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.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2017 Liberty Headlines
  • 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,

          • floral

            You are a lost cause, illogical, irrational, lacking in knowledge and language skills. No one literate can respond to your incomprehensible nonsense except to note that you only write illiterate incomprehensible nonsense.

          • floral

            Congress NEVER passed Jim Crow laws, but SCOTUS did make decisions that tacitly and expressly allowed segregation.
            Name the SCOTUS case that struck down “jim crow” laws.

          • smilee

            Who ever said congress passed the jim crow laws, they were all state laws dummy. Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson were the two worst court decisions in our history that is no longer disputed, The courts do not have a 100% correct court decisions but most times they have. Brown v Board of education ordered segregation ended and to enforce it later congress passed the civil rights act and voting rights act of which the 14th amendment gives them the power to do.

          • You lie and give too much power to the 14th Amendment, which said people have equal rights, equal protection under the law (regardless of race or former status as slave or free, dummy), and gave all negroes in America citizenship. Neeeeed to be making that popping sound.

          • smilee

            It says every law enacted or enforced must have equal protections for any person so every person is covered. What about any do you not understand, They do not come any dumber than you.

            nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

            ANY ANY ANY PERSON Get it dummy!!

          • floral

            You don’t “get” that rights are being denied for Christians who don’t get the “equal protection of the laws” when homosexuals DEMAND special rights and sue for wedding cakes and have tried to force Christian pastors to “marry” them….

          • Kol

            What Does the Bible Say About Bigotry? – OpenBible.info

            https://www.openbible.info/topics/bigotry

            Luke 6:20-8:3 ESV / 16 helpful votes. Helpful Not Helpful. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the …

          • smilee

            What special rights?? It denies nothing to Christians or any one else. You really do need to educate yourself rather that repeating over and over again the same lies.

          • floral

            Gays get to assert their “rights” to anything they want to force others to do for them, but the Christians who don’t want to enter into personal services contracts with demanding gays are punished and the Christian’s rights to their conscience, their associations and their choice of occupation are denied, in favor of the demands of the gays.
            You are the one needing an education and a moral and constitution one especially.

          • smilee

            Sorry but the law says you are wrong and you are. You description of what happened is a lie.

          • floral

            You don’t know what happened. I read the transcripts and lived it. You don’t know the difference between Federal “law” and city ordinances and civil court and criminal court. The Bakers had NO real choice. Either involuntary servitude in the form of being forced to enter into personal services contract for wedding cake decorations or going bankrupt from legal fees defending against bogus civil suits….
            Rights for 1 that deny rights for others are NOT rights, but violations of rights. Nobody took any legal or moral rights away from gays by not wanting to be in involuntary servitude to gays, but the rights of Christians to practice and freely express their rights to freedom of association and exercise of religion and speech ARE denied by exalting spurious demands of gays to wedding cakes, non essentials, from anyone. No muslim baker would make a wedding cake for a homosexual “couple”. Why should Christians be singled out for punishment and denial of INALIENABLE rights?
            You are boring and dangerous in your illogic, irrationality and lack of legal and moral sense.

          • Kol

            You make no sense at all — and you LIE and exaggerate a lot! That’s not very “Christian” of you!

          • LIAR! If it forces them to do something against their faith, it is unconstitutional and violates their God-given rights of choice, speech, and religion, which trumps anything of the queers.

          • smilee

            Does not, they chose to bake wedding cakes etc and no one forced them to but that does not give them the right to decide who can or cannot buy their cakes as they are required by law not to discriminate as such. You bigots can can never see the truth. Your last word proves you are a bigot that is a bigoted word to describe these people. SO SHAMEFUL!!

          • floral

            YOU are non responsive. NAME THE SCOTUS CASE that STRUCK down “jim crow laws”

          • smilee

            There was many of them getting rid of jim crow but the big one was brown v board of education (9-0 SC vote) that settled the interpretation of the 14th amendment once and for all and since many people have had their rights enforced by rulings and new laws such as the civil rights law of 1964.

          • floral

            Segregation in education was NOT “jim crow ” laws of states or municipalities.
            The only people affected by the CRA were blacks. THAT was the intent of the 14th amendment, to ensure full citizenship for freed slaves and naturalized citizens.
            The 14th has be “reinterpreted” to allow additions to anti discrimination laws to include first gays, then others. Totally BS as it alters and undermines the rights of individuals under the 1st amendment.

          • floral

            Name one State that had “jim crow” laws and state the law that qualifies as “jim crow” and identify the SCOTUS case that struck down ANY “jim crow” law.

          • smilee

            OMG what is your problem, any state that had laws legalizing segregation had jim crow laws and brown v board of education overturned plessy v ferguson making segregation unconstitutional and since they have been enforcing the 14th amendment across the board . Try educating your self.

          • Try to educate yourself as you are giving the 14th more authority than it was intended to have. BTW, these laws were all courtesy of the demoncrats.

          • smilee

            Bull the 14th does have that authority and the courts have issued orders it be complied as such and all your lies are meaningless and they are irrelevant to reality. In 1868 it was republicans who wrote and enacted the 14th amendment and now we are seeing their intent become reality and you hate equal protections for all which is s trademark of you immoral bigots!

          • floral

            No, you are again without fact or evidence. “jim crow” LAWS were on voting.

          • smilee

            Oh ignorant one jim crows laws defined dozens of laws that were unconstitutional and almost all targeted blacks that is why this period has been called “Slavery by a differnt Name” Laws dealing with debt, having to look down and move off to the side to let whites pass, never allow ones eyes to rest on a white woman are but a few. No due process so blacks were guilty if the white person said so and most times they were not . You are so totally ignorant!

          • floral

            No SCOTUS case for ANYTHING you state as “unconstitutional” “jim crow” laws.
            BTW, sodomy is still a criminal offense and laws against it are STILL on the books of many cities even if not enforced. They have NOT been repealed.
            You are so far out of reality and logic as to be on another planet.

          • floral

            Your vile inaccurate unfounded opinion. WELFARE is slavery by a different name, creating a permanent dependent SLAVE class.

          • smilee

            Again you show your stupidity as there is a big difference between owning someone and using them at your will including raping or killing them with impunity and the gov helping out those who are poor. Reality is something you are incapable of comprehending. Ignorance or stupidity?

          • floral

            Reality and logic escape YOU and apparently always have. The Gov does NOT help out those who are poor, except to keep them permanently underclass and poor. You said “slavery by another name”. That is WELFARE, and it is NOT “government” job and they take from taxpayers and GIVE to “poor” keeping them permanently poor, disincentivised, hopeless and dependent.
            Why do you constantly veer tangentially into illusory territory? What does “rape and killing with impunity” (which is endemic in islamic cultures) but has NOTHING to do with slavery now which you call “slavery by a different name” stick to the subject, but you cannot – when you are contradicted and proven inaccurate you resort to ad hominem fallacies because your logical fallacies have failed.

          • smilee

            NO NO NO DUMBAZZ, “slavery by another name”. was blacks living under jim crow laws and has nothing what so ever to do with welfare. That is how slaves were treated when slavery was legal, owners could rape and kill if the liked (old ones usually) and could do so with impunity, It was epidemic in this country to during slavery and jim crow days, and these master claimed to be christian and attended church regularly You are just to ignorant and stupid to understand any of this and that is not my fault that you are that way.. You are so pathetic.

          • floral

            Wrong revisionist history. Wage slaves, sweat shops, involuntary servitude ring a bell with you? Welfare creates a dependent underclass, which slavery was/is.

          • smilee

            That is what we would have again if it was not for welfare and this is far less satisfactory than living wages and that is what they want but so often not available to so many, They never lobbied for welfare but the big corporations sure lobbied hard for these welfare’s for working people so it is the rich that have created this.. Why do so few blame those who are the guilty ones and go after those who did not create it or asked for it,l,

          • floral

            We have sweat shops now and wage slaves and involuntary servitude (prisons, and demands of homosexual activists). “welfare” has created a permanent dependent underclass who are “slaves” to the regulations and desires of the lib/dem/progs who pay them to stay put via welfare in poverty, degradation, and dependency.

          • smilee

            Your so sad nothing you say is accurate

          • floral

            you are SO ungrammatical and factless and feckless.

          • floral

            rich lib/dem/progs took welfare away from churches and created a dependent class thereby. Yes the rich lib/dem/prog/socialists caused this and the regs enabled ever more of a dependent slave class. No one has to apply for welfare but many do and many are frauds….I DO blame the ones the rich lib/dem/progs that started this and the ones who let themselves be enslaved WILLINGLY by a corrupt and corrupted and corrupting system that they VOTE for continuing because the rich lib/dem/progs want them to and want to keep them dependent.

          • floral

            You sure are incapable of comprehending “reality” , through both ignorance and stupidity and willfull irrationality.

          • 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

            Your specious opinion is NOT the last word on what the REAL constitution is. Separation of powers is not the wording. It is checks and balances.SCOTUS can NOT make law nor enforce law. There is judicial review of laws when laws are questioned and appealed and make it to the SCOTUS, who can refuse to review lower court decisions. SCOTUS has NO original jurisdiction over Congressional laws OR State laws. To keep the “balance” and the check, SCOTUS can NOT make, enforce or ORDER enforcement.

