Alabama’s ‘Ten Commandments Judge’ Loses Appeal; May Seek Senate

(Quin Hillyer, Liberty Headlines) Controversial Alabama “Ten Commandments Judge” Roy Moore lost an appeal before a specially appointed state Supreme Court on Wednesday, meaning his suspension from the ordinary state Supreme Court remains in force until the end of his term in 2018.

Alabama's 'Ten Commandments Judge' Loses Appeal; May Seek Senate

Judge Roy Moore/PHOTO: Facebook

Moore’s unusual suspension – effectively if not technically a full removal without pay – was originally imposed last September by Alabama’s “Court of the Judiciary,” a special reviewing body. The panel found him guilty of an ethics violation for advising state probate judges not (yet) to abide by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 decision requiring that all states recognize same-sex marriages.

This was the second time Moore was removed from his job as the state’s Chief Justice for ethics charges involving defiance of federal courts. In 2003 he made national news when he refused to comply with a direct court order to remove a 5,280-pound Ten Commandments monument – complete with a copyright mark – from the state high court building. Fully evicted from office then (not just “suspended”), Moore lost two races for governor before winning a comeback election to be Chief Justice again in 2012.

Hard-line conservative groups have treated Moore as a folk hero – almost a judicial rock star – ever since his Ten Commandments fight.

That fight actually began back in 1995, when the American Civil Liberties Union sued to force him to remove a small, self-hand-carved plaque of The Decalogue that he had hung in his small circuit courthouse in Etowah County, in northeast Alabama. Moore rode the fame from that case to his first election as Chief Justice in 2000, in a landslide.

Then came Moore’s installation of the huge monument at the state Supreme Court, his strange court battle against orders to remove it (he failed several times to file motions in timely fashion, and never formally appealed the order in the right way), and his political martyrdom – in an ethics trial prosecuted, ironically, by then-state Attorney General Bill Pryor, himself a rock-solid conservative who had argued that reasonable displays of the Commandments were not unconstitutional.

Moore’s two badly failed races for governor followed – and then, just when pundits had written his political obituary, he won a stunning, clear majority against two strong opponents in the 2012 GOP primary, followed by a relatively close general election win with 53 percent of the vote.

Moore’s second eviction from active duty as Chief Justice followed a complicated series of events. First, federal district judge Callie “Ginny” Granade in Mobile ruled in early 2015 that Alabama’s laws against same-sex marriages were unconstitutional, and ordered all probate judges in the state to start awarding marriage licenses to same-sex applicants. She did so without benefit of a U.S. Supreme Court decision to authorize it.

Moore responded by ordering the probate judges not to abide by Granade’s ruling. He was arguably right to do so, as another Alabama-based federal judge, Keith Watkins, effectively ruled in a related case later that year.

Then, however, came the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, which invalidated all state laws that prohibited same-sex marriages. Six months later Moore issued yet another statement, which advised probate judges that despite the national high court decision, his 2015 order to them (against same-sex marriage) remained in force, until the state Supreme Court could resolve questions about how to apply the U.S. Supremes’ ruling.

It was in response that 2016 order – the one after the Obergefell decision – that ethics charges again were filed against Moore.

This time the Court of the Judiciary did not unanimously agree to completely strip Moore from his office. Numerous local legal observers have told me that because, unlike in 2003, Moore was not a “party defendant” to the Obergefell case, but was instead acting as administrative supervisor for the probate judges, the direct ethics violation was not so clear.

Still, the same panel that did not remove him did something arguably more punitive: It left Moore technically in office, but suspended him without pay for the rest of his term. This left him unable to earn a living, and left the citizens of Alabama with one fewer state Supreme Court justice than normal.

Moore appealed, but that repeal was rejected on Wednesday.

Against this backdrop, Alabama’s new governor, Kay Ivey, this week called a special election to fill the remainder of the U.S. Senate term of Jeff Sessions, who left the Senate to become U.S. Attorney General. The primary will be held August 15; A possible runoff would be held Sept. 26, and the general election will be December 12.

Moore has previously expressed interest in the Senate seat, and polls show him a leading contender either for that or for the governorship in 2018.

At a press conference Wednesday condemning the special court’s rejection of his appeal, Moore did not yet announce a Senate run – which surprised most observers – but said he would announce his next political plans “early next week.” If so, he might be entering a multi-candidate field – but would enter with by far the highest name recognition in the state.

  • Jeff Z

    Its too bad Trump isn’t half the president he promised to be. He could get involved in this.

    Someone ask Kushner or Ivanka since they run the show.

    • buddy gibbs

      Trump can’t overule the supreme court. But he can appoint judges who will revisit and change the scotus judges, which he has done. Now all we need is a couple of commies on the court to croak! Hopefully satan will call them home soon.

      • Gary

        I like the way you talk, sir! I agree, 100%.

      • leaningtotheleft

        Let’s hope GorSUCK is first followed by all four repugs

        • ernst

          Keep leaning. Then fall. Go to Venezuela.

          • nocbsfan

            LOL AGREE!

          • Gloria D.

            Exactly!

        • raffaelecafagna

          Leftist liberal , brainwashed and confused .

      • Strider-51

        This had nothing to do with the Supreme Court of The United States.

      • Gloria D.

        Exactly! Good post!

    • art frewin

      yea, it sure is to bad we could not have 2 criminals back in the white house!! WTF

    • smilee

      Nothing trump can do even if he wanted to! Separation of powers and the president has no authority over the court what so ever, Moore violated the US Constitution here!

      Article VI, cl. 2: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be
      bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
      notwithstanding.”

      NOTE: judges in every state shall be bound thereby meaning he must obey them!

      I do agree with with the rest of your post.

      • James Higginbotham

        Judge Moore DIDN’T violate Article V1, CL,2.
        and is NOT in conflict with that article.
        he is against ACTIVIST JUDGES who are themselves in CONFLICT WITH SAID ARTICLE..
        Judge Moore is protected by the 1ST AMENDMENT..

        • smilee

          HE DID! Your as anti Constitution as he is as he lies about it and you follow him like a dog on a leash, LOL he got booted for GOD’s sake for not following our Constitution so what about that do you not understand?

          • James Higginbotham

            no he got Booted by activist judges who are NOT following the Constitution, and acting on what THEY think the Constitution says.
            and you NOT knowing me personally to say I’m against the Constitution is STUPID. you have NO CLUE. SLICK BY WHAT YA SAY.
            but then MOST FOOLS DON’T LOL.

