Moore's removal from the court.
Moore is a theocratic demagogue who thinks he's above the law.
Yeah. Those are other reasons I support him. We need someone to stand up to the fedcoats and he proved he has guts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts
I don't trust him as far as I can throw him. He's all politician. He filmed himself sneaking a statue of the 10 commandments into the courthouse, knowing it would cause a controversy and he wanted to make a name for himself. It's been awhile since it happened (2001?) so I can't remember all the stupid crap he did, but he was one of the reasons I quit voting for republicans after I moved to Alabama. Before that I used to vote libertarian and republican. Now I vote libertarian and leave the rest blank.Quote:
Originally Posted by William Tell
Spin it however you want, but the fact remains that Moore was removed for violating the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, which are state rules, not federal ones. As the Alabama Court of the Judiciary noted in its decision:Quote:
Originally Posted by William Tell
Moore could have disagreed with and fought against the adverse decisions in both the Ten Commandments and gay marriage cases, but he couldn't do so in a manner that violated his oath of office, and that's exactly what he did.Quote:
At the outset, this court emphasizes that this case is concerned only with alleged violations of the Canons of Judicial Ethics . This case is not about whether same-sex marriage should be permitted; indeed, we recognize that a majority of voters in Alabama adopted a constitutional amendment in 2006 banning same - sex marriage , as did a majority of states over the last 15 years . Moreover , this is not a case to review or to editorialize about the United States Supreme Court's June 2015 split decision in Obergefell v . Hodges , 135 S . Ct . 2584 (2015), a decision that some members of this court did not personally agree with or think was well reasoned. This court simply does not have the authority to reexamine those issues . This court convenes only "to hear complaints filed by the Judicial Inquiry Commission" as to alleged violations by judges of the Canons of Judicial Ethics adopted by the Alabama Supreme Court. See§ 157 , Ala . Const . 1901 (Off . Recomp.) As this court stated in the 2003 action against Chief Justice Roy S . Moore:
"The Canons are not merely guide lines for proper judicial conduct; they are binding on all judges by the oath taken upon assuming office, and violations of the Canons can serve as the basis for disciplinary action. The charge or charges against a judge must be proved by clear and convincing evidence before any discipline may be imposed."
***
On the basis of the evidence presented, this Court unanimously finds that the JIC proved by clear and convincing evidence that Chief Justice Moore is guilty of charges nos . 1 - 6. Specifically, Chief Justice Moore is guilty of violating:
• Canon 1, in that he failed to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary;
• Canon 2, in that he failed to avoid impropriety appearance of impropriety in all his activities;
• Canon 2A, in that failed to respect and comply with the law and failed to conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary;
• Canon 2B, in that he failed to avoid conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute;
• Canon 3, in that he failed to perform the duties of his office impartially; and
• Canon 3A (6), in that he failed to abstain from public comment about a pending proceeding in his own court.
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/fil...oy-moore-1.pdf
I know. The state government are bootlickers Roy's the only one who isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts
He's a theocratic weasel.Quote:
Originally Posted by William Tell
This is from Wikipedia:
"A month after his election, Moore began making plans for a larger monument to the Ten Commandments, reasoning that the Alabama Supreme Court building required something grander than a wooden plaque. His final design involved a 5,280 pound (2,400 kg) granite block, three feet wide by three feet deep by four feet tall, covered with quotes from the Declaration of Independence, the national anthem, and various founding fathers.[20] The crowning element would be two large carved tablets inscribed with the Ten Commandments. High-grade granite from Vermont was ordered and shipped, and Moore found benefactors and a sculptor to complete the job.
On the evening of July 31, 2001, despite some initial installation difficulties and concerns regarding structural support for the monument's weight, Moore had the completed monument transported to the state judicial building and installed in the central rotunda. The installation was filmed, and videotapes of the event were sold by Coral Ridge Ministries, an evangelical media outlet in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, which later used proceeds from the sales of the film to underwrite Moore's ensuing legal expenses. Coral Ridge was the operation of the late Reverend D. James Kennedy, a staunch Moore supporter.[21]
The next morning, Moore held a press conference in the central rotunda to officially unveil the monument. In a speech following the unveiling, Moore declared, "Today a cry has gone out across our land for the acknowledgment of that God upon whom this nation and our laws were founded. ... May this day mark the restoration of the moral foundation of law to our people and the return to the knowledge of God in our land.""
Hopefully all of this talk about establishment shill and comic book villain Luther Strange is wishful manipulation, just like all of the polls during the last POTUS race.
Mo Brooks is the best choice, and his platform is #DitchMitch. Swamp creatures are doing everything they can to stop him.
I'm not religious and I have no problems with any of that. oh no, he got a big monument with words and quotes on them installed. big whoop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Madison320
If you don't mind living in a theocracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by specsaregood
You must be reading something other than what you posted. I didn't see anything in it that indicates a theocracy taking hold. Oh no a moral foundation! big whoop. oh no, the knowledge of god. big whoop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Madison320
Well that's your right and I respect that. But I trust him because he's always been consistent. I might disagree with him and be annoyed at him some times, but he's not going to wake up tomorrow and start voting like a RINO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Madison320
I can see how attention seeking would turn you off. But to me that's the least of my worries in politics I just care about how someone's going to vote on legislation and where they are pushing the ball. Strange is the second coming of Lindsey Graham. Brooks is Sessions/Cruz/tea party lite, endorsed by Hannity, Lamar Smith, and Mark Levin. Moore is a devout evangelical with a high regard for defending the Constitution as he understands it. Seems to me Moore is the best thing we could realistically get out of this race looking at the polls.Quote:
He filmed himself sneaking a statue of the 10 commandments into the courthouse, knowing it would cause a controversy and he wanted to make a name for himself. It's been awhile since it happened (2001?) so I can't remember all the stupid crap he did, but he was one of the reasons I quit voting for republicans after I moved to Alabama. Before that I used to vote libertarian and republican. Now I vote libertarian and leave the rest blank.