          • 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.

          • smilee

            WRONG as usual

          • floral

            judicial review is NOT the main authority constitutionally of SCOTUS.

          • smilee

            Then what in your opinion is as your spin on this was resolved once and for all in 1803 with madison v marbury, it is settled law and been done this way for 214 years now so what you say is just BS. They do have the authority so get over it,

          • LIAR! It is Marbury vs. Madison. You also lie as the SCOTUS has exceeded its authority as Scalia was trying to reign it in. Let us hope that Gorsuch keeps this trend going. They predict Trump replacing another justice before the end of his 1st term.

          • smilee

            Scalia never ever voted for overturning Marbury v Madison he went by it abeit he did some very stupid things.

          • floral

            Marbury had nothing to do with Laws passed by Congress.

          • smilee

            Marbury v. Madison, (1803), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. The landmark decision helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of government.

          • floral

            You just proved my point. There was NO law, and you did not write that post. You copied it wholesale from some website you googled. Not your style…..which is non existent (style and truth that is)

          • floral

            No it was NOT.

          • floral

            No you do NOT understand Marbury v Madison. It is NOT Law and SCOTUS does NOT have original jurisdiction over acts of Congress. Marbury was not decided on an act of Congress or ANY Law…..

          • smilee

            It it you who do not understand it and that ruling interpreted what role the constituion gives the supreme court and that it is the supreme court who determines if any law abides but he Constitution or not and if not by order renders it null and void, it is settled and has been for over 200 years and practiced that way since that time, Simply put you are again 100% wrong so typical of you.

          • floral

            The COURT decided what “role” the Constitution gave it. Conflict of Interest. “judicial review” is NOT the primary role the Constitution gave the Court. Subsequent Courts “reinterprete” their role to suit their political agenda. Still, “judicial review” is limited to appeals which the SCOTUS CAN refuse to hear. Judicial review is NOT original jurisdiction NOR is it a primary function CONSTITUTIONALLY. It has been abused in key cases that have undermined the intent of the Founders and the clear meaning of the Constitution and the amendments therunder and laws duly and thoughtfully passed.

          • floral

            Dred Scott was NOT the “trigger”. It was a political move to PREVENT secession. Douglas supported it and Lincoln opposed it. It was NOT an exception to the rule that SCOTUS has power to make law. It IS the rule that SCOTUS is/has acted without constitutional authority. There was a law that forbade expansion of slavery in new territories and Dred Scot was a free man because of it. The southern congressmen (rep slave owners) worked to pass the “compromise” that tried to overturn that prohibition. You are NO scholar and your unscholarly OPINION does not matter.
            And the axiom is “the exception proves the EXISTENCE of the rule”.
            RvW was a “mistake” and unconstitutional. School prayer was a mistake and clearly wrong because it gave “constitutional” status to a private letter between Pres Jefferson and Danbury Baptists and even misquoted that. There are a LOT of specious and contradictory SCOTUS decisions. Mistakes and unconstitutional rulings are the RULE, not the exception.

          • smilee

            It was a SC decision in 1857 and after that ruling it became a big issue and making a civil war imminent. In 1803 in Madison v Marbury the supreme court determined the court was the sole arbitrator on constitutionally and it has never been challenged it has now for been settled law for 214 years. You can believe waht you like but that is not our reality so you re 100% wrong, The court has never made law and I have never said that. You call me no scholar and you know nothing about constitutional law such a JOKE. The court did not free dred scott his owner did, that SC denied him his freedom the decision was 7-2 and six of the seven judges owned slaves, Boy are you ignorant as most of you responses are all falsehoods and not reality and clearly you have no understanding of the Constitution or the legal system under it,

          • floral

            Wrong. I KNOW SCOTUS did NOT free Dred Scott. His owner did NOT. Hence the SCOTUS case, which was decided to AVOID secession. Do you NOT understand the Missouri Compromise?

          • smilee

            Peter Blow owned Dred Scott and when he died Peter Blow’s sons, childhood friends of Scott, had helped pay Scott’s legal fees through the years. After the Supreme Court’s decision, the former master’s sons purchased Scott and his wife and set them free. How was it suppose to avoid secession as clearly if it was it did not work and scott was freed.

          • Non sequitir.

          • floral

            You never read Lincoln/Douglas debates nor the analysis of the ruling.

          • smilee

            Oh but I have, so go take a cold shower!

          • floral

            You did not understand anything- you misread everything and misrepresent what you misread. The intent of the Foyunders was to LIMIT federal government, not expand it. Read Story on the Constitution.
            Again, the intent of the 1st amendment was NOT to prostrate Christianity to islam, catholicism, atheists, armenians…..but to prevent strife among Christian denominations.
            cold shower is NOT rebuttal or factual. You are the angry one, flying in the face of the facts of history and the Founders intent, simply because you have a lib/dem/prog/socialist agenda….

          • smilee

            They did not write that in the constituion and that is the supreme law we must go by and no ones rhetoric so you misinterpret and confuse what they did with what they said, You should read the constitution as what you claim is in it is not. It says nothing in the first amendment about promoting Christianity it actually say the opposite or nothing about it being under law considered superior or having any priority I just thought a cold shower mind help you clear your mind so I said it only of concern for you.. COOL DOWN and realize you write mostly lies.

          • floral

            Obviously, you never understood the Federalist Papers, which explained the breadth of what was intended by the clear and simple document that is the Constitution. If You EVER understood the reasons why the 1st amendment was written the way it was, you would know that was the intent. You are so adamant that SCOTUS decisions are “law”-you cannot without being the idiot you clearly already are, deny that statement I quoted from CHIEF JUSTICE Joseph Story (1836)

          • smilee

            That was rhetoric for selling the states on ratifying the Constitution and some of it was not true just like today much was not, There were papers saying the exact opposite of the federalist papers at the time and I am guessing you have never read any of them. The far right alt propaganda today never speaks of them. The SCOTUS defines what the law is and what it means as written not based on someone’s rhetoric. The intent is in their words they put in the constitution and made supreme law, You can find rhetoric all over the map on theses issues, The constitution has been amended 14 times since Story died making some of his quotes obsolete by amendment,

          • floral

            You are so totally ignorant of the history it is pointless to try to correct your inaccuracies and even point out your angry lack of logic.

          • floral

            Chief Justice Story wrote his Commentaries on the Constitution in 1836. He might still be the longest serving justice on SCOTUS ever.
            His commentaries were not “rhetoric”, nor was anything James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, John Adams, Sam Adams, George Mason or the 90+ other members of the Constitutional Convention said and wrote to inform the public about the Constitution,.

          • smilee

            The judges write their opinions as to why they ruled as they did in a given case and you do not cite if this is given case or just the judges rhetoric. WOW there was not 90 members there were 70 members chosen but 15 never showed up and of the 55 that did 14 gave up and went home and were not a part of the end product leaving 41 left who stayed to the end and two of them refused to sign off on it so it bears 39 signatures. The words of all you mention was their rhetoric and they did not agree on every point and quite often sharply disagreed but in the end they compromised so much rhetoric is different than the end product they agreed to. Historians have concluded that only about half of their rhetoric to the public was true and thus the hard push back from the anti federalists and independents of that time. You are so damn ignorant it is not even funny.

          • floral

            You cannot read. Goodbye

          • floral

            What is your problem with understanding Chief Justice Story wrote the seminal scholarly work on the Constitution, in 1836, and it is STILL considered the best work on the meaning and intent of the Founders, the SEMINAL work, the contemporaneous work while Dean Emeritus of Harvard Law School?

          • Kol

            floral —
            Your “Christianity” certainly appears very FALSE… considering the way you judge others, your put-downs and all the bigotry and hate and insults and prejudice that you spew.

            What Does the Bible Say About False Christians? – OpenBible.info

            https://www.openbible.info/topics/false_christians

            For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel …

          • floral

            No I do NOT think you a scholar.

          • He is not as he is a troll. Keep going as you are winning the good fight and are historically accurate.

          • 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”.

          • smilee

            They make the order and sooner or later it gets enforced by the executive branch in recent years almost immediately. This is done because the court ordered it done, I have read Scott and it occurred shortly before the civil war broke out so it never was enforced and the 13th amendment was enacted soon after reversing it so that is an exception and not a valid comparison to the norm. we have mostly respected and accepted these orders of the SC as we believe jn the rule of law and the court as the body deciding what is or is not lawful. This is constitutional and our supreme law.,

          • floral

            The executive branch did NOT enforce Dred Scott, nor “gay” marriage, nor King vs Burwell.
            The 13th amendment came long AFTER the Dred Scott decision. The SCOTUS does NOT make law so the RULE of law is NOT dependent on SCOTUS and SCOTUS makes decisions NOT orders. The Constitution and the LAWS enacted thereunder are the SUPREME LAW of the LAND.