          • smilee

            They were activist only in that they enforced the Constitution as Moore defied it and then the fed, are required to act and throw the constitutional hater out as he refused to enforce our supreme law, so in reality Moore was trying to change the supreme law from the bench and that is a big NO NO. They acted as the Constitution says but Moore did not, you need to rip up your fantasy constitution and read and learn the real one which is the supreme law of the land. Your words tell us you do not know it and I just take you at your word so quit lying and problem solved.

          • Not as anti as you are.

    • Mark

      Trump has been put under House Arrest by the liberal DeepState. He is no longer “president” as such. This from TruNews. SO SAD

    • Allen Cecelia Tennison

      Very true. We supposedly elected a republican?? What we got was liberal democrats pulling the strings I believe. Of course Trump was a democrat before he was republican. So it says ” a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.

      You trust him I have a hard time doing so. His daughter is a dyed in the wool liberal according to reports. I was and am for Ted Cruz a true patriot I believe. He knows the law and doesnt have ask someone what to do.

      • ernst

        Cruz for SCOTUS!

        • nocbsfan

          AGREE!

      • Gloria D.

        Actually Ted Cruz is all for President Trump. He was nicely surprised by all the promises Trump kept that Ted thought he wouldn’t.

      • raffaelecafagna

        Sorry ; Cruz is not a N.B.C.
        But you don`t see the Good old boys club ( democraps and republicans ) going against him . How long was the Fight for Gorsuch .?????I assume you forgot . Just LOOK what he did in 3 months . Congress is on Vacation ; the Budget is coming up and the way Congress has been talking they won`t fund the Wall . Refugees coming in by the thousands , no one knows who they are . Democrats of today are not Democrats , they are leftist socialists wanting the Destruction of these Nation . President Trump is one person with enemies all over wanting the collapse of this Nation .

      • James Higginbotham

        Allen.
        i also was for Ted Cruz in the beginning, but I’ve been thinking of sending the President a letter and have him APPOINT CRUZ TO THE SUPREME COURT. but we have to wait until ONE OF THOSE COMMUNIST JUDGES EITHER DIES OFF OR RETIRES..

    • ernst

      Trump is doing just fine. He is making progress moving a behemouth. To overcome that inertia while still having it function is no small task.

  • Buzz Waldron

    ALL religions are evil mental illness…

  • James Higginbotham

    I’m all for Judge Moore he is RIGHT, and those damn FEDERAL JUDGES ARE WRONG.

    • smilee

      He violated the Constitution article VI cl 2 and that is big big no no. which the fed judges are required to uphold so it is you who is wrong..

      • floral

        Except the SCOTUS has no enforcement power and many of the Founders, including Jefferson, Madison, said that the SCOTUS is NOT the sole judge of Constitution.

        • smilee

          They order enforcement of their powers but do not themselves enforce it and that is their purpose and job, Jefferson got shot down by the court big time on this and that decision still stands so you are full of it. Their decision determines if any law is allowed by the Constitution and if not they order that corrected. It has never been done any other way and just because you believe this does not make it so and with a court decision to the contrary and over 200 years of practice to the contrary makes you just full of chitt. You display your ignorance to,

          • Laurel

            Actually because what you believe also does not make it so. SCOTUS is outside the limits of the law when they write decisions effectively making the law as opposed to upholding the law. There is a difference. Learn it.

            We comply with court rulings as a civil society but not always so as evidenced by our civil war.

            Jefferson got shot down by an activist court so he split the court up which is within the power of the presidency to do. It’s a pity no one has the guts to split the courts now that need it especially 9th Circuit. All of the circuit courts have too much jurisdiction for a nation this size and are far too activist.

          • smilee

            In your first paragraph what case are you talking about as I know of none were that is the case only that many today say that even when it is not true. Never has the culture fully complied with the Constitution and the worst non compliance was the civil war and never since it have so many advocate as we do today. They follow a fantasy Constitution and when they do not get their way under it they say this about judges but that is not true and these same people do not understand the real Constitution or how it works. You are clearly one of them as what you advocate would be a destruction of our balance and separations of powers which is the heart and soul of our great country and is what made it great which you seem to hate and think it is something it is not.

          • Laurel

            Is English your second language?

            Bad behavior does not justify bad behavior so saying the culture was never in compliance (which is a lie) is not an excuse.

            Once again, because you say it does not make it so to use your words. You are not the sole arbiter of the Constitution. You also tend to leave out context of historical events which skews interpretation.

            You don’t know what I hate or not. That is rampant emotionalism and projection on your part in effort to distract from your poorly thought out and poorly written statements. Really you need to rethink what you write. It is barely readable and not all that literate.

          • smilee

            WOW are you saying all those jim crow laws were constitutional if you are you are pathetic and there are many other instances and we have never been 100% in compliance and are not now in every case but much more today than ever before as more and more people have gotten their constitutional rights enforced over time. I only say what is in the Constitution it is the courts who are the arbitrator of it. The law is the written law not the culture or cultural practices, it is binding and can order cultural changes when enforcing the written law and the courts have and do this as they are suppose to do, thus many have had their constitutional rights forced on the culture by the courts as the Constitution is for all of WE the PEOPLE as none are exempted in the written law as has often been the case in the culture in this country. Ask any black person as they know it first hand, I’m only know what you say here and sometimes that has expressed hate and that is all I got to go on. It is you who is trying here to divert from the truth and the written law. WHY?

          • Laurel

            No it is you that is saying all those Jim Crows laws are constitutional replete with assumptions. And now you are off on a tangent that has nothing to do with your original post. You also need to learn what a paragraph is.

            In regards to your statement as to who si and is not exempted you contradicted yourself. You first say no one is in 100% compliance but then go on to state there are those that are exempted. It cannot be both.

            Then you go on to yet another emotional rant and ridiculous tangent that has no bearing on the topic. Perhaps when you learn to think and not substitute feeling for thinking you should then get back to me. Maybe you will learn what a paragraph is by then.

            BTW…I am not trying to divert from any such thing. You are as evidenced by your post…or the best anyone can gleen from your ramblings. You are projecting.

          • smilee

            ??? I never said anything of the sort liar! You mug be totally nuts! So much spin! You spun my words into contradictions not me. How pathetic a response! Total delusional lies, YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED!!

          • Laurel

            Once again is English your second language?

            You brought up Jim Crow, not me. You invented statements then implied emotion where there was none, not me.

            Sorry but your writings speak for themselves. That is on you, not me.

            Ironic that you bring up Jim Crow laws at a time when the Black community is seeking to resegregate.

