Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission Wants Chief Justice Roy Moore Removed From Office

Moore RestoredMONTGOMERY, Ala. — In response to a motion to have the charges against Chief Justice Roy Moore dismissed, the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC) rather asserted on Friday that Moore should be removed from office over contested assertions that he illegally prohibited probate judges from issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals.

“This court (COJ) can conclude this matter now, deny the Chief Justice’s motion for summary judgment, enter judgment as a matter of law in favor of the commission (JIC), remove the Chief Justice from judicial office, and reaffirm Alabama’s fidelity to the rule of law,” it wrote in legal briefs.

As previously reported, Moore was suspended from the bench in May after the homosexual advocacy groups Southern Poverty Law Center, People for the American Way, the Human Rights Campaign, and a drag queen who goes by the name Ambrosia Starling, pressed the JIC to take action against Moore.

The situation began in 2013 when two lesbians in the state sued Gov. Robert Bentley, Attorney General Luther Strange and Mobile County Probate Judge Don Davis—among others—in an attempt to overturn Alabama’s marriage amendment after one of the women was denied from adopting the other woman’s child.

In January 2015, U.S. District Judge Ginny Granade ruled in favor of the women, prompting Moore to send a memo to probate judges throughout the state, advising that they are not required to issue “marriage” licenses to same-sex couples as he believed that Grenade’s ruling only applied to the two women.

“[N]othing in the orders of Judge Grenadae requires Alabama probate judges to issue marriage licenses that are illegal in Alabama,” he wrote. “Pursuant to … the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Alabama probate judges are not subject to those orders because the probate judges are not parties or associated with any party in those cases.”

“[T]he injunction and the stay or the lifting thereof can only apply to the sole defendant, the Alabama attorney general,” Moore said. “I urge you to uphold and support the Alabama Constitution and the Constitution of the United States to the best of your ability. So help you God.”

  • Connect with Christian News

Moore also wrote a letter to Gov. Robert Bentley, urging him to “uphold and support the Alabama Constitution with respect to marriage, both for the welfare of this state and for our posterity.”

“Be advised that I will stand with you to stop judicial tyranny and any unlawful opinions issued without constitutional authority,” he stated.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) then filed a judicial ethics complaint against Moore over his letter to Gov. Bentley, and the homosexual activist group Human Rights Campaign (HRC) submitted 28,000 petition signatures to the JIC calling for Moore’s removal.

As confusion ensued over Moore’s letter to probate judges, one judge, John Enslen of Elmore County, asked the full Alabama Supreme Court for further guidance. In March 2015, six of the nine judges of the Alabama Supreme Court released a historic order halting the issuance of same-sex “marriage” licenses in the state. Moore recused himself from the matter and was not included in the order.

“As it has done for approximately two centuries, Alabama law allows for ‘marriage’ between only one man and one woman,” the 148-page order read. “Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to this law. Nothing in the United States Constitution alters or overrides this duty.”

In January, Moore sent another letter advising that the full court’s would remain in effect until it issued directives in light of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.

“Until further decision by the Alabama Supreme Court, the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court that Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment or the Alabama Marriage Protection Act remain in full force and effect,” he wrote on Jan. 6.

He also noted that his order does not weigh in on how June’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling has impact on the Alabama Supreme Court’s directive, and said that it was not his place to make that determination.

“I am not at liberty to provide any guidance to Alabama probate judges on the effect of Obergefell on the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court. That issue remains before the entire court, which continues to deliberate on the matter,” Moore wrote.

In May, the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC) announced that it had filed ethics charges against Moore, and suspended the chief justice while he faces a trial before the Alabama Court of the Judiciary (COJ).

It said that Moore was “bound by the United State Supreme Court’s interpretation and application” of the Constitution to same-sex “marriage,” but Moore noted that his letter had nothing to do with the Supreme Court order, and that the full court was to later issue directives about the matter after receiving legal briefing.

“The administrative order of Chief Justice Moore expressly said he could not provide guidance to the probate judges because the matter was pending before the Alabama Supreme Court,” Moore attorney Mat Staver with Liberty Counsel said in a statement.

Therefore, Moore moved for a dismissal of the charges, and Mike Joiner, the chief justice of the COJ, granted the request to have his motion heard. The JIC had until Friday to submit any rebuttal.

“The Chief Justice’s January 6th order and his conduct surrounding it has once again created an atmosphere in which Alabama’s subordinate judges—and by extension, the public itself—have been encouraged to show disregard for a binding federal injunctions and clear federal law,” the JIC asserted in its legal brief.

“It also represents a blatant abuse of his (Moore’s) administrative authority, one which placed his impartiality into question on a matter pending before the entire Alabama Supreme Court,” it said.