          • smilee

            The court orders things not constitutional to be corrected and enforced and it is the executive branch who is charged with enforcing the court orders, so they do get enforced. That is not making law which you clearly do not understand,

          • They cannot order anyone to do anything. The ruling on queer marriage made it a law, but it cannot be enforced until the legislative branch votes on it. No matter what the stupid courts say. You really are less intelligent. Why are you so hateful to my country? It is not my fault your parents could not immigrate because they are from North Korea.

          • smilee

            Your so freaken dumb! The law was written by congress in 1868 and ratified by the states, the court just ordered it enforced in 2015 and it has been,, Congress does not have the power to override the court, Congress with a super majority can amend it if 3./4 of the states agree with them, congress makes the laws but the executive branch enforces them and if they do not the courts can order them to or if they do and it is unconstitutional the court can order it not be or if not enforced order it enforced as was the case with marriage equality so you lie again. Rip up your fantasy Constitution and read the real one. Your a very pathetic human who lives a life of lies,

          • floral

            Congress CAN and DOES overrule the SCOTUS. Even RvW said so. “If Congress passes a life at conception law, Roe ruling is NULL and VOID”. You, who does not understand plain English nor knows that “original jurisdiction” are words in the Constitution referring to the power of SCOTUS, are not qualified to understand the REAL CONSTITUTION.

          • smilee

            Not so except by the amendment process. Your wrong but then you are rarely right as you are so totally ignorant and confused about all of this. You really should get some education on this as you are making a fool of yourself displaying your gross ignorance of this.

            Here is that part of the constituion in context.

            In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

          • floral

            All Congress has to do is pass a law that overrules the SCOTUS decision. They said so in Roe v Wade.
            It does NOT take an amendment.

          • floral

            States can start the amendment process to overrule Congress AND the Court. The Court has recognized that fact in RvW

          • smilee

            LOL how, the amendment process starts in congress not the states Roe v Wade did not deal with the amendment process. Boy are you ignorant!

          • floral

            THAT is the stupidest thing you have written so far. The amendment process can be started in the Congress OR in a Convention of States.

          • smilee

            The convention of states has never been used as no one has yet figured out how to make one work so in every case to date it has not been used for that reason. There is an organization called the COS run by a bunch of far right alt types who claim they know how but their website is full of lies and they also solicit money for their cause (so they say that is what it is for) trying to get 2/3 states to ask congress to call a convention and even if they did congress may not be able to get enough votes to call one and in this process they have the last say. If they should ever succeed and congress did call one the constitutionality on what the call reads would most likely be challenged in the courts so then the court would have the last say so most knowledgeable people see it for what it is, a joke, a compromise on day one without a mechanism that can actually work. Most people do not wish to try it just these radicals who wrongly believe see it as an end run to get their way as without an end run they can not so they seek the money of suckers so they can try but in the end they will look like the fools they are. You should fit right in that crowd of suckers.

          • floral

            So you ADMIT that Congress is NOT the only route to amendments. It is in the Constitution afterall.

          • floral

            No-just not enough states chose to participate.

          • floral

            You cannot read and do not know anything. That is the definition of “ignorant”, which only applies to you. In RvW the judges acknowledged that if Congress passed a law defining when life begins ie at conception, that RvW would be overruled.
            Congress CAN overrule SCOTUS and has more than once by passing new law to circumvent bad SCOTUS decisions.
            The amendment process has 2 prongs, one started in Congress, one started by States. Either or.

          • floral

            The executive branch is “charged” with the power to execute (implement) LAWS, not court rulings.

          • smilee

            The court interpret the right understanding of the law and that the executive branch must then enforce it as interpreted and that is call orders from the court which the executive cannot ignore, and have not but sometimes much slower than other times today almost instantly.

          • floral

            No, the executive branch ONLY is supposed to execute and implement LAWS passed by Congress. SCOTUS is supposed to settle disputes with other nations and states and provide a check on Congress and the executive branch. SCOTUS does not have original jurisdiction over laws .

          • smilee

            LOL They do. The SCOTUS can and does decide if a law (any law) is constitutional or not. And when it does the executive branch or anyone can no longer enforce that law if the court decides it is not constitutional, Only congress passes laws, I guess I just assumed you knew that, so dumb of me as I did know you know so little about this. I also never said anything that contradicts your last sentence. but courts can toss them out if they do not follow the constiution and order that or support the law if it is Constitution as they did with the Obamacare law

          • floral

            If the executive branch no longer enforces a law, that does not mean that SCOTUS ordered ENFORCEMENT of their ruling. bo refused to enforce a 20 yr old law that had been enforced for many years and BROUGHT the case to SCOTUS when bo was sued because HE refused to enforce a law.

          • smilee

            DOMA was constitutional and the courts agreed with Obama so he was right in not enforcing it.

          • floral

            bo refused to enforce a long standing law long after billyboy clinton gleefully and proudly signed it. DOMA was not repealed by SCOTUS or Congress.

          • floral

            Not so…..give up your stupid inaccurate spin of what actually happens. bo’s executive branch FAILED and refused to support and continue “enforcing” laws passed and implemented long before….even the IRS overruled the pres who refused to “execute” any decision by the SCOTUS

          • The courts cannot order anything as they only interpret the law as it applies to the case before them, ignorant troll.

          • smilee

            LOL Get convicted for a crime and watch the judge order your butt into jail, sure they make orders all the time, That is part of their job.

          • floral

            SCOTUS does not “order”. Criminal court judges, when a jury decides, declares what the jury says and applies the law regarding punishment when the jury says guilty. Appeals can overrule the jury.
            You clearly know NOTHING…….

          • floral

            They rule on a set of facts ONLY. SCOTUS does NOT “order” anything. The SCOTUS “interprets” upon appeal whether or not they think a law is Constitutional. A SCOTUS decision is NOT the “supreme law”. It is merely precedent and seldom is followed even by the COURT in subsequent decisions on similar sets of facts.

          • smilee

            The facts in a case are heard in district court where the facts are presented and the judge or a jury determine based on the facts heard in trial its conclusion and order others are appeals in which no testimony is given and the appellate courts on appeals determines if the district court applied the law correctly or conducted the trial correctly and can determine constitutionality of the law. The SCOTUS gets its authority from the supreme law and are not themselves law if they declare something unconstitutional it can no longer be enforced that is no differnt that an order of a court as it results int their opinion being enforced. It is not precedent only, it is a ruling that will be enforced as ruled. Rarely are court decisions overturned by the court.

          • floral

            You are out of context, time, facts logic and intelligence

          • floral

            Ridiculously irrelevant. The losing party can appeal to a higher court. There are several levels. Appeals may fail on any level due to for one, jurisdiction. SCOTUS can refuse on jurisdictional grounds or any grounds to hear any appeal that has gone through the process.
            SO WHAT?

          • smilee

            I have and you are wrong

          • floral

            Don’t agree…never will…you obviously don’t understand what you read and the place in history.

          • Liar as the executive branch enforces laws.

          • smilee

            That is what I said dumbazz, congrats as you finally got one right.

          • No, you also said the court says what is to be enforced. Need to read your posts more carefully. Look forward to the issues of abortion and queer unions being overturned.

          • smilee

            The court says what and the executive branch then does it what they say. Get it dummy. Dream on odds are against you as the constitution is.

          • floral

            enforces laws PASSED by Congress, not rulings by the SCOTUS because SCOTUS does not make Constitutional rulings in many cases before them, like criminal cases, unemployment and peyote usage et al

          • True. Smilee is just a troll that gives too much power to the courts and believes they can set anything in this country. This isn’t even his country as his country is Korea.

          • floral

            Just because you “believe” your unfounded opinions, does not make it so…..

      • 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.,.

          • floral

            Not DEAD, just n ot changable. Our rights and the government under the Constitution are inalienable. It is living and breathing, and IMMUTABLE. The only changes are by amendment and that is very difficult and should remain so. SCOTUS does NOT get to CHANGE the fundamental rights or PC them.

          • smilee

            Article V allows any change we want and 27 times since we have, The powers given congress are very flexible and no limit on size that often was left for congress to decide, The court does not make law so you lie about that and only persons who do not understand the Constitution think that.,

          • floral

            The powers given to Congress are few and inflexible. Only the courts and immoral power hungry men have taken power not granted. The Founders were very clear that the Federal government was to be limited to national security, the post office and little else. They wanted to prevent the oligarchy that our government has become. That is what they fought the Revolution to remove, the tyranny of the unelected bureaucracy that hindered freedom.
            You do NOT understand history and your invalid and inaccurate interpretation is what constitutes LIES. My opinion and my interpretation based on the plain reading of the Constitution and the works of scholars who were THERE at the Founding are not lies. Your assertions that they are is what are LIES.

          • smilee

            It did go and read article one section eight it lists many more as do other parts of the Constitution and the 14th added many to that list. Your conclusions contradict what the founder actually put into the supreme law as you choose to ignore much of that. LOL you are so confused and ignorant and getting ridiculous so go take a cold shower. You twist and spin almost all the founders really did and replace it with your own fantasy one.

          • floral

            Congress has limited and enumerated powers. ALL others are reserved to the PEOPLE and/or the States. The Amendments did NOT add to the powers, just completed the intent of the Founders to ensure that ALL people were protected in their rights. THAT is the INTENT of the Founders, and it is stated in the preamble ….to secure the blessings of liberty…..