          • smilee

            Sure I brought up jim crow as they were one of the worst unconstitutional laws we have ever had and you spun it be I supported them and I never said that, I was talking only about law it was you who tried to introduce that emotion BS. My words do but after you spin them they are then no longer mine but yours. Jim crow is history of unconstitutional laws some of the worst so why do fain being offended, , You sure are a sad case.

          • Laurel

            I didn’t spin a thing as evidenced by your continued responses. It is you that is spinning. You lack the historical context that go along with the law.

            If you do not know your topic enough to defend it thoroughly then don’t speak on the topic.

            You also cannot seem to write a coherent well thought out response. You descend into gibberish. I didn’t introduce ’emotion BS’…you did by way of your comments. You wrote…”Ask any black person as they know it first hand, I’m only know what you say here and sometimes that has expressed hate and that is all I got to go on. ” and then there is this…”They follow a fantasy Constitution and when they do not get their way under it they say this about judges but that is not true and these same people do not understand the real Constitution or how it works. You are clearly one of them as what you advocate would be a destruction of our balance and separations of powers which is the heart and soul of our great country and is what made it great which you seem to hate and think it is something it is not.”

            Those above quotes that I put directly as written by you are nothing more than emotion.

            Now good day. Wading through your poorly written illiterate posts take more time than I have.

          • smilee

            You have a serous problem lady, as you are totally non responsive to what I actually write so forget it as yo are a lost cause,

          • Nancy Clark

            If you actually dug deep enough in research of the law “We the People” is NOT the population of the USA but is specifically about government corporate people….not everyday citizens. Research Judge Anna Von Reitz !!!!! There is tons of info which will blow your mind. Maritime law, etc…….the THREE constitutions…..the original, Lincoln’s changes, then FDR. We are ruled under the 1933 constitution which is a corporation constitution and we are not in that corporation.

          • It is his 2nd language as he is a troll living in Korea.

          • floral

            Just because lib/dem/prog justices have gotten away with violating their Constitutional powers does not mean the SCOTUS HAS ANY SUCH AUTHORITY, because they do NOT. “Practice” does not authority or constitutionality make, or we would still have slavery. Your ignorance is showing-ever read the Dred Scott decision? What happened to THAT? Just because you believe your own “chitt”, does not make you a scholar…..

          • smilee

            The Supreme Court does have that authority to determine constitutionality of any law, state of federal or the constitution itself is being followed and order it be made constitutional if it is not. That is what they were created for and that is the way they have always done it albeit that authority was challenged in madison v marbury but they were unsuccessful and to date that has never been challenged to date so it is a settled issue. Sure they have made mistakes but not many and you cite their worst one and do not forget six of the seven that voted in the majority owned slaves themselves so what did you expect. That was the trigger that started us on the path to the civil war and one of the exceptions to the rule. Slavery was ended by the 13th amendment. LOL YOU think I am a scholar, no but far more knowledgeable than you are as you got it wrong and I did not. Other than dred scott what others do you imagine they got wrong. More than likely it was you who got it wrong.

          • floral

            The Constitution says otherwise.

          • floral

            BTW, SCOTUS does NOT order enforcement, nor can they…..not Constitutionally. Read their powers and authority in the Constitution.

          • smilee

            Sure can and they have for over two hundred years, You really do need to get your head out of the sand you you can see what is really going on. I have and the decisions on it that is why I know you are full of it.

          • floral

            No they have NOT for 200 yrs…..Did you read Dred Scott and what happened there? I do know what “is going on”…..don’t have to like it nor is it Constitutional. SCOTUS has NO power to “order enforcement”.

          • Liar as the executive branch enforces laws.

      • Grim Reaper

        Smilee you can crap in your house by going in the bathroom, or you can take a dump on the kitchen floor.
        One place is permissible, and one isn’t.
        Most of us are disgusted with those who choose to dump on the kitchen floor.

        • smilee

          Is there some point to your bullchitt?

          • Grim Reaper

            Some people who are the beneficiaries of freedom abuse that freedom and in the process destroy the home they are in.

        • therealworld

          Sorry you know people who dump on the kitchen floor, I hang with a better crowd

          • Cookie Vranish

            No you don’t!

      • AllanGardnerMiles

        Yeah Smilee: If you think the U.S.A. has been improved by decisions of the Courts in favor of the ACLU you need to think again. Our situation has never been perfect but was improving before the ACLU had the Christian and Jewish Prayers removed from the Schools. Since then massacre after massacre occurred on school grounds due to the Removal of the Shroud of God. The American Courts in my opinion have angered Our Lord and only keep getting Worse. The 10 Commandments are also part of our Judeo/Christian Founders belief. Modern day teachings would likely lead any student from the Truth of America’s True Foundation under GOD.

        • smilee

          They are not in favor of the ACLU they are in favor of the rule of law and the Constitution as written and the first amendment requires equal protections for all religions and gives no priority to any one religion and that includes Christianity as under the Constitution every religion is equal so that would also include Islam and all others so the courts had to decide do we accumulate all religions or deny all in public space and nothing in these rulings in any way impedes any religion in any way. They then ruled none would be allowed and fair is fair under the law in public access it is not anti religions. We have created a more perfect union over time as on day one only white rich men in practice were included in We the People to day almost all are so we have come a long way baby. Removing religion from schools does not remove religion from the hearts of men that happened as the people themselves turned form religion and not allowing prayer in schools is not the reason only your excuse for why this has happened. The founders put protections for all religions in the first amendment in 1791 on an equal basis but that has not always been the practice now it has been enforced. There is many conflicts written in the Constitution between it and Christianity and you seem to think the Constitution is a religious document it is not and the founders actually created it that way so you are denying the reality of it. Men have rejected God and prayer in schools would not have prevented that,

          • James Higginbotham

            i read your post Smiley.
            but you DIDN’T explain or else you DON’T KNOW?
            but our Constitution was created for a moral people,

          • smilee

            Sure did, not my faulty you cannot understand the relevance. shows your Ignorance and lack of intelligence I suppose. It was created for WE the People and it does not distinguish between moral or immoral people or say any person is left out in our supreme law, that is what they wrote but that was not its practice at the time but still its intent at the time as that is what they actually wrote onto our supreme law. and today we have fulfilled much of their intent despite the cultural resistances every step of the way which is why the rule of law is so important as despite cultural resistance the law can be eventually enforced,. This has happened a lot in the last century and what makes us great but today many believe we are not great as they hate including all the people in We the People and want tro return to times when many were not included in We the People. That is bigotry and we still have a lot of these people today..