Btw what do you think about Trip Pittman? He's running for senate also and he's a legislator who supported Ron Paul.
Maybe if you heard some of his speeches. He reminds me exactly of this guy:Quote:
Originally Posted by specsaregood
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzIs51GUVgg
If having the 10 commandments in court makes a nation a theocracy we already are one, lots of times people swear oaths on the bible in court. I don't see why a monument is so controversial. The whole nation is going the opposite way, even if Roy was a theocrat he'd never accomplish anything like that. And considering the only thing he will have a chance to maybe accomplish is voting to shrink our out of control government I see exactly zero downside to electing him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Madison320
Yuch, I'll just leave my ballot blank.Quote:
Originally Posted by William Tell
I never heard of him but if he likes Ron Paul then he's probably worth voting for.Quote:
Originally Posted by William Tell
I found this a while back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Madison320
http://theresurgent.com/trip-pittman...esponsibility/
So to back up your claim, you link to a clip of a comedy, fictional movie? Well that's about all I need to know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Madison320
It was the way he did it, and the way he spoke (god this, god that, amen brothers and sisters). I don't get the sense that he even believes in god. To me it seemed like an act to get elected.Quote:
Originally Posted by William Tell
It's an analogy. Duh.Quote:
Originally Posted by specsaregood
I'll see if I can find some actual footage of the Judge for ya.
Here you go, AMEN BROTHER!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90M4DEuM0V8
I wasn't aware the Constitution prohibited religious displays :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts
Could be good, could be bad.Quote:
and ignoring court orders he doesn't agree with
So he is pro states rights?Quote:
stemming from his effectively telling Alabama probate judges to ignore the U.S. Supreme Court's Obergefell decision and to refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses.
Strange was a Never Trumper. This is the downside of Trump.
Trump endorsed him, even though he is the worst candidate in the primary race. Sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by AuH20
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"Quote:
Originally Posted by dannno
I would argue that displaying a big monument with the 10 commandments in a courthouse is the first step in establishing an official religion.
Aren't judges supposed to be impartial? The whole thing stunk. What about the Christian group that payed for the monument? And they made a video of moving the monument and sold it. You don't think they might get preferential treatment? A judge should keep a low profile.
What if a muslim judge moved a statue of Muhammad into the courthouse and displayed the koran? And it was funded by a Islamic group? You'd be ok with that?
It does when you place the display in a government building with the explicit purpose (as Moore admitted) of acknowledging the supremacy of the Judeo-Christian deity.Quote:
Originally Posted by dannno
Quote:
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, made binding upon the States through the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The question presented to this court is whether the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court violated the Establishment Clause when he placed a slightly over two-and-a-half ton granite monument--engraved with the Ten Commandments and other references to God--in the Alabama State Judicial Building with the specific purpose and effect, as the court finds from the evidence, of acknowledging the Judeo-Christian God as the moral foundation of our laws...
Based on the evidence presented during a week-long trial and for the reasons that follow, this court holds that the evidence is overwhelming and the law is clear that the Chief Justice violated the Establishment Clause. But, in announcing this holding today, the court believes it is important to clarify at the outset that the court does not hold that it is improper in all instances to display the Ten Commandments in government buildings; nor does the court hold that the Ten Commandments are not important, if not one of the most important, sources of American law. Rather the court's limited holding, as will be explained below in more detail, is that the Chief Justice's actions and intentions in this case crossed the Establishment Clause line between the permissible and the impermissible...
Both in appearance and in stated purpose, the Chief Justice's Ten Commandments monument is an "extreme case"; it is nothing less than "an obtrusive year-round religious display" installed in the Alabama State Judicial Building in order to "place the government's weight behind an obvious effort to proselytize on behalf of a particular religion," the Chief Justice's religion...
In the Chief Justice's understanding, the Judeo-Christian God is sovereign over both the church and the state in this country, and both owe allegiance to that God... The court appreciates that, as a matter of conscience, one may believe that the Judeo-Christian God is sovereign over the state. In fact, the court understands that it is just this type of belief that the Free Exercise clause and the Establishment Clause are meant to protect. Thus, the court stresses that it is not disagreeing with Chief Justice Moore's beliefs regarding the relationship of God and the state. Rather, the court disagrees with the Chief Justice to the extent that it understands him to be saying that, as a matter of American law, the Judeo-Christian God must be recognized as sovereign over the state, or even that the state may adopt that view...
The court appreciates that there are those who see a clear secular purpose in the Ten Commandments, for they command not only such things as "I am the Lord thy God" and "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me" but also, among other things, that "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal," and that we should "Honour thy father and thy mother." If all Chief Justice Moore had done were to emphasize the Ten Commandments' historical and educational importance (for the evidence shows that they have been one of the sources of our secular laws) or their importance as a model code for good citizenship (for we all want our children to honor their parents, not to kill, not to steal, and so forth), this court would have a much different case before it. But the Chief Justice did not limit himself to this; he went far, far beyond. He installed a two-and-a-half ton monument in the most prominent place in a government building, managed with dollars from all state taxpayers, with the specific purpose and effect of establishing a permanent recognition of the "sovereignty of God," the Judeo-Christian God, over all citizens in this country, regardless of each taxpaying citizen's individual personal beliefs or lack thereof. To this, the Establishment Clause says no. Glassroth v. Moore, No. 01-T-1268-N (M.D. Alabama 2002)
No, he's pro Roy Moore and thinks that his opinions are superior, as a legal matter, than those of the United States Supreme Court.Quote:
Originally Posted by dannno