          • smilee

            They have limited enumerated powers as they do not have powers over evrything just those listed in the constituion . The enumerated powers they do have are those listed but those powers were granted them to accommodate changing needs with congress having the powers to determine if or if not to exercise them and the size and scope of these powers if the choose to The 14th transferred a lot of powers from the states to the feds with direct Constitutional prohibitions and mandates in addition it gave congress powers to enforce any part of the 14th. Before the 14th this could not happen As usual you have it all jumbled up in your mind with no clear expressions of them.

          • floral

            You are “jumbled” in your lack of cognition. The 14th was NOT intended to be expanded by liberalism and misinterpreted by silly lib/dem/prog justices whose minds were lost to senility…….The 14th was to shore up the 13th and make sure that Negroes/former slaves were insured full rights. gays are a lifestyle not a race, voluntary not involuntary as is parentage.

          • smilee

            It has not been, it has merely been ordered enforced as written which is clearly beyond your ability to comprehend, and that was to guarantee due process and equal protections to any and all persons and that included former slaves but not limited to just them as it applies to any person bar none! LOL, gay are persons and it applies to all persons bar none so of course it has to include gays as they are persons even if you do not think so, Go get educated!

          • floral

            You fail to comprehend that the 14th has NOT been enforced as written, but as “interpreted”. It was ONLY for former slaves and naturalized citizens, not for “lifestyle” choices or sexual preferences.

          • Liar.

          • floral

            Except after the Constitutional Convention, many presidents and most Founders said variously phrased but meaningful statements that boiled down say “our Constitution was written for a free, moral and religious people. It is wholly unsuited to any other.
            The Dec of Ind is the foundation for the Constitution and was created for ALL people. Immoral men tried to exclude certain peoples, like negro slaves and say they were not men or equal. The ultimate goal of the Founders, whether slave owners or not, was to INCLUDE all, and eliminate slavery.

          • smilee

            That is rhetoric not law but then you have made clear many times you do not know the difference. The Constitution is supreme law and the DOI is not law at all and the Constitution was created 11 years later and the preamble makes very clear it was created for we the people and they gave no exceptions but under the culture of the day that was only applied to rich white men but that was the goal of some that some day it would be so they compromised and wrote it that way and today we have included almost all people in we the people fulfilling the purpose as they stated it way back then but could not deliver themselves then.

          • floral

            You don’t know the definition of rhetoric or what a law is.
            The preamble is NOT the Constitution and not FOR the people but BY the people.
            The Constitutional Convention rewrote the Articles of Confederation and passed the Constitution and eventually the Bill of Rights, creating a Constitutional representative Republic for the purpose of securing the rights of individuals.
            What ARE you babbling about?

          • smilee

            LOL OMG you say the preamble is not the constituion, Sheer stupidity, it is just as much a part of it as any other part,. They did not rewrite the AOC they scrapped it and started all over again and the two are as different as day and night thus a total replacement with at totally different concept, Everyone is an individual not just you but you only care about you and feel you should have the right to deny that to others the 14th has made sue you cannot get a way with that any more,

          • floral

            You are spinning and non responsive.

        • 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!

          • floral

            Bound by the CONSTITUTION, not SCOTUS decisions that change with every Court…….

          • floral

            Federal appeals courts can overturn lower court decisions. Appeals court decisions are NOT law, but precedent IF the facts of subsequent cases are similar enough.
            You are NOT a legal scholar nor do you understand the workings of and the relationships between courts.

          • smilee

            Any court an declare a law unconstitutional but all but the supreme court can be appealed and if not then that order stands until it is. Ten times more knowledgeable than you as you rarely get anything right.

          • floral

            No, no lower court can “declare” a law unconstitutional. And your language skills are so lacking you have contradicted yourself in this sentence. Lower Court decisions can be appealed TO the SCOTUS, but SCOTUS does not have to hear the appeal, nor does the SCOTUS have original jurisdiction over ANY law. All SCOTUS can do is hear or decline to hear, any appeal brought to it.
            You know NOTHING and cannot express what you think you know in any comprehensible way.

      • 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!

          • floral

            Your message is incomprehensible and factually and historically invalid when it can be deciphered

    • 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.

          • floral

            anti discrimination laws which give lgbtqi special rights deny Christians their rights……..

          • floral

            The 9th circuit openly “defies” the Constitution with most of their decisions. SCOTUS “openly” defied the Constitution by changing the “interpretation” of it.
            So, what is your point? That Moore understands originalist Constitution ala Scalia, excercises his understanding of the 1st amendment ala SCOTUS, which has the 10 commandments in its chambers?
            Hypocrite…..

          • smilee

            Your opinon about the 9th and as usual you are wrong. Moore simply hates the Constitution and has always refused to go by it and because of that he has been booted off the court twice for going against the Constitution. Even Scalia did not agree with Moore. You sure lie a lot!

          • floral

            Your “opinion” is completely without truth and foundation. Moore was NOT “booted” off the Court for “going against the Constitution”. It was political. Moore was within his rights as a citizen AND his oath as justice.
            Prove with Scalia’s dissenting or affirming written Court opinion that he disagreed with Moore. I read a lot of Scalia’s written opinions in cases that supported even businesses and individuals religious stances.

          • smilee

            Liar he was booted as he did not follow the constiution thus they tossed him off as judges are suppose to do that every time he flagrantly did not. so twice they gave him the boot and currently that is his status. You are so full of it and in serious denial!!

          • floral

            The denial is yours tone deaf illogical virtually illiterate misnamed fool. Your feeble attempts at insult instead of producing actual evidence is proof of your denial

          • smilee

            Feel better now liar

          • floral

            Non responsive, non factual, irrelevant. My “opinion” is not a lie. My Evidence is not inaccurate. Calling everyone who disagrees with your inaccurate, illogical, irrational, clueless “opinion” a LIAR, proves you have nothing valuable to add and proves you incapable of civil and rational and logical and ACCURATE discussion.

          • smilee

            Not everyone only those of you who are so constitutionally illiterate which you are.

          • floral

            You are boring in your ignorance and illiteracy…

          • Kol

            You are boring with yours. LOL!

          • floral

            Bleat away. I am blocking you-refuse to feed your stupidity anymore by attempting to respond logically.

          • floral

            Except SCOTUS cannot MAKE LAW so whatever they rule, AFTER the lower courts rule is NOT defiance nor breaking the law. SCOTUS can only overturn the decisions of lower courts. Moore could appeal to SCOTUS and point out the PRECEDENTS that allow him to post the 10 commandments as does the SCOTUS.

          • smilee

            Moore is a judge in a lower court dumbazz. You both real big liars and loaers

          • floral

            You Said Moore defied the Constitution and that SCOTUS decisions HAVE to be obeyed and that MOORE DEFIED the Constitution and what SCOTUS ruled. Except you don’t seem to have a grasp on logic much less fact and that Moore was NOT “booted” by fellow justices because of any SCOTUS or Constitutional edict. If You HAVE any evidence that SCOTUS made a ruling about 10 commandments in Courthouses that Moore “defied”, show it. Otherwise, you did not just miss the point of my comment and its logic, but are completely devoid of reality and cannot read plain english.

          • smilee

            He was booted as he informed courts and other to not enforce the supreme court order on marriage equality that is in violation of the constitution by any state judge. He was booted by a federal judge not a state judge. Thus only has to do with this ruling nothing else. He did the same in 2003 for the rest of that term and then was reelected at the end of that term and he is out until this term is completed to and then to old to run for that seat so he is gone forever say goodbye. What an ignorant confused person you are. see

            http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2016/09/alabama_supreme_court_chief_ju.html

    • 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.,

          • floral

            You are the epitome of he who has lost touch with reality, rationality and logic and who is living in a brain damaged fantasy of his own “chitt”

          • floral

            All moral and religious views are protected by the 1st amendment , except by SCOTUS decisions and anti discrimination laws, when homosexuals and atheists want to punish anyone who disagrees with them. Homosexual activists, anti discrimination laws are punishing Christians who exercise their religious freedom and freedom of association by NOT APPROVING OF and NOT slavishly serving the irrational demands of atheists and homosexuals…

          • smilee

            None of that is true and only bigots think what you do.,

          • floral

            You are the bigot because you think you know everything and that everybody else who disagree and/or point out your failures of logic and fact and rationality are wrong.

          • smilee

            Bigot is a person wanting to have special privileges over others as they see them as inferior to them for what ever reason and that is you not me! You have make clear to intelligent people you are wrong and rather than accepting that reality you come back with these lies.,

          • floral

            and you are bigoted because you endorse special privileges of homosexuals and atheists and muslims over Christians. You have made it clear to all who read you that you are not qualified to define words or determine intelligence and that your “opinion” is worthless….

          • Kol

            Actually, YOU appear to be the bigot. You don’t even have the common courtesy or simple decency to capitalize “Muslim” when you write. Nobody is endorsing special privileges for anyone when they say that everyone should be treated equally and have the same rights.