          • James Higginbotham

            oh” i’m far from Ignorant slick.
            and this INCLUSION you mentioned i take it you mean MUSLIMS?
            our nation has FALLEN FAR from what our Founders envisioned and our Republic was founded as an EXPERIMENT but the Constitution is NOT A LIVING BREATHING DOCUMENT, no matter what ACTIVIST JUDGES AND POLITICIANS might think.
            the rule of law is important just NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW BY ACTIVIST JUDGES AND POLITICIANS..

          • smilee

            The vision of our founders is written in the Constitution the greatest compromise ever. The Constitution as amended including all from day one not amended is very much still in effect and still our supreme law so how you can define it as dead is just a lie, and it has to be either be alive or dead as there is no in between dummy. What you see that you do not like you see as unconstitutional as you beleive in the far right alt fantasy version of it which has never been part of it. Activism exists only in you ignorant little mind not in reality. You also forget from 1791 through 1992 we amended the founders works 27 times and after the civil war they added three that greatly changed the original and in the original the original founders included Article V in their vision which was to allow every subsequent generation to change any part of their works in any way they would want to and we have done so 27 times the only restrictions they placed was to follow the formula they gave us to change it and we could even change that if we wanted to. Today our constitution is still the supreme law of the land and still functioning and dead things do not function as you seem to imply. Culture has changed for many reasons but not the Constitution except as and when amended and still can be. So yes, you are ignorant as you deny all this reality.,.

          • Liar.

        • Jim DeLarme

          Look up the HISTORY of the A.C.L.U. you will find that organization was NOT always the “American Civil Liberties Union”. It was FOUNDED and built and GREW as “The AMERICAN COMMUNIST LAWYERS’ UNION”. They changed it a while ago…and for reasons I don’t think were “pure”….

        • James Higginbotham

          the DAMN ACLU was started by COMMUNIST JEWS, and they helped brought COMMUNISM to America..
          and Communism is doing well with the DEMORAT PARTY ..

          • TalkTruth

            And, George Soros, apparently has his large hand involved in the ACLU. That alone should tell you a lot!

      • James Higginbotham

        then you had better explain this to the US SUPREME COURT, because they have MOSES HOLDING THE 10 COMMANDMENTS AS A SHOW OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. and Congress has the same..

        and all judge Moore did was place the same amendments out side the Alabama supreme court.
        I’m from Alabama and i KNOW the whole story on this issue.
        Judge Moore DIDN’T violate anything slick so your WRONG ONCE AGAIN.

        • smilee

          A state judge cannot legally defy a ruling of a federal court. It has always been this way, It is not an Alabama secret it is a violation of, an national law.

          Article VI, cl. 2: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

          • Then why did the Florida courts overrule the SCOTUS ruling dealing with the 2000 election?

          • smilee

            LOL They didn’t dummazz, You have been so beaten down by my truths you can only now come up with a bunch of lying one liners, You do not dare say more for fear of more exposures of your ignorance. You are wimped out now!

      • stoney

        He did nothing of the kind. He stated that this had not been handled by them yet so that they needed to wait.

        • smilee

          ????

          • stoney

            Which word stumped you?

          • smilee

            Not any word the message!

    • Sylvia Avila

      Right!! we all new to stand up! or our conservative rights!!

  • As a sworn proponent of the Constitution, Judge Moore is own worst enemy.

    What he’s going through is just one of tens of thousands of consequences of the ever-intensifying whirlwind today’s America is reaping as a result of the wind sown by the constitutional framers when they replaced Yahweh’s immutable/unchanging moral law for their own capricious Enlightenment traditions.

    “[B]ecause they have transgressed my covenant, and trespassed against my law … they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind….” (Hosea 8:1, 7)

    For more, see online Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of “Bible Law vs, the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt3.html.

    Then, find out how much you REALLY know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ConstitutionSurvey.html and receive a complimentary copy of a book that EXAMINES the Constitution by the Bible.

    • smilee

      Such baloney, Moore violated article VI cl. 2, this is constitutional law not biblical and it separates the two.

      • AllanGardnerMiles

        smile: Your interpretation of Article VI cl.2 and mine don’t depict any breakage of the Law by Judge Roy Moore. Do you care to explain your interpretation?

        • smilee

          Sure he broke the law as it says:

          This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the JUDGES IN EVERY STATE shall be BOUND THEREBY, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

          That is what the Constitution says and that is what it means and Moore openly defied it,.

          • David Hodges

            Which means Christianity and Constitutionalism are inimical to each other, as Ted said.

          • smilee

            Why do you see it that way? They are designed to do two very different things and as the Constitution guarantees freedom to express one’s Christianity (or any other religion) it in no ways impedes Christianity. If it promoted Christianity it would be unconstitutional and we would them be a theocracy which the founders did not want nor should we as then you would create an inimical cultural and that was the reason the founder did not do it as they understood that, Ted wants a theocracy and wants his religion to dominate all v free will which God gave us.,

          • David Hodges

            “This Constitution…Shall be the supreme law of the land” + Yahweh’s law shall be the supreme law of the land = inimical. The author of the law of a society is the god of that society. America’s god is WeThePeople.

          • smilee

            Only the constitution is the supreme law of the land. LOl how stupid of you TO think We the People are GOD! YOU ARE A REAL JOKE!

          • David Hodges

            According to 2 Kings 17, Baal is another name for the author of the law of the ​heathen, or WeThePeople law. That’s no joke.

          • smilee

            YOUR POINT IS??

          • David Hodges

            My point, 2 Kings 17, and all other Scripture, is sharper than any two-edged sword.

    • James Higginbotham

      Ted.
      your RIGHT in a lot of this..

    • Grundune

      Why would anyone want a copy of a book written by you? You claim that the Bible speaks to you and told you to abolish the U.S. Constitution.

  • Separation of Church and State is NOT in the Constitution. It cannot be attributed to Thomas Jefferson either. While he made that statement in a lettter of 1802, it had NOTHING to do with separation of church and state as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Therefore such a claim is without any real proof that such an idea was ever considered.

    The First Amendment says that government cannot create a religion nor can it interfere with a person’s own religion as in moral conscience.

    Therefore, separation of church and state does not exist except in the minds of ill informed members of the Supreme Court. The bottom line is that they MADE law, not upheld it.

    • smilee

      Sure it is and the courts have always held that it is. “The First Amendment says that government cannot create a religion nor can it interfere with a person’s own religion as in moral conscience.” that is separating state from religion. It is you who is confused.