In addition to seeking dismissal of the charges, the chief justice has sued the JIC for its actions, which he believes to be unconstitutional. As previously reported, attorneys for Moore sued the JIC in May to challenge the legality of the charges leveled against the “Ten Commandments Judge” and to seek his immediate reinstatement to the bench.

“The JIC has no jurisdiction over an administrative order of the chief justice. Only the Alabama Supreme Court has jurisdiction, and that court agreed with the order,” Staver said in a statement following the initial filing.

Liberty Counsel also asserted in its complaint that the JIC violated the confidentiality rule that requires that details of an investigation be keep confidential until charges are issued.

“In this case, the JIC intentionally leaked the pending charges to the media, which is a serious violation of the JIC rules,” he said.

The JIC is seeking to have the lawsuit filed against the Commission dismissed, but Liberty Counsel fired back on Monday in a legal brief.

“The requirement that Alabama provide a judge with due process before imposing a suspension from office neither interferes with the current proceeding in the COJ nor requires this court to supervise any future proceeding,” it said.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Ronald Carter

    Moore should absolutely be gone. He is letting his decisions be made by his own opinions and showing contempt for the laws that have been put in place.

    • Michael A. Todd

      Yes, might as well get rid of another pesky conservative who prefers marriage the way it has been since the dawn of humanity.

      I would say contempt for “new” laws that have been put in place, many of which are not in agreement with the general public.

      • Ronald Carter

        He’s not supposed to “prefer” anything. He’s supposed to go with what the law says, and not break it.

        • Michael A. Todd

          I’m afraid Ronald that the way things are headed, you and many others who enjoy all of this “change” will find yourselves in a society with no morality or standard rules at all. Because existing rules and laws are never good enough for long and must be changed again and again.

          • Jalapeno

            Interesting accusation coming from a person who thinks that a persons preferences are more important than the law they’re supposed to be upholding.

          • Michael A. Todd

            Every society has had many common laws that are the basis of their existence. When the new laws that currently show favor for whatever you enjoy or deem relevant are changed again in the future and no longer support your viewpoint, then you will see the futility of changing laws every time a new favored group of people is in the limelight.

          • Jalapeno

            So..we should just ignore injustices to groups because it’s easier to think that we’re just prioritizing them because they’re in the limelight?

            What “favor” is being shown to groups? Making sure that people are treated equally doesn’t show any favor. Saying that we don’t need to be treating people differently based on who they love, what gender they are or what race they are isn’t “favor”.

          • Amos Moses

            It is not “injustice” to require everyone to follow the law that gives rise to an ordered society and not chaos …………

          • Jalapeno

            Laws can be unjust.

          • Amos Moses

            Got it ………. so we agree that homosexual “marriage” is unjust and causes chaos ……

          • Jalapeno

            No, we agree that laws can be unjust.

            Restricting marriage based on gender is unjust.

          • Amos Moses

            Restricting marriage to what marriage is is not unjust ………. outside of that is chaos …….. “marriage” is chaos ………. homosexuality is chaos ….. it is lawlessness …………

          • Jalapeno

            We do not agree on that. I think telling people that they can’t do something just because of the gender they are is typically considered unacceptable.

            As I said though, no favor is being shown to any group.

          • Amos Moses

            “I think telling people that they can’t do something just because of the gender they are is typically considered unacceptable.”

            To you ………… so if a 40 year old man wants to pee in front of your 12 year old daughter …….. you are good with that ………… what should his or her gender have to do with it ……… and if the man wants to shake it a little more than would be usually in front of her ….. you would be good with that also …………… because ………. what should his or her gender have to do with it …………..

          • Jalapeno

            Did you miss the part where I said “typically”?

            There are instances, mainly involving exposing your private parts to someone else, where a persons physical sex is relevant. Of course, I don’t want anyone showing their genitals to my kid without my permission, regardless of their gender.

            Why are you comparing being able to shake your genitals in front of a twelve year olds face to marriage?

          • Amos Moses

            You advocate lawlessness …………… typically …………. lawlessness ………. breeds lawlessness …………. it is not contained because you wish it to be ……………

            “I don’t want anyone showing their genitals to my kid without my permission, regardless of their gender.”

            But you advocate lawlessness ………….. you are working iniquity ……….. lawlessness ……

          • Jalapeno

            You do realize that not everyone follows your religion, right?

            The religious laws that you subscribe to do not apply to everyone else.

          • Amos Moses

            Do you realize ……….. the TRUTH does not CARE if you follow it or not ……. the consequences flow ………. no matter your opinion of it ………………. has nothing to do with religion ……. continue in your pretend “tolerance” ……….. but the fact is ….. you are one of the LEAST tolerant persons here …….

          • Jalapeno

            Oh?

            How am I intolerant? Is it because I think we shouldn’t have restrictions on marriage law based on gender?