          • smilee

            It is because of your bigoted attitude you see these as special privileges when in fact they are equality with you and as you hate them you hate this. Christians under law are not superior to any you mention or anyone else only bigots think they should have this superiority. Typical bigoted attack of bigots when presented with truth, Bigoted opinon are not truth and you speak no truths here.

          • floral

            It is NOT equality to assert that gays have the “right” to deny Christians their right to NOT approve of or serve gays in their demands. Legal equality does not mean APPROVAL of lifestyle and desires.

          • smilee

            Always BS never any truth!

          • floral

            That is you-no truth to your statements whatsoever.

      • 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.

          • floral

            No, attempted control but not yet control. What is dangerous is that the IRS does try to determine what can be a tax exempt religion.
            In Denver, CO a group of marijuana fanatics have “bought” an abandoned historical church building and have called it the CHurch of Marijuana or some such name. it remains to be seen if the IRS will allow any tax exemption religion or 501(c)(3) non profit.
            Tennessee has jailed pastors for running church schools without State sponsored education cirriculuums and there was some IRS involvement in trying to shut down or tax certain churches and the homosexual mayor of a Texas city demanded that her critics that were pastors had to submit their sermons to her censure, but that “ordinance” came to naught.

          • Maxine Albritton

            what I stated is true the Church has no business in Government affairs according to this ruling *I think Christians need to stay alert as being so spiritual and being no earthy good is not healthy either but the opposite is the government has been trying to stifle the Church. The IRS has been given to much power and has hurt many people that could have been innocent.

          • floral

            Apparently you think I disagree with you. I do not. Just clarifying the actual facts. IRS has NOT be “given” too much control, they have taken it and SCOTUS has confirmed that their regulations, which have NOT been passed by elected members of Congress, have the force of law. That is contrary to the Constitution.

          • Maxine Albritton

            I do totally agree as in my statement the government has been trying to stifle the church. It should not be able to do that by taxation and such rulings that are used for control.

      • 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.

        • floral

          Actually, George Mason promoted the Bill of Rights. Thomas Jefferson wrote the VA bill for religious freedom, which he considered his most important work and accomplishment. Madison opposed the Bill of Rights but came around to Mason’s way of thinking. Mason’s wording on religious freedom was rejected and the whole convention worked on the form we have today. The idea of religious freedom was endemic and prominent in the reasons for the the Revolution and prominent in the Dec of Indep. Jefferson was not alone in the influential “religious freedom” prominence in the 1st amendment. Madison wrote extensively about property rights-the right to property and the property in our rights (esp to religious views and moral foundations)

          • floral,

            I agree that Jefferson was not the writer or the only person who considered a Bill of Rights. Jefferson was iin France at the time he read the constitution as it was written. He suggested a Bill of Rights to Madison. Alexander Hamilton contributed a part of the Bill of Rights as did Madison. But they were not the only two involved in desiring a Bill of Rights. I have documented support for this in the writings of Jefferson but nothing on George Mason. I need factual backup on George Mason.

          • floral

            Look it up yourself. George Mason was part of the Constitutional Convention. Jefferson wrote the VA bill for religious freedom and touted it long before the Constitutional Convention. Madison opposed the Bill of Rights and Mason, but came around. Mason is known as the father of the bill of rights, because he convinced Madison as well as the rest of the convention to do so, though his wording was not used. He also refused for his state to ratify the Constitution UNTIL the Bill of Rights was there. There was a lot of discussion about making the Bill of Rights NOT amendments but a more integral part so the current claim (they are just amendments so can be repealed) could not be made. It is clear that the Founders intended the Bill of Rights while specific amendments, were integral part of the Constitution and inalienable.

          • In time as I research this myself, I will learn the truth of the issue. Meanwhile I have no idea what you have dug up to support our statements. My research of the Constitutional Convention is quite old. I did that back kin the 1950’s at College of William and Mary.

          • floral

            The 50’s saw a spate of historical revisionism……with spurious “historians” publishing nonsense like Lincoln was a muslim, and homosexual, bases almost exclusively on the existence of ME names of cities, like Cairo…..I read Story and the Convention documents plus the Federalist papers and the history of the ratification of the Constitution.

          • I am sure you well know the difference between a historian and a historical writer. A historical writer will take hearsay as evidence of “proof” where a historian relies on factual recorded data. I am the latter. I did my “research” in 1955 at College of William and Mary. I did what historians should do. But I did not go to college until 1960. Now some 50 years later, I follow the practices I learned in college. I rely on written data and write about that. If I cannot find solid evidence I will not write on that topic.

            I believe you do the same. But I am currently involved in a history project and do not have time to chase a new one. I have done extensive work on Jefferson and now have a book on him that is well documented. But I do not have one on Madison. I can see you have done your homework as a historian should. As I have time I will pursue Madison and others. I am particularly curious about Alexander Hamilton.

          • floral

            The “historian” to which I referred was a professor of history, not an historical writer, or novelist. Even the one in the 70’s that decided to publish there were only 7 Founders was a professor writing under the “publish or perish” mandate for tenure in our not so pretigious “universities”. “Research” done without a solid foundation amounts to cherry picking, not going deep into the truth and the fundamental “facts”. Lib and shallow research was endemic in “historical” research in the 50’s. Noteriety and “innovation” in history was more important than looking at the truth of the Founding.

          • floral

            Hamilton’s view of government is not the one Madison held. Madison’s and Jefferson’s and Franklin’s and Mason’s and the entire other (100 total) convention deciders rejected Hamilton’s views. Was it not Hamilton’s statements/slanders about Burr that brought about his demise in the duel? Not long after, slander and libel laws came about in state laws to prevent duels (Napoleanic law, still extant in Louisiana is an exception to “standard” state laws)

    • 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.

          • floral

            The executive branch “interprets” the laws passed and unfortunately a lib/dem SCOTUS ruled that bureaucratic “regulations” have the force of LAW…..

          • Floral,

            I need backup data to confirm what you are saying. It is not surprising.

          • floral

            Find it. Many SCOTUS cases have confirmed that regulations esp IRS ones, have the force of law. They did specifically say that POM (program operating manuals) are NOT, yet billy clinton’s eo in the SS pom ties medicare to SS payments even though the law does not. If you try to NOT take medicare, you are denied your SS and have to repay everything you have received. SCOTUS refused to hear a challenge to that several years ago or did dismiss the case brought by 5 individuals including a former senator (Army I think it was) In other words, if you want your SS refunds in the form of “income” which is in many cases taxable, if you have capital gains and investment income, you HAVE to have Medicare……

        • floral

          Actually, the 1st amendment and most of the Bill of Rights were promoted/written by George Mason. Madison opposed a separate bill of rights, thinking the whole Constitution was a Bill of Rights, but came around to Mason’s view. The Constitution was NOT fully ratified until the Bill of Rights was added. The whole convention voted on the form that appeared in the Constitution and was ratified by all the states.

          • floral,

            I need documentation on what you say. The documentation I have does not include George Mason. I go by factual data. That does not mean I do not find your statement to be untrue, I just need specific documentation that what you say is backed up with documented facts.

          • floral

            Read the Constitutional convention documents, look up George Mason. There is a lot of documentation ……..

  • 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,

          • floral

            No, he did NOT disobey the Constitution. He took a stance against the inaccurate interpretation of laws by lower courts…..

          • floral

            No, he did NOT disobey the Constitution. He took a stance against the inaccurate interpretation of laws by lower courts…..

          • floral

            Your “interpretation” is not valid.

          • floral

            Your “interpretation” is not valid.

          • floral

            Your bogus interpretation of the Constitution is just that-bogus.

          • 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.

          • floral

            Wrong math for you. I managed to live below the poverty line whether I made 6 figures or minimum wage.

          • floral

            Wrong math for you. I managed to live below the poverty line whether I made 6 figures or minimum wage.

          • Non sequitir and deflecting.

          • floral

            Illogical, irrational, historically inaccurate.

          • floral

            Illogical, irrational, historically inaccurate.

        • 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.

          • floral

            When you sue a baker who refuses to contract with you for a wedding cake for what at the time was not a legal marriage and win a large judgement that bankrupts them, unless they go out of business, the baker is FORCED out of business. Recent SCOTUS decisions have extended 1st amendment rights to business advertising AND allowed “businesses” like the Christian Hobby Lobby Their 1st amendment rights.
            So once again you are WRONG

          • smilee

            He had two choices to bake the cake or two discontinue baking wedding cakes but he chose to break the law and thus run himself out of business, They cab express their opinon but they cannot act on it as that is against the law. Your so ignorant!

          • floral

            No one has the right to stop anyone from selling and/or decorating cakes or with whom they contract. Your statement is NOT an accurate rendering of the facts of any of the 3 cases where individuals provided custom decorated cakes upon CONTRACT and were forced to close or go bankrupt due to the specious unconstitutional violation of their 1st amendment rights. Cakes are not a necessity of life and there was a “gay” bakery a block away, in one case, and gay marriage was not yet “legal” at the time of the 1st cake debacle denying a family their 1st amendment rights to free exercise of their choice of occupation.

