What is wrong with Alabama GOP?

#26
#26
PKT_VOL said:
By ordered, are we talking via the man upstairs?
Click to expand...

I am not sure I follow you.

If you are asking if one should follow orders from God if you truly think they are wrong, then I would say that you should not follow such orders. If you think that God could/would give you orders that are wrong, then you obviously don't believe your own religion and therefore there is not point in obeying.

If by 'man upstairs' you are not referring to God, then I am lost about what you are asking and I apologize for being dense.
 
#27
#27
volinbham said:
Disagree in this case. He is an officer of the court. He is free to challenge a court order through the legal system but to simply defy a court order gets at the very heart of what he's sworn to uphold.

It is a clear conflict of interest for him to serve as Chief Justice yet selectively choose which court orders he must comply with.
Click to expand...

When should a judge refuse to defy a court order? (I ask since you said that you disagree "in this case".) In another case, would he not also be getting "at the very heart of what he's sworn to uphold"?
 
#28
#28
RespectTradition said:
When should a judge refuse to defy a court order? (I ask since you said that you disagree "in this case".) In another case, would he not also be getting "at the very heart of what he's sworn to uphold"?
Click to expand...

In no case - misuse of words in my place. What I meant was he can disagree but there are established ways to disagree that are consistent with the position he swore to uphold.

The court order was about him and his actions. If he disagrees he has channels to express that. He loses all credibility as a judge if he refuses to acknowledge the authority of the judicial system when it is applied to him. He is violating his oath.
 
#29
#29
RespectTradition said:
I am not sure I follow you.

If you are asking if one should follow orders from God if you truly think they are wrong, then I would say that you should not follow such orders. If you think that God could/would give you orders that are wrong, then you obviously don't believe your own religion and therefore there is not point in obeying.

If by 'man upstairs' you are not referring to God, then I am lost about what you are asking and I apologize for being dense.
Click to expand...

You were correct. I was referring to God.

Given your post, what are your feelings about the story of Abraham?

Are there any instances which you believe are valid for transcending man's law in favor of God's will?
 
#30
#30
volinbham said:
In no case - misuse of words in my place. What I meant was he can disagree but there are established ways to disagree that are consistent with the position he swore to uphold.

The court order was about him and his actions. If he disagrees he has channels to express that. He loses all credibility as a judge if he refuses to acknowledge the authority of the judicial system when it is applied to him. He is violating his oath.
Click to expand...

This
 
#31
#31
volinbham said:
In no case - misuse of words in my place. What I meant was he can disagree but there are established ways to disagree that are consistent with the position he swore to uphold.

The court order was about him and his actions. If he disagrees he has channels to express that. He loses all credibility as a judge if he refuses to acknowledge the authority of the judicial system when it is applied to him. He is violating his oath.
Click to expand...

If you truly believe something is wrong, then you have an obligation to not comply. If that means resigning in protest, then so be it.

Consider this hypothetical: A child is being molested. Custody case and you are the judge. You are absolutely certain that dad is a scum bag. For reasons that are unimportant for our scenario, a higher court overturns you and remands the case back to you with order to give dad custody. Do you do it? Can you send that kid home with him for the sake of the system?
 
#32
#32
PKT_VOL said:
You were correct. I was referring to God.

Given your post, what are your feelings about the story of Abraham?

Are there any instances which you believe are valid for transcending man's law in favor of God's will?
Click to expand...

I assume you mean the case of Abraham sacrificing Isaac?

I believe that God knows better than me and if he commands me to do something and I disagree then the fault lies with me and not him. My human inadequacies do not allow me to see the whole picture all the time. It is part of faith.

If you accept the premise that God loves us and wants what is best for us and accept the premise that God is infallible, then you cannot arrive at any other conclusion.

I know that some people are so certain of their own judgment and rightness that they are unwilling to submit to a supreme being. That strikes me as arrogant beyond belief.
 
#33
#33
I'm glad he's back.

We need more judges like him and less liberal tards who shred the constitution in their own way.

Hope he pisses alot of people off.
 
#35
#35
PKT_VOL said:
Seriously?
Click to expand...

this country has many courts through the land that absolutely torch the constitution and create laws that are so absurd it's not eve funny.

the pendulum has to swing far the other way to be brought to the middle.