      • buddy gibbs

        Wrong, the courts have only ruled against religious liberty since the late fifties.

        • smilee

          Religious liberty has never been ruled against, they have now upheld the first amendment for all religions on a equal basis which the first amendment requires as it gives no protections to Christianity that it does not give to every other religions including Islam, Jewish and every other one. People who make your claims feel Christianity should be given priority constitutional protections and until the other religions objected they did have and the courts were asked to referee and then decided no religion should be allowed in public entities and then be neutral with priority to none which is what the first amendment requires. Your statement is not accurate.

          • James Higginbotham

            Islam.
            is NOT PURELY RELIGIONS it is also POLITICAL, and the Koran teaches that NONE BELIEVERS should be stricken with a SWORD BY THE NECK.
            it’s no different than COMMUNISM, NAZISM, I’ve read their Koran if it is some kind of Religion?? it is from the DEVIL himself.

          • smilee

            In those countries that have an Islam theocracy it is as it is in those countries that are Christian Theocracies but not all Muslim countries are theocracy’s. It is a global recognized religion and is protected as a religion under out first amendment so your personal opinion is irrevant as it has no force in any law but your free to believe what you do even when your beliefs are not true or relevant.

          • James Higginbotham

            i most certainly believe what i read about any so called RELIGION which SHARIA LAW IS NOT.
            it’a POLITICAL DRIVEN AND HIDES BEHIND A RELIGIOUS FRONT..
            you need to read their Koran if your going to spout off about it.

          • smilee

            It is clear from your posts you have lost touch with reality as little you say is our reality. You are living in a fantasy world. Your opinions but in reality just BS.,

      • No it is not.

    • buddy gibbs

      That is why they claim the constitution is a living breathing document. That way they can twist, malign and assault the laws they detest and claim the high ground.

      • James Higginbotham

        your right Buddy.
        our Constitution is NOT A LIVING BREATHING DOCUMENT it was written in STONE, it MEANS WHAT IT SAYS, AND SAYS, WHAT IT MEANS.
        and is why Judge Moore is out of step with those ACTIVIST JUDGES who rule against him and WE THE PEOPLE AT EVERY TURN.

    • Maxine Albritton

      the original meaning of this statement sep. of church and state came about because in the past when our forefathers came from Europe they were forced by the government to worship in a certain way and were jailed, killed whatever punishment was desired was done to them. Example, in the time of the kings if the king of England was Catholic everyone in the land had to be that faith. if he switched to a different religion the people had to switch too. So our forefathers did away with this by giving us freedom to worship as we please. No matter what government or otherwise we are not forced to worship against our will. The courts probably turned this into a different meaning but this is the original one.

      • James Higginbotham

        Maxine.
        as history says the Pilgrims came to America seeking RELIGIOUS FREEDOM so i agree.

        • Maxine Albritton

          yes, but the world has a different opinion of that message. They believe that it means the church has no business in any government affairs. Of late, the government now controls what pastors can and cannot say at the pulpit. Doing so they can lose their tax exemptions.

      • Maxine,
        Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was written. HIs friend, James Madison, sent him a copy. Jefferson responded with the idea that no religious matters were covered and suggested a Bill of Rights be included. Madison, with help from others, created the Bill of Rights we know as the first Ten Amendments. Congress accepted them and included them into the Constitution. But during the time of the Congressional Congress, this was discussed, just never included.

    • Maxine Albritton

      I hate to tell you but some Christians today believe that the last Supreme court decision interferes with rights as in the baker, the florist , and photographer who were sued because they refused to provide services and were taken to court. I can’t wait for the day a preacher refuses and is taken to court, sued. because it violates his religious beliefs

      • Maxine,
        This is an issue where the Supreme court and I disagree. A person has absolute rights of moral conscience under the Constitution. For Christians, the Bible take precedence over civil law and hat is what the First Amendment guarantees. who got that put on the Constitution? Thomas Jefferson.

        • Maxine Albritton

          I do too. It can be taken back to the supreme court and retried I think and if enough people are affected it can be changed. I wonder where Scalia was in that decision. That was a liberal act for sure. or I should say a liberal interpretation

          • Maxine,
            A law says what it says and that is the intent. No “interpretation” is necessary or even acceptable.

  • Rick

    The removal of Ten Commandments displays at courthouses across “the heart” of America, is technically unconstitutional! There’s no enforcement upon said commandments, and there’s no such thing as protection against being offended. Friggan Republicans just don’t know how to fight for constituency rights!

    • Gloria D.

      I don’t really think the Rino’s even know the Constitution. They’re as bad as the Dems and some of them like Ryan, Graham and McCain are wanna be Dems anyway. Hoping their states vote them out!!!

      • buddy gibbs

        I agree, but idiots beget idiots so don’t put much faith in the ones who keep sending idiots.

        • Gloria D.

          True.

      • James Higginbotham

        your RIGHT GLORIA..
        Ryan I KNOW IS A DAMN snake and back stabber, WHEN I WATCH HIM you can SEE it in his BODY LANGUAGE..

        • Gloria D.

          James, you are so right. If I was President Trump, I would never trust that snake to do anything for me. Let him dig his own grave.. I think President Trump is giving him enough rope to hang himself.

          • James Higginbotham

            Gloria.
            i just hope that while he is digging he doesn’t dig us into the RAT HOLE WITH HIM.
            he is a LIGHT WEIGHT trying to act like he knows what he is doing, and anyone watching him can tell it.

          • Gloria D.

            That’s for sure James. Only time will tell but hopefully, WI will think twice before they vote Ryan in again. I swear he cheats himself into office every election. WI cannot be that ignorant, can they? Just like the No Voter ID state of CA. Those Dems cheat themselves into office there, as well. No one ever questions it. When will there be investigations into voter fraud??? Hopefully, Pence goes through with it. There was plenty in CA. Ryan might as well be a Dem. He did enough butt smootching during the Obama reign of terror! Really, what has he ever done that stands out???

          • Jim

            Hi Gloria.
            yeah just like Ole McCain and Lindsey Graham they act like DEMORATS than Republicans. and I’ve watch all of them over the years, they NEED TO BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE ASAP.
            hope ya have a good weekend Ma’am.

  • Bill Harrison

    But public schools can have special rooms for Muslims for Muslim prayer and the whole left can refuse to follow federal Immigration laws.

    • AllanGardnerMiles

      Yeah: Isn’t this Ironic that a nation which Excelled over all others for years and years by following a Constitution founded under Judeo/Christian Principles is taking the BACK SEAT while the Muslims drive the bus?????.:

      • James Higginbotham

        yep.