          • floral

            3 bakers in 3 states were NOT “breaking” any law. An unelected admin decided that antidiscrimination regulations by a muni allowed him to determine that a baker that declined to enter into a personal services contract for a custom decorated “wedding” cake, when gay marriage was not legal in that state, was a “violation” of the reg. Wedding cakes are not necessity nor a right and nobody gets to violate another’s 1st amendment rights by asserting the superiority of a muni reg and thereby denying their property rights and rights to the occupation of their choice.

          • smilee

            Oh sure they were, that is why they have lost in court. You keep right on spinning and it is getting clear you have now gotten dizzy from all of it.

          • floral

            What is clear is that admin law are NOT lawyers or judges and you are the one who is “dizzy” from ignoring facts. 3 separate instances in 3 different states – you conflate all into 1 and you are wrong on all. The suits were not on “law breaking”- there was no crime. Civil suits were brought in 2 cases-the ACLU is “free” to the plaintiffs- 2 bakers 1 just gave up and lost their business on very spurious grounds. In CO, the ACLU “won”- only because the baker refused to pay a 100k to defend their baseless lawsuit on pain and suffering by a gay “couple” who claimed, despite the fact that the baker said I’ll give you the cake and the decorating materials, but will NOT do it myself, that they were humiliated and hurt, even though they knew the baker had published his objection to homosexual messaging (a stand supported by the court in teeshirt manufacturer case) and there were 3 “gay” bakeries in close proximity clamoring to decorate the “gay couples” cake. The CO baker said screw you and does not offer custom wedding cakes at all, a big loss to the churches he mostly served.
            The only spinning is by you-you are the small screw in the large hole just spinning and spinning.

          • smilee

            Civil law is laws just not criminal ones so yes that is breaking civil law and they did by their own choosing and when you do you pay the piper. You ignore they chose to break these civil laws. You are blind to this due to your bigoted attitude towards gays,

          • Kol

            What Does the Bible Say About Religious Hypocrites? – OpenBible.info

            https://www.openbible.info/topics/religious_hypocrites

            “Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others.
            =======
            How to Distinguish a True Christian from a Hypocrite – Bible Study Tools

            http://www.biblestudytools.com/…/how-to-distinguish-a-true-christian-from-a-hypocrite.ht...

            Here are 5 signs of a hypocrite and 5 signs of a true follower of Jesus. … to work for the recovery of the gospel and the biblical re-formation of local churches.

          • Kol

            Matthew 7:1-3 KJV – Judge not, that ye be not judged. For – Bible …

            https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A1-3&version

            Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you.

          • Spin much?

          • floral

            No the Court has NOT so said. They misquoted Jefferson’s letter which said “there should be a wall of separation between church and state”

            in the context of the Connecticut state religion that discriminated against the Baptists. He did NOT say that school prayer was “state sponsored religion”. That was a bogus interpretation by less than objective less than constitutional justices.

          • smilee

            LOL the courts have made that clear more than once and it has nothing to do with Jefferson’s letter.

          • floral

            It had EVERYTHING to do with the SCOTUS decision. The Court made their source and basis in the LETTER very clear. It was a very bad unconstitutional decision, and subsequent decisions contradict that school prayer disastrously unconstitutional ruling.

          • smilee

            The school prayer issue came about as over time more as more religions were coming into this country causing conflict between the religions in public venues and the court had two choices either mandate the school provide the same access to every religion or tell all to practice religion outside pubic venues as they belong to people of all religions but their ruling in no way prevents or places any limits on practicing their religion. Some Christians, not all, think they should have priority over all other religions and that is unconstitutional so this ruling was the correct one and constitutional. It also enforces the concept of separation of church and state as the state can not create any religion and many Christians wanted them to make school and other public venues places of religious practice and to do so the government would then be picking one religion over anther and that is a big no no n the first amendment,

          • floral

            No the school prayer issue was BROUGHT by an ATHEIST. Nothing to do with other religions….

          • smilee

            So they have the same rights not to have any religion stuffed down their throats just as one religion can not do so over any other or another religion, You have no point here.

          • floral

            Atheists have NO right to refuse the free exercise of religion. YOU have never had a point, much less a valid one.

          • smilee

            The do not, they just do not want anyone’s religion imposed on them and no one has the right to impose their religion on anyone, You seem to think you should be able to.

          • floral

            Objecting to the free exercise of religion IS IMPOSING atheist religious beliefs on Christians.
            You seem to think you are the arbiter of truth. YOU ARE NOT

        • floral

          Christian pastors are being ordered to perform such ceremonies. Judges are being censured for NOT performing such marriages.

        • floral

          Lifestyle APPROVAL is NOT in the Constitution. Marriage is NOT in the Constitution. Marriage has always been “religious” until States and the Feds got involved through taxation as social engineering. A license is permission to do something not otherwise allowed. Marriage is NOT government’s business on any level, and is NOT in the Constitution, nor is abortion, but the right to life liberty and property is in the Constitution.

    • 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.

          • floral

            You don’t understand anything Branson said…

          • 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.

          • floral

            Muslims who attend a Catholic university demanded that all crosses and Catholic religious symbols be removed because it offended their sensibilities.
            You are irrational and irrelevant. WHAT REQUESTS against Muslim clothing? The muslims refuse to submit to security screening on grounds of their dress and religious requirements……

        • floral

          You are NOT the boss or final arbiter of what is “found to be bs…”

    • Liar

    • floral

      Freedom of association and free exercise of one’s conscience/morality/religion is guaranteed by the 1st amendment. No government at any level gets to tell anyone that they have to associate with, serve, contract with any person whose demands conflict with their morality/conscience/religion.
      Just because I don’t approve of homosexuality, does not mean that I am discriminating or guilty of discrimination when I refuse to contract with a homosexual for a homosexual themed decoration for a wedding cake, a photography of a homosexual wedding, or planning of same. If as SCOTUS has determined recently, no city can prevent or regulate any sign content under free speech, why therefore can SCOTUS or any so called “anti discrimination” law force me to produce a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding or take pictures or make me plan such if it goes against my conscience or religion?

      • smilee

        Business is not a religion so the first amendment religion clause does not apply to business and you cannot use your religion as an excuse to discriminate in business, When you choose to operate a business you must conform with all laws governing business but that does not interfere with your religion that is a lie

        • floral

          Everyone’s business can/should and does reflect their values. Madison made that very clear. You conflate a privately owned business making cakes or photographing weddings with businesses of “public accommodation” which initially was only for motels and restaurants along highways and grocery stores to prevent discrimination based on race for necessities

        • floral

          Business free speech is protected per the recent SCOTUS decision in Reid vs Gilbert. Businesses DO have 1st amendment protection per SCOTUS.
          Are you the hypocrite you appear to be? Absolutely.

          • smilee

            Free speech has nothing to so with discrimination, can you really not understgand something so simple?

          • floral

            You cannot understand that free speech, freedom of association and free exercise of religion is fundamental and that discrimination, which is inherent in values, does NOT overrule the inalienable rights of individuals under the 1st amendment.
            If you understood words and logic you would not be making such stupid and inaccurate statements.
            You chose for example, one brand of coffee over another or perhaps it is your discrimination that prefers coke over pepsi or blondes over brunettes. That is discrimination. Refusing to enter into a personal services contract with anyone is NOT “breaking a law”. It is NOT refusing essential or necessary to life and health services to a person on the basis of race or skin color. The only “evil, illegal discrimination” is by atheists and homosexuals and their real enemies, muslims, against Christians.

  • 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.

  • smilee

    YOU LIE DUMBAZZ!!

    • LIAR! Remember, the Constitution protects an individual’s God-given rights and not their lifestyle. The Constitution is also the chains that restrict government, so the welfare state is unconstitutional. This is regardless of what some less intelligent lib, prog, secular judge rules. You sure are ignorant on my country’s founding. Thanks the Lord that Trump is already working on getting rid of the welfare state.

      • smilee

        LOL LIAR nothing you say here is true. You still have my vote for liar of the year! He will not as he will be the biggest failure of all presidents that is a given! LOL He has done nothing yet.

        • floral

          Being the anti-hillbilly is doing something. bo was the real failure of all time because he tried to subsume our Constitution to the 3rd world control of the UN.

        • Thank you for saying it doesn’t protect our God-given rights. What a less intelligent troll. He has been able to keep some of his promises, but he is working on others. Speaking of your ilk, why is Obama bin Laden being investigated for spying on Trump and Hitlery for her dealings with Russia during the campaign? LOL! You are ignorant. Too bad lying is not protected by the Constitution as it was made for a moral and religious people.

          • smilee

            He has protected nothing he is the worst fake and phony we have ever had and he has little knowledge of history and he hates our Constitution and tries evrything he can to do an end run on it but so far he has been blocked and the resistance to him grows day by day making him less relevant all the time. Watch what he actully does and not what he says as they are a mile apart and you people with you head up your azz can not see it. There is no investigations going on but the ones on trump still are. LOL lying is protected by the first amendment and crooked donny is a ton of proof on that. It was made for every person including it protects your constant lying and immoral behaviors, I am still voting for you as “LIAR OF THE YEAR”

  • floral

    Nobody should be forced into a personal services contract, which a custom order for decorating a cake is. There is no right to a wedding cake or a personal services contract. Anti discrimination “laws” are NOT constitutional if they violate the rights of the individual in business. No shoes no clothes no spitting no service discrimination? Businesses have 1st amendment rights to free speech and association.