I am a firm believer in this. If the pendulum swings wide to the left there must be an equal force to swing it back wide to the right or else nuetral ground will never be reached.
 
#36
#36
RespectTradition said:
I assume you mean the case of Abraham sacrificing Isaac?

I believe that God knows better than me and if he commands me to do something and I disagree then the fault lies with me and not him. My human inadequacies do not allow me to see the whole picture all the time. It is part of faith.

If you accept the premise that God loves us and wants what is best for us and accept the premise that God is infallible, then you cannot arrive at any other conclusion.

I know that some people are so certain of their own judgment and rightness that they are unwilling to submit to a supreme being. That strikes me as arrogant beyond belief.
Click to expand...

I asked because a couple days ago, I read an excerpt from Fear and Trembling by Søren Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard is one of my favorite philosophers and a devote Christian. He wrote extensively on Christianity. I wish more "Christians" would read his work and incorporate it into their spiritual life.

At any rate, he posited that there were three hierarchies or stages/levels of life in which people could live in. The first and most basic was what he referred to as the Aesthetic life. A life in which the person lives for himself. The second, slightly higher, was that of the ethical in which a person lived for the "universal". The "universal" was for the greater good of mankind. The highest hierarchy, the pinnacle of life, was to live in accordance to the Christian God. The ethical and religious life were intimately connected most of the time. However, he contrasted the two Biblical stories of Abraham and Jephthah. He stated that Jephthah merely sacrificed his daughter for the greater good of his people; not to prove his faith to God (in and of itself). Abraham, on the other hand, was willing to teleologically suspend the ethical (thou shall not murder) in order to proof his faith and follow God's will. Kierkegaard argued that Abraham transcended the merely finite/mortal/ethical/universal for that of the Christian God. Such an act is the pinnacle of existence.

This finally ties back into the overall topic of the thread. Kierkegaard acknowledged that if a person was to transcend the ethical for the religious and that if such an action resulted in a transgression of the ethical, that person could not possibly convey the superior hierarchy to those who merely lived in the ethical.

I feel that this disparity as framed by Kierkegaard cannot be overcome. For if the judge is acting in accordance to God's will, then he is justified in his actions. Just as anyone else who claims to be acting on God's behalf. Who are we, those living in the ethical, to say that they are foolish? The same can be said about prophecy.
 
#37
#37
NEOCON said:
this country has many courts through the land that absolutely torch the constitution and create laws that are so absurd it's not eve funny.

the pendulum has to swing far the other way to be brought to the middle.

I am a firm believer in this. If the pendulum swings wide to the left there must be an equal force to swing it back wide to the right or else nuetral ground will never be reached.
Click to expand...

I would completely agree with you if we are talking about politics in general. Hell, such an phenomenon is real and coined "the pendulum effect" in political science.

However, the courts are not a place to have the pendulum effect. They should be strictly interpreting the Constitution. Unlike politics, the Courts have a well defined "middle". It is the Constitution. Bastardizing it from the "right" is equally as egregious as bastardizing it from the "left". There is room for neither in our Courts.
 
#38
#38
PKT_VOL said:
I would completely agree with you if we are talking about politics in general. Hell, such an phenomenon is real and coined "the pendulum effect" in political science.

However, the courts are not a place to have the pendulum effect. They should be strictly interpreting the Constitution. Unlike politics, the Courts have a well defined "middle". It is the Constitution. Bastardizing it from the "right" is equally as egregious as bastardizing it from the "left". There is room for neither in our Courts.
Click to expand...

in theory i agree

in reality it does not work that way

the courts are, and have been, victim of personal motives and therefore as long as reality trumps theory i am all for this guy.

not trying to be an ass here either just stating my thoughts.
 
#39
#39
NEOCON said:
in theory i agree

in reality it does not work that way

the courts are, and have been, victim of personal motives and therefore as long as reality trumps theory i am all for this guy.

not trying to be an ass here either just stating my thoughts.
Click to expand...

An eye for an eye just doesn't work in the courtroom or with Constitution.
 