  • Grim Reaper

    Judge Moore was my choice for the Supreme Court. He is a man of great moral conviction and integrity.
    He is a true American, and one who is in step with the values of a majority of citizens.
    Whatever position he holds will be one that is of great service to those whom he serves.
    God bless you Judge Moore, and thank you for standing up for America in the face of so much evil, and adversity.

    • smilee

      He hates our Constitution and violates it and there is no worse pick for sc than him.

      • Grim Reaper

        Our nation, our constitution, our liberty, our freedom, and our prosperity have all been given to us for pledging our alligence to God.
        Yes it is the Almighty from which all power is derived, which gives to those that are obedient and takes from those who show little or no regard to his word, or his authority.
        For many generations our ancestors kept God’s word and honored, and obeyed him.
        In the process of doing so America became the greatest nation in the history of the world.
        Now unfortunately things have completely changed.
        Men have sought to make the word of God of no consequence, and have chosen to ignore his commands.
        It is therefore no small wonder that our country should be in such dire straits when people toss God aside. When the people of this nation turn their back on God and resort to their own hedonism and lawlessness, than this nation that was so enormously blessed, and richly rewarded now stands upon the precipice of total destruction.
        Many God fearing Patriots are fighting to keep America from falling and being destroyed.
        That is why Judge Moore deserves to be on the highest court. So the garbage that claims the freedom and the right to act stupid, can be sent to the dump where it belongs.

        • smilee

          All you say are your religious beliefs but not constitutional law! YOU SAY:

          “For many generations our ancestors kept God’s word and honored, and obeyed him.” Not true we killed and starved Indians right and left, kidnapped their children enslaved many and it got so bad our hate one for another resulted in our fighting our bloodiest war over, freed slaves then created a cultural system that mistreated them in may ways worse that when they wer slaves

          • James Higginbotham

            Judge Moore does NOT HATE OUR CONSTITUTION.
            your DELUSIONAL..
            i’m from Alabama and KNOW THE MAN..

          • smilee

            If he didn’t hate it he would enforce it as written and accept it as our supreme law which he is not allowed from the bench to change which he thinks he can and has tried to do more than once thus he got the boot not once but twice. He is known throughout the US as his illegal acts have been fully reported. You may know the man but sure do not know our Constitution or hate it to. His unpatriotic behaviors makes him not competent to be a judge.

          • James Higginbotham

            it appears you have no clue of whats going on over the Judge and the issue.
            he disobeyed a federal circuit judge who was the 1st to Rule against judge Moore and this Fed Judge over reached in his decision, then he was ruled against again when the Alabama supreme Court was PRESSURED TO ACT.
            and with all that Judge Moore did NOTHING WRONG..
            so take off your r Blinders and actually READ THE CASE LAW OVER THIS ISSUE.

          • smilee

            He disobeyed the Constitution and we all know what he did. The fed judge ordered him to stop he did not so he booted him. State judges cannot overrule a federal judge or against the Constitution and he did both. Sorry to burst your bubble but breaking the law is wrong and Moore did just that. This is not case law in question it is constitutional law he violated and the case law is irrelevant as the Constitution is the supreme law,. Like i have said before you are just so ignorant you cannot understand the reality here,

          • Grim Reaper

            Smilee anyone in this country today who takes it upon themselves has the opportunity to better their life and can if they make the effort succeed at whatever endeavor they undertake.
            The limits of what a person can do or be lies within the individual.
            Within each member of our society their is a responsibility as a citizen to be held accountable for their own actions, and to respect the rights of others, in as much as they respect your rights.
            Unfortunately today many have sought to undermine and destroy the moral fabric that made this nation great.
            They take no responsibility for their actions, or deeds and instead look to be taken care of via welfare, or other handouts.
            A great many people have completely turned their back on God.
            These miscreants have sought to have the votes and voices of those that oppose their wickedness silenced and taken from them by judges that legislate from the bench. One such case being that of a single gay judge overturning the votes of millions in a referendum on banning gay marriage in the state of California.
            His biased decision has the effect of Destroying Democracy to advance the evil of Homosexuality and in the process, he undermines destroys this nation.
            Another poor use of power are
            Executive Decisions like that of Obama allowing transgender mutations into public restrooms.
            Again this is the height of debauchery and stupidity, and shreds our Nation’s bonds with God.
            Our ancestors came to this land and through hard work, and persistence turned this land into the greatest nation on Earth.
            Back then there was a clash of cultures, and today it is no different.
            Our country is as diffused today as it was when the Civil War raged.
            Once again the stakes are high, with our nation teetering on the brink of destruction.
            Not only are we engaged with enemies outside our nation, but we are at war with our own prodigy that has been led astray, and a legion of people who have come to this nation who have no love for it, or those that built it.
            To them I have nothing but contempt, and to those that would destroy this nation through their evil all I can say is that they will reap the whirlwind that they have sown.

          • smilee

            Your first paragraph is no longer true and for some it never has been, the rich and big business lobbies of congress have made that impossible for a large number to be priced out of opportunity, Just do the math it is that simple to honest peole. Dishonest people believe this still exists, You see every other human being as you see you self based on your own abilities and opportunities and refuse to see other people in their situations. If you are an older person as I am we did have that opportunity and thus today we have established an easy life but for the young they no longer have the opportunity us older people did as in law we have reduced them big time and that is the biggest destruction of our moral fiber as we have become a very me centered selfish culture and that is why we have damaged our moral fiber. I once knew a man who said “I think the crooks and some Christian organizations must say the same prayer as they want for the same things in law” This combination based on self by both these crowds is the real reason for our moral and cultural decay. Your attitude contributes to that as your all this nonsense in your response makes very clear.

          • Grim Reaper

            Fiddlesticks….On this day where I stand there are plentiful opportunities for anyone to step into and be a success. The only thing truly holding someone back is themselves.
            If I were broke today, I could in very short order make a fortune. The reason being is because I am educated, but I also don’t accept failure, or defeat.
            I believe in the power of positive thinking, and the power of righteousness.
            I know there are legions of people out there who have been told they can’t do, or amount to anything, but let me tell you, I could take someone from literally any walk in life at even a basic education level, and within a few days turn this person into a human dynamo.
            When people invest in themselves, and let God into their life to guide them, then they have unleashed a whirlwind.
            The greatest thing a man can do is serve God and honor him, and the other greatest thing is to serve his fellow man.
            The rewards, and riches for doing these two simple things are….simply amazing.