    • smilee

      Your opinion but nit law so you are SOL

      • floral

        It is NOT an opinion. The 13th amendment prevents involuntary servitude. A wedding cake is NOT a right nor should anyone be forced to contract with someone – that is involuntary servitude, nor should they lose their business for sticking to their religious convictions.
        No wedding cake or photog or planning is a NECESSITY and a business is NOT necessarily a business of public accommodation. lib/dem/prog/socialists are engaged in denying Christians THEIR rights.
        You do not acknowledge the truth as expressed by James Madison the Father of the Constitution. All citizens have rights to property, and PROPERTY in their RIGHTS to free speech, free association, free exercise of religion and the right to what they choose to expend their energy and property on, their occupation.

        • smilee

          Wrong the 14th requires equal protections for all and no one gets preference as some some Christians claim they are entitled to and the 13th has nothing to do with this it is the 14th. So again you are proving your ignorance, Discrimination laws are constitutional. If you do not want to make cakes etc for everyone then make them for no one. You feel your personal views should be law they are not. The 14th was enacted 32 years after Madison died and he was in favor of article V and signed off on it allowing all future generations to change any part of the constitution as we want and in any way we want and in 1868 they did outlawing discrimination as now every law has to provide equal protections for all and no one has the right to discriminate against anyone. These self described Christians want priority but the law does not any longer allow that and this has nothing to do with the first amendment as they still have all those rights just now all peole do as in the beginning only white rich men did. The preamble (also agreed to by Madison} sets out our purpose for the constituion and over time we have fulfilled so much more tof that purpose than was achievable in 1787. Slaves freed, woman the right to vote, workers rights , civil rights, LBGT rights etc, so we now as they intended have created a more perfect union and this will always be a work in progress despite your push backs against equality for all.

          • floral

            an anti discrimination ordinance is NOT a law and is NOT equal protection. The bakers did NOT get equal protection under the law. The homosexuals targeted the Christian bakers and ONLY the baker’s rights were violated…..

          • Kol

            Your anti-gay bigotry SHRIEKS, … very loudly!!
            Your anti-Muslim bigotry does too!!!

            What Does the Bible Say About Bigotry? – OpenBible.info

            https://www.openbible.info/topics/bigotry

            Luke 6:20-8:3 ESV / 16 helpful votes. Helpful Not Helpful. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the ..

          • smilee

            It is and it provides for equal protections and prevents you and others like you from crapping on people who you do not like or want to be equally protected, That is what defines bigotry. No, the bakers actually targeted gays under the law.

          • floral

            A wedding cake is NOT essential to life and liberty but the 1st amendment IS. anti discrimination ordinances are NOT essential to life, liberty and property. As Madison said, all rights derive from the right to life and property is the implementation of all rights. We have a right to our property and property in our rights to free speech, freedom of exercise of our religion and freedom of association and our choice of occupation. No one can exercise any right that denies others their rights.
            Gays suing to force a Christian baker to enter into a personal services contract for a non essential wedding cake, especially when there were other bakeries clamoring for the business, deny Christians their rights for nothing more than spurious childish vicious DEMANDS. Gays are doing the “crapping” on Christians. They don’t DARE make such stupid demands on muslims, who would just kill them.

          • smilee

            Neither is baking a cake essential to life and liberty as it is a choice as no one forces anyone to bake cakes. Discrimination is unconstitutional thus against the law which you show no respect what so ever for so you must hate our constitution as it forbids you from walking all over those you despise. I admire Madison but his rhetoric is not law and he also signed the grand compromise called our Constitution and some of his rhetoric contradicted it, as was true of most of the founders but they knew how to govern which meant knowing how to compromise. The GOP today does not know how to govern. No one has the right to use their rights as a weapon to deny others their rights which you are a big advocate for and that is why you are so wrong,

          • floral

            Choice of occupation is a PROPERTY RIGHT. NO ONE has a right to deprive anyone of their property rights because of a demand.
            You really ARE not logical, nor intelligent. You clearly are a lib/dem/prog/socialist. Refusing to engage in a personal services contract is NOT walking all over anyone nor is it despising anyone.
            I don’t even despise you, as despicable as your illogic, attempts at insult and slanders are. You despise all of us you consider less than yourself-and especially those who chose to stand on their principles. No gay got hurt or should be given special privilege under law to destroy the occupation of anyone just because that person, in this case a baker, declined a personal services contract to decorate a custom cake with a message they did not APPROVE. They also declined to contract with skinheads to disparage gays and blacks.

          • smilee

            No its not as a job is not tangible and property is, As usual nothing you say is true or accurate. So bigoted to.

          • floral

            James Madison disagrees with you. He said, AGAIN, we have rights to our property and property in our rights (such as free speech and religion and morality) and he also said ALL rights derive from the right to life and the right to property and the property in our rights is the implementation, that we have a right to our choice of occupation and what we spend our substance and time doing.
            In LAW, “intellectual property” is ESTABLISHED, and that is NOT “tangible”.
            You clearly are so ignorant …….and therefore bigoted….

          • smilee

            LOL are you really so stupid you think speech and religion are property intellectual or otherwise ?? Sure intellectual property is tangible in some form.You have these rights but you can not claim any as a right to deny others theirs and that is what you advocate for as you seek special privileges and believe you have that right but you do not

          • floral

            SCOTUS disagrees with you as does the LAW and especially Madison who said our RIGHTS (to speech, occupation, religion, conscience) ARE property.

          • floral

            homosexuals and atheists cannot claim any right to deny Christians their rights. The Bill of Rights is INALIENABLE. Nobody gets to deny Christians their rights under the Constitution, just by claiming Christians have to APPROVE of and SERVE involuntarily the desires and demands of atheists and/or homosexuals.

          • smilee

            They don’t that is just how you people with such a bigoted attitude towards gays spin it but in court you always lose.

          • floral

            Not always, but then Courts are so not on point with the law and the Constitution and have not been for a long time.

          • Kol

            How many SLAVES did James Madison own!?!??
            It was well over 100 that he and his family enslaved
            as I recall.

          • floral

            A job for which you are paid wages (property) IS tangible and everyone has a right to their choice of occupation and the income derived from it, whether “intellectual” or producing Other property for sale

          • smilee

            You trying to make some point?

          • floral

            The real point is that you cannot understand what “property” and “tangible” means, you ignorant, non responsive illogical irrational inaccurate illiterate.

          • floral

            The Christian bakers were minding their own business, literally. The gays TARGETED the bakers, by demanding a custom decoration that the bakers declined. The gays came to the BAKER therefore targeted them, when their was a non Christian (gay) baker right down the street. If there is a lie, it is your lie for perpetuating untruths.

          • smilee

            Pure BS and lies

          • floral

            Not an argument nor responsive. Obviously you know you are wrong because you cannot submit any rational or logical or factual response.

          • floral

            Christians only want the rights granted them under the 1st amendment. Gays want 1st amendment rights DENIED to Christians. Muslims kill gays. Christians just won’t APPROVE of gays. That is what the gays want, to crush Christians because they don’t understand or care that only Christians tolerate them and are the gays only defense against the totalitarian islamic jihad against ALL non muslims and ESPecially gays.

          • smilee

            More BS and lies

          • floral

            Obviously you cannot engage in any rational discussion as your only retort is “BS and lies”.

  • floral

    Justice Kennedy performed gay marriages before the “gay marriage” case. I don’t know that it was an ethical violation, but it certainly is a conflict of interest. Kagan, having been part of the Attorney General’s office and federal prosecutor had a conflict of interest in the bocare case and a major conflict, having written the defense of late term abortions for the AMA obstetrics assoc.

    • smilee

      They also performed opposite marriages so why do yo not see that as a inflict of interest too. YO see you clearly hate equality, Just more of your BS

      • floral

        All have equality under the Constitution and fundamental laws. To try to “equalize” outcomes is NOT Constitutional. You are incapable of seeing the difference. All have equal opportunity and equal protection, just not guaranteed equal ability or special rights to overcome their deficiencies and elevate anyone’s desires or ignorance over another.

        • smilee

          This has never been about outcomes equal or otherwise just about equal protections as the aw requires Why are you going off on this tangent?

          • floral

            It is COMPLETELY about outcomes and “equal abilities”. Equal opportunity can NOT guarantee equal outcomes because there is no way to guarantee equal abilities, which is necessary for everyone to be “equal” in outcomes.

          • smilee

            Are yo really so ignorant yo do not kniw the difference between equal protections and equal outcomes. No hope for you! This has nothing to do with equal outcomes!

          • floral

            Protections? homosexuals can’t live without a homosexual themed custom decorated wedding cake done by forcing a Christian to do it?
            YOU don’t know the difference between being equal LEGALLY and what one desires to have and force others to GIVE them.