#40
#40
lawgator1 said:
This guy wins the primary to get the job he was thrown out of by unanimous vote of the ethics panel? After defying a judicial order???? And so they are going to try to put him back on the court....

Unbelievable.

'10 commandments judge' Roy Moore poised to return to Alabama Supreme Court – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs
Click to expand...

You really, really question that after the way Dems handled ethics/legal problems concerning Clinton, Frank, Rangel, Kennedy, and on and on and on?

You want to question that when Obama STILL refuses to release his records AND the left sits mute?

You want to question that when Obama sits under liberation theology for 20 years, acts on many of its principles, speaks affirmatively of its principles, then has the MSM run interference for him. For your benefit, liberation theology is basically how Latin American communists got Catholics on board with killing the "rich" and stealing their property for the state.
 
#41
#41
Oh... LG. Moore was forced out because he refused to violate his OATH just because a federal judge said so. He was both ethically and legally correct but got railroaded anyway.

It is the pinnacle of left wing IDIOCY to suggest that a 10 Commandments display on public ground is an imposition of religion on ANYONE. Need proof? Look at numerous DC gov't buildings with religious images and words indelibly engraved or imprinted on their walls.

He ruled consistent with the Constitution AND jurisprudence. He was right. Those who overruled him were wrong.
 
#42
#42
PKT_VOL said:
However, the courts are not a place to have the pendulum effect. They should be strictly interpreting the Constitution. Unlike politics, the Courts have a well defined "middle". It is the Constitution. Bastardizing it from the "right" is equally as egregious as bastardizing it from the "left". There is room for neither in our Courts.
Click to expand...

Absolutely positively agree. That's why Moore should have been left alone. That display DID NOT violate the establishment clause by any strained measure of reasoning.

On another note, I was VERY disappointed to hear Santorum's rhetoric concerning pornography this week. No matter how much we may disapprove... no matter how harmful we believe something to be or in fact can prove it is... The gov't should stay out of these private matters of personal freedom.
 
#43
#43
sjt18 said:
Oh... LG. Moore was forced out because he refused to violate his OATH just because a federal judge said so. He was both ethically and legally correct but got railroaded anyway.

It is the pinnacle of left wing IDIOCY to suggest that a 10 Commandments display on public ground is an imposition of religion on ANYONE. Need proof? Look at numerous DC gov't buildings with religious images and words indelibly engraved or imprinted on their walls.

He ruled consistent with the Constitution AND jurisprudence. He was right. Those who overruled him were wrong.
Click to expand...

Swing...and a whiff.
 
#44
#44
sjt18 said:
On another note, I was VERY disappointed to hear Santorum's rhetoric concerning pornography this week. No matter how much we may disapprove... no matter how harmful we believe something to be or in fact can prove it is... The gov't should stay out of these private matters of personal freedom.
Click to expand...

Agree. I will never understand this country's phobia of seeing a nipple on TV, in the movies, or on the computer.
 
#46
#46
PKT_VOL said:
Agree. I will never understand this country's phobia of seeing a nipple on TV, in the movies, or on the computer.
Click to expand...

I agree that government has no place in making moral decisions but porn is more than a nipple slip and can have a very dangerous impact on the human psyche.
 
#47
#47
NEOCON said:
I agree that government has no place in making moral decisions but porn is more than a nipple slip and can have a very dangerous impact on the human psyche.
Click to expand...

No more dangerous than your girlfriend showing you her titties on a saturday night.

It's funny how people like Santorum want to regulate what you can see on your computer but still allow you to touch it close up.

Why can't people just let other people live their own lives? Why do people need to try and force me to conform to their ideals 'for my own good' or 'for the good of society'?
 
#49
#49
Government should stay out of everything, porn included. Like everything else, they would just screw that up too.
 
#50
#50
Those of you trying to compare what Moore did to something noble really need a reality check. Moore didn't refuse an order to kill thousands in a gas chamber, or decline to perform some task that would have caused many to suffer out of conscience.

He insisted in defying a court order about a Ten Commandments marker.

He is no hero. He's a holier-than-thou schmuck who depends on people obeying the rule of law for the job he had, and now wants again.

That he got more than a handful of votes is disturbing. That he got over half and may win back his seat is appalling.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top