          • smilee

            Your math is very bad, when I was young the poverty line and the minimum wage were equal now the minimum wage is 1/4 of the poverty line which makes it 4 time harder today. All people got very different abilities so not all can do what you think you can do and today you do not have to so you really do not know, I am educated to but it was affordable then and the debt if necessary was at a manageable level to get and wages big enough so paying it back was easy that its history and not the reality the young people pay today. Stats today are very clear this is fact and people with open minds who have good math skills get it those with closed minds or bad math skills do not. So you set yourself up in your closed mind as the standard for all others so you delude yourself about the reality of the whole society. I see you as nothing but an arrogant azzwhole. Even in Jesus’s day there was poverty and downtrodden people and he never advocated an attitude like you have towards them. Your response is BS.

          • When you were young you were in Korea.

          • Non sequitir and deflecting.

        • True.

      • No, you do gyopo.

    • buddy gibbs

      We did not lose our country overnight. It was convenient to sop the gravy and lick the icing for decades. Now people are waking up but it’s always harder the fight offense than defense. The lesson is if we beat back these communists on the left we can give no quarter in the future. The right has to give an eye for an eye and then step on them. America today is the result of lefties crying foul, discrimination, we just want to be heard!. Now that they own acadamia free speech is anything they agree with all else is hate speach. This is why communists were jailed not so long ago. Once they achieve power they dictate your views. Forty million people in the Soviet Union defied the commies, so when they achieved final power they executed the forty million.They will do the same here if they are allowed.In my short life I have only seen good commies once, they were piled over fifteen feet high and the pile was so big it took a cat D-9 two hours to bury them all. I hope we see more good commies in the future.

      • James Higginbotham

        HEAR HEAR.
        good post Buddy Gibbs.
        and just to add a little Historical info.
        during WW11 THE MUSLIMS AND COMMUNIST, AND NAZIS were all in step with each other.
        this is the EVIL we will be facing when the SHOOTING STARTS, and i feel it is WAY OVER DUE.

  • Elfego

    Liberal Judges rule against the President on his right to issue Executive Orders to prohibit certain Immigrants who are dangerous from entering America and the Judicial System does not stand against them when he has the right to do it. I question if the Judicial System is right and if it still works in America. I personally think it has become as political as any for of our government and needs to be called to light. I have no doubts it is not impartial and politically motivated today.

    • AllanGardnerMiles

      We do have an organization known as Judicial Watch. The originator Tom Fitton simply challenges Breakers of the Law. Party affiliation has absolutely no bearing as The Law being followed is the Organizations only interest.

    • AllanGardnerMiles

      We do have an organization known as Judicial Watch. The originator Tom Fitton simply challenges Breakers of the Law. Party affiliation has absolutely no bearing as The Law being followed is the Organizations only interest.

    • James Higginbotham

      it’s NOT Elfego.
      and all the President under the Constitution has to do is make a PROCLAMATION, nothing is said about a DAMN EO.

  • therealworld

    He IS right in his convictions but is Wrong for not following the law

  • Jim

    He needs to sue the Judges In Alabama, and take it to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    If these Judges want make laws, then they need to take off the rope, and run for Congress! Congress makes Laws, Judges enforces the Laws, NOT CHANGE THE LAWS , as we have seen happening lately! TO OFTEN!

  • Elizabeth Propst

    The Feds have no authority over “natural law”, nor over the states on such a matter. Judge Moore was right for advising others to ignore this Federal Over-reach, and Federal act of religious persecution against the principles contained within the constitution and of course the bible.

    • James Higginbotham

      your RIGHT Elizabeth..

  • komandante

    US senate is very lucky there’s nothing like dumb Manny Pacquiao of PH.

  • Lucky Man

    What do they have a problem with? Believers on faith call it the Ten Commandments from God, but what non-believer would have a problem with those basic human principles? What is so wrong with THOU SHALL NOT STEAL that would make a governmental panel choose to have it removed? They are words, principles to keep a society as a whole from collapse and decay. I swear, if Abraham Lincoln authored those same commandments as part of his legacy there would be no problem. As I see it, they have a problem with the source of these principles, not the principles/laws themselves,

    • James Higginbotham

      lucky man.
      were dealing with a SECULAR GOVT today who has BOOTED GOD OUT OF THE PICTURE.
      but as we all know, WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND and HISTORY BEARS THIS OUT VERY WELL.
      ask the Jews who after GENERATION chose to go after PAGAN GODS as our INCOMPETENT SO CALLED LEADERS are doing today.

      • smilee

        They created a secular government in 1787 so we have always been one,

        • Jim

          Ole Ben Franklin .
          did tell the lady when she asked what kind of country they had given us?
          when he told her a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC IF YOU CAN KEEP IT?
          well, we haven’t KEPT IT.
          so in some way i have to agree with your remark smilee.

          • smilee

            We sure have kept it as it is still in place and still the supreme law of the land 27 times amended. And during that time most have been added into We the People since on day one it was only rich white men whom had its rights albeit it was written for all of We the People so over time we have fulfilled the founders intent of We the People for which they created it,

        • Liar. They gave us a republlic based on Christian principles.

          • smilee

            A bunch more one liners, all lies, but of course that i all you have ever done
            I repeat: “LOL They didn’t dummazz, You have been so beaten down by my truths you can only now come up with a bunch of lying one liners, You do not dare say more for fear of more exposures of your ignorance. You are wimped out now!”

  • Cookie Vranish

    I hope he is successful!

    • smilee

      He will not be as the law is totally against him.

  • Cookie Vranish

    I would rather have those two just die! Trump could appoint some decent people then.

    • Kol

      You are really a NASTY one!!

  • smilee

    It did not interfere with religion only enforced equality between religions and that they are supposed to do that as one religion is not allowed to dominate another or use your religion to discriminate against any person,. Government canot create a theocracy or interfere with ones beliefs but it can control unconstitutional acts. The court has never denied any religion to practice its religion freely but just not in any public owed venues as they belong to all the people not to just people of one religion so the ruling was to settle this conflict that had arisen . Every religion can still freely exercise their religion in their own venues and to the public thorugh free speech but they cannot force other to practice their religion or discriminate against and other for any reason religion or otherwise, It is simply respect of your neighbor as one Christian commandment requires. Your response is confusing and just not true,

    • Smilee,
      Why has the Supreme Court ruled that we have separation of church and state when in fact that is totally bogus and not in the Constitution? Why are people being forced to support LGBT marriages when it is clear that Christians have the right of moral conscience?