          • smilee

            No one is forcing them dumbazz, they chose to bake wedding cakes but they can not choose to decide who they will sell their cakes to based on their religion as that is against the discrimination laws. You are not qualified to judge the Constitution and that is why you always get it wrong when you try revealings your ignorance in the process by injecting into it your personal religious beliefs as law and that only shows stupidity.

          • floral

            Yes anyone CAN decide not to enter into a personal services contract for ANY purpose with ANYONE There are and were other bakers clamoring for the business, but the homosexual activists TARGETED CHRISTIANS ONLY. NOBODY needs or deserves a custom decorated wedding cake. the homosexuals could have bought a stock wedding cake, available to all, but CHOSE to demand a contract for a homosexual themed wedding cake even though “gay weddings” were NOT “legal” or licensed in the state at the time.
            You don’t understand business, religion, freedom of, but even SCOTUS affirmed the right of business owners to their religious convictions. Hobby Lobby? Little Sisters of the Poor?

          • smilee

            SO, your opinon which you want the right to impose on others against their will, not allowed by law so you are just SOL!

          • floral

            So YOUR argument is homosexuals and atheists want the right to IMPOSE their beliefs on others against their will and have the legal but not Constitutional allowance to do so. Nobody forced the homosexuals to seek a wedding cake from a Christian baker when marriage of gays was not LEGAL.

          • smilee

            NO your spin on my words. This, in this case, is about Christians using their religion to discriminate against gays, in this case self called Christians, breaking our discrimination laws and it has nothing to so with religion under the law it is just that these people use their religion as an excuse to break these laws.

          • floral

            Your words are incomprehensible and so spinning no one else can spin them. You don’t know anything about law, fact, truth, logic or rationality.
            Discrmination “laws” are violations of individual constitutional RIGHTS.

          • smilee

            Pure BS

          • floral

            yes your comments are “pure bs”

          • smilee

            Simple pea sized minds do conclude this this BS. Intelligent people get it!

          • floral

            Nobody but you GETS it. Ad hominem attacks are your stock in trade and mean NOTHING to civil and rational discourse.

          • smilee

            That is funny coming from one so totally irrational as you.

          • floral

            you would be funny if you were not so pathetically ignorant…..

          • smilee

            More BS

          • floral

            typical that you don’t have a valid logical or rational response, because you are completely wrong

          • floral

            You are advocating imposing on Christian bakers against THEIR will. homosexuals don’t need wedding cakes or homosexual messages or approval by Christians. There are many bakeries to which they could go who would LOVE to make phallic decorations and glorify the “lifestyle” CHOICES, not needs or necessities of homosexuals. The activists are the aggressors seeking to impose THEIR will on Christians. Government has no right or authority in this matter.

          • smilee

            All BS

          • floral

            Not going to feed your paranoia and stupidity any longer. You are wrong on every level in every matter and issue and irrelevant and illogical to the extreme. Ad hominem logical fallacy is your go to.

          • floral

            Nobody FORCED the homosexuals to get a wedding cake from a Christian baker especially when gay marriage was NOT legal.

          • smilee

            Individuals can choose whom they want to do business with but business are required to service the public and not use their religion to only serve part of the pubic they approve of , that is the law, Sounds like you do not believe in the rule of law,

          • floral

            NO business is required to serve the public.
            Sounds like you don’t believe in the Constitution and the 1st AMENDMENT.
            SCOTUS has ruled that businesses CAN refuse orders (like teeshirt manufacturers can refuse homosexual messages, nazi and anti semite messages)
            Bakeries, which are NOT places of public accommodation-like motels and restaurants and grocery stores, can refuse to make offensive and hateful messages as decoration and therefore refuse custom order contracts that have messages they don’t approve. There is a vast difference between off the shelf product that anybody can purchase and a contract for a special order-which can ALWAYS be refused.
            The fact that YOU can NOT understand or acknowledge the difference is telling-that you do NOT understand law the constitution and especially fairness.

          • Kol

            If a business doesn’t serve the public it won’t be a “business” very long. That’s really a stupid thing to say! LOLOL!

          • smilee

            That is what the law says dumbazz! It is not a first amendment issue dumbazz! Businesses cannot discriminate under the law period. In your simple peas sized mind but not in the real world dumbazz!

          • floral

            That is NOT the “law” db. ONLY “public accommodation businesses, ie restaurants and motels. SCOTUS and fed cts already allow businesses to “discriminate” by not accepting contracts/business requests that have messages they don’t approve of or support. The “real world” is something you cannot fathom.

          • smilee

            Oh really then why have these peole lost in court. These were jury decisions! You are again wrong and that is getting to be a habit with you!

          • floral

            because we have idiot liberal judges and bad laws and entitled jerk whiny homosexuals who demand approval and worship. They won’t settle for anything else-have to punish anyone who stands on their own principles and exercises their 1st amendment rights which are superior to any local law and/or federal law.
            NO they were NOT jury decisions. One was an admin “judge” with no legal qualifications (Oregon baker) and one was not contested because the ACLU was the opposition and the baker just stopped making wedding cakes altogether rather than fight a costly legal battle that only the lawyers win. That was the case where the baker said I won’t agree to a contract to decorate your cake to your specifications, but I will bake your cake and provide you with all the material to have it decorated by someone else . That was not good enough for the homosexual activists…..so they sued. Rather than spend any money or defending, the baker simply ceased making wedding cakes, even stock ones. THAT was not what the homosexual “couple” wanted-they wanted a pay day, multi millions for their alleged harm and emotional distress….

          • Kol

            You really do wallow in SNOT quite a lot!

          • smilee

            You made all that up as none of it is true. In cases there was no jury it is because the parties chose to have the judge decide but thy can have a jury. Administration judges are only used in step one in some instances or by mutual agreement of the parties. Such lying nonsense, you should be ashamed of yourself. Kol has it right

          • floral

            Not true for the cases under discussion. Admin law hearings are NOT a “1st step”, they are decisive. The defendant if he loses, can appeal, but it is NOT a first step.

          • smilee

            Sure it is why do you think otherwise. Been involved with many and all have been the case

          • floral

            I have been involved in a lot of cases and admin hearing officers are NOT a “1st step”. they are binding unless the loser appeals.

          • floral

            Reid vs Gilbert and Citizens United prove you wrong. 1st amendment cases giving businesses 1st amendment rights.

          • floral

            You go “off on” “tangents” with every post.

      • floral

        The justices who performed gay marriages before they ruled that gay marriage is constitutional (which it is not-marriage is NOT-the Constitution has nothing to do with social issues and the government is prohibited from interfering or determining social mores) in effect BROKE THE LAW that they established by claiming marriage was any of their business.
        What an illogical fool you are!

        • smilee

          Boy are you dumb and that is why the court always rules against your spin on it,

          • floral

            Still on another planet I see and totally out of touch. To what case are you referring? What Court and what case ruled that Judge Moore cannot post the 10 commandments in his courtroom or outside of it? I know of at least 1 ruling that supports even City Councils ability to have prayer in Jesus’ name to open council sessions, so why not Courthouses? Prove your spurious and specious and inaccurate and vaguely insulting illiterate ungrammatical comments.

  • floral

    The Constitution actually USES the term “original jurisdiction” when it speaks of the powers of the SCOTUS.
    You obviously DO NOT understand the words or the intent of the Consitution.

    • smilee

      The Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction is limited to a narrow and very few but important range of cases the vast majority must come from the appellate courts first. The intent is in the words in the constituion as amended not your spin of them,.

      • floral

        You are the one spinning. The intent IS in the words of the Constitution not YOUR spin of them. Judicial review is ONLY possible in and on appeals, hence “review”, NOT original jurisdiction.

      • floral

        The majority of the powers/jurisdiction given to the Court are “original jurisdiction” Hearing appeals is NOT original jurisdiction.

        • smilee

          Original in context is first not secondary an all not original are secondary and must first come though a lower court first. It defines the ones the court hears originally so of course those coming though appellate courts is not original.. Is you memory really so bad you cannot remember anything from before. Senile??

          • floral

            Talk about spin! you are not even a master of THAT, trying unsuccessfully to redefine jurisdiction AND original.

  • floral

    Licensing is NOT a LAW, just a practice, and differs from state to state. IF gay marriage is LEGAL, no license should be required.

  • floral

    Read the Constitution. The wording in the Constitution regarding jurisdiction of SCOTUS defines “original jurisdiction” which is the exact wording in the Constitution. You obviously don’t know or READ the REAL Constitution nor do you understand law and jurisdiction, fundamental to the working of Courts.

    • smilee

      Never said it was not so what point are you trying to make in you silliness., Your freaken nuts!

      • floral

        You are ungrammatical and contradict your other post that is borrowed from a more literate but still idiotic nut case.

  • floral

    Did anyone else notice that the “order” Moore refused to obey and advised probate judges to ignore FOR THE TIME BEING,came from state judge, NOT SCOTUS and BEFORE SCOTUS ruled on the matter. Moore did NOT advise such “disobedience” AFTER SCOTUS handed down their decision.
    Also note that Moore’s “suspension” was UNUSUAL.