      • smilee

        It is in the Constitution as the court has said and they are telling you the truth. Not in the words you obviously wanted it in but that is what it means. Who is being forced to support LGBT marriages as it only effects LBGT people and no one else’s marriage is effected and it fulfills the mandates in the 14th amendment and if you believed in the rule of law you would not make such a statement. Every marriage law in the US is a civil law not a religious law albeit the ceremony can be religious one (not required) and the law respects that as a legal civil marriage. Are you saying what you do not believe to be moral is not protected by the constitution just like what you want for your beliefs which you believe are protected and are as are theirs.

        • slilee,
          No the Supreme Court did not say it was in the Constitution. They used the Jefferson dodge, which is a misrepresentation on what Jefferson said because they never checked to see why he said what he did. He was responding to a letter from the Danbury Baptist Convention in October 1801. His statement reffed to their issue the government having no control over religion, especially moral conscience.

          • smilee

            LOL your opinion and it is just more BS. The court has so said,

          • Smilee,
            Show me where that statement of separation of church and state appears in the Constitution. It does not. Only the First amendment states that religion shall not be infringed upon. That is not separation of church and state. It is a declaration that government cannot interfere with religion. On that basis, separation of church and state is impossible. Every individual functions on their moral conscience whether it be political or not.

          • smilee

            First amendment , prohibition is separation, if it was not separated government could infringe upon religion . Where you miss the point is when one religion wants to dominate another religion and conflict develops between them as it has then the court was called upon to resolve that conflict and they determined that is all public venues religion could not be practiced but that is not infringement but preventing one religion from dominating another. It does not infringe on religious practices just where they can be conducted without conflict with other religions but it in no way infringed upon the religious practice itself as in prayer in school as they did absolutely nothing to interfere with prayer itself. This issue is not really about religious doctrine of any religion. That has not been done. This issue has been so misquoted from reality by some so called Christian groups but it s not true only spin!

          • smilee,
            I, for one, could care less about other religion’s beliefs with the exception of the Quran. Still, I have no issues with individual Muslims at all. I have Muslim friends, actually.
            Your position on the First Amendment is still subject to my interpretation of it. It means that religion cannot be ruled against or outlawed. That’s where it stops. In fact, separation of church and state is not possible for anyone of any faith who has a moral conscience and all of them do as far as I know, has a right to it. It cannot be infringed upon. Therefore, the Supreme Court cannot deny anyone’s rights to their beliefs. Yet the whole judicial system does just that. Charges against Christians who will not involve themselves in LGBT practices are fined to the point of being forced out of business.

          • smilee

            I M talking about the law not ones personal beliefs. How did the judicial system do what? Who has been forced to involve themselves in LGBT behaviors? Business is not a religion it is an entity that exists to serve the public and make money off of them you are confusing the two, No one was forced to go out of business that was always the owner’s choice,

          • You just supported my stance. We are referring to laws which for individuals that force an individual to violate their beliefs when the other party could simply go to another businesses that will accommodate them. and they have been forced out of business because of the hefty fines that has consumed all their finances in paying fines. If government would just keep their noses out of the rights of people and tell the LGBT community to go find someone else, it would solve the issue. But they refuse.

          • Spin much?

    • I just saw that the LGBT folks objected to a teacher who wears a cross around her neck. This is totally unconstitutional, period.

      • smilee

        Free speech is it not as they did nothing to prevent her from wearing it, how many so called Christians object to the head scarfs many Muslim women wear and how do you know it is nio fake news and not the exception to the rule. your point is not well taken and found to be BS.,.

        • Smilee,
          The Liberty Counsel requested the teacher not allow students to wear crosses in school. The school turn down the request. Now LC is threatening a lawsuit to stop the practice. That is where it stands as far as i know now. I failed to note that the lawsuit had not yet gone forward. It should not.

          • smilee

            Not aware of any of this or where. How is it different from all those requests against Muslim clothing?

          • smilee,
            There is no difference. Muslims are certainly free to wear what they wish. I live in a senior aprtment comples. There are Africans who live here. As a matter of fact,one couple lives next door. The men immediately choose to wear American clothing but many of the women remain in their native garb. They freeze in the winter. They do not have coats in their native clothing line apparently. That is their choice. Their clothing is colorful and attractive but not my choice when the temp gets below freezing. But it is their choice, not mine. I could care less what they choose to wear. I have a far more tolerant mind set on such topics. In fact, I am pretty moderate on most issues, just not on attacks on the Constitution. as such, I have supported LGBT people on their rights

          • smilee

            I find nothing here I disagree with

          • smilee,
            I suspect that there are many issues upon which we agree.

          • smilee,
            As long as an article of clothing is decent, I have on issue with what anyone wears. I live in a senior apartment complex. Africans of varying faiths live in the complex. In fact, one couple lives next door. Men immediately switch to American clothing but women do not. Their garb is mostly silk and very colorful. It looks great. But the women do not wear coats in the winter. It is their choice to freeze.
            Let me add this. I live in a very conservative state. Yet I supported LGBT rights. But now they want to take mine away. Fortunately the constitution does not allow that.

    • Liar

  • TalkTruth

    We need more of Moore!

  • Nelson De Los Santos

    Why are the liberals so double standard, hypocritical for Judge Moore . Yet for sanctuary cities is okay to go against the law “smilee”. The law was fine since the inception of our constitution. I am a constitutionalist and regardless of all your scholarly notes; a few more conservative, constitutionalist Supreme Court judges and all your rhetoric will be hogwash my friend. By the way; it was President Lincoln that abolished slavery “a Republican” and thanks to your justice, fair, communist, socialist, democrat party, blacks couldn’t stick their necks from under water till they could not longer be denied. The liberal label us as homophobic, islamophobic and the never ending list. But the Progressives only have one well defining label ” HYPOCRITES “.

  • Sylvia Avila

    Right!! Ginsberg will retire soon. she can’t even sty awake anymore!!

  • TooHotForU

    The supreme court has been making laws and setting social policy for a long time now, something which is not in their purview It is time to get some judges that actually interpret the Constitution, and not do what they were never intended to do.
    .

  • smilee

    The constituion does give them that right as it is the supreme law and when in conflict with the states the judges must rule in favor of the Constitution as it is a constitutional requirement, You are totally full of chitt!

    • temporary guest

      and you are a rude, crude, insulting little twit sob.

      So, I guess we know what we think of one another, huh?

  • Cindy McEwen

    I hope Judge Moore makes it to the Senate! He is a good man!! He deserves to be elected and we would be so lucky!!

  • Well said.

  • More lies and hate towards our Constitution and Christian founders.