          • Amos Moses

            You are intolerant of the truth ……………..you are intolerant of those who tell the truth ……….. and yes ………. you are intolerant of those you are encouraging to follow you into destruction ……….. because allowing others to disregard basic fundamental principles of decency and order is leading them to the very destruction of those persons ………… through “TOLERANCE” of EVIL ……… Good One ……………

          • Jalapeno

            “you are intolerant of those who tell the truth”

            How so?

            Do you think “tolerance” means “thinking its okay for a person to dictate other peoples lives with their beliefs”?

          • Amos Moses

            “Do you think “tolerance” means “thinking its okay for a person to dictate other peoples lives with their beliefs”?”

            Is that NOT what homosexuals are doing in that PRECISE manner with their DEMAND that everyone who does not agree with them must bend the knee to their depravity? ………………. and that is “tolerance” …………. no ……….. it is a device to deceive ………. it is a lie …… and you are a purveyor of that lie …… and you do not practice tolerance ……….. you are most virulently INTOLERANT of those that disagree with you …………. but most liars are ..

          • Jalapeno

            “Is that NOT what homosexuals are doing in that PRECISE manner with their DEMAND that everyone who does not agree with them must bend the knee to their depravity?”

            Nope.

            One group says “Hey, I want equal treatment”.

            The other group says “Hey, I don’t want them to have equal treatment”.

            Not quite the same.

          • BigHobbit

            Massachusetts has had same sex marriage for more than a decade.
            What chaos do you assert has happened there, that you can rationally assert was caused by same sex marriage.
            Don’t be such a drama queen. Last year 122,000 same sex couples married. That is a small fraction of a small fraction.
            “Society”, whatever you imagine that to be, will be fine.

          • Amos Moses

            It is not an assertion ………… it gave rise to more and more lawlessness ………. or does Orlando escape your memory so soon …….. and BLM and on and on and on …. LAWLESSNESS breeds lawlessness ………chaos breeds chaos ………..

          • BigHobbit

            What specific “lawlessness” in Massachusetts do you see that can rationally be attributed to legal same sex marriage?
            Don’t be such a drama queen.

          • Amos Moses

            Homosexuality is lawlessness ……….. it breeds more lawlessness ……….. making lawlessness lawful ……. contradiction in terms ………. so the actual law becomes meaningless ….. and you get what we have now ………….. lawlessness ……… on every level and it is increasing …………..

          • BigHobbit

            It is not “injustice” to require the government to follow the US Constitution and the requirement that it must be able to demonstrate a rational reason linked to a legitimate govt concern to deny a right.
            What do you assert is a rational, constitutionally valid, reason to deny marriage to same sex couples?
            Extra points if you can name one that hasn’t already failed in dozens of courtrooms from coast to coast.

          • Amos Moses

            “It is not “injustice” to require the government to follow the US Constitution ”

            Right ………. and as they did not follow it ………….. we have Orlando and BLM and more and more chaos …

          • BigHobbit

            Do you assert that Orlando and BLM (?) are caused by legal same sex marriage? Let me guess, black helicopters, moon landings in Hollywood, the Elders of Zion, and there was no way that Lee Harvey acted alone?

          • Amos Moses

            “Do you assert that Orlando and BLM (?) are caused by legal same sex marriage?”

            If you add acid to water ……….. the whole of the water becomes more acidic ……… it is not contained to just the area you poured it into …………….. lawlessness breeds lawlessness …….

          • Amos Moses

            “coming from a person who thinks that a persons preferences are more important than the law”

            So that would be the homosexuals, trannys, and other sexual deviants whose “preferences” you refer to ……….

          • Jalapeno

            No..I’m referring to the person I replied to.

          • Amos Moses

            Guess it was too much to hope that you finally saw the light ……..

          • Ronald Carter

            To be very honest, the morality of the Christian fundamentalist is so completely offensive and repugnant to me that your statement has no basis in fact.

          • Michael A. Todd

            Well, we can certainly go back in time 80 years, become majority atheist, and then just let Hitler take over Europe and large parts of the West. Hitler (Der Fuhrer), Stalin (dictator), Mao (autocrat), all non Christian, atheistic, evolutionists. They killed about 70 million of their own people during their reigns.

            So you are saying America would be better off with their ideologies and state rule “religion” than sticking to good old Christian principles? Neither you nor I would probably be here if so.

          • Ronald Carter

            I’m reminded of a good line I read online recently: “Religion does not cause you to kill people, and it certainly doesn’t prevent you from killing people. Let’s stop pretending that it does either.” Because you know that if you want to use the examples you gave, I can easily counter with people who killed many while holding a religious banner.

            In fact it sounds like you’re dodging what my point was, which is that the morality of fundamentalist Christianity is highly offensive to me. I abhor so much of it because I find it hateful of minorities and intolerant of differing beliefs. It doesn’t just claim to be the truth, it demands that you believe it or else. And it encourages willful ignorance too, such as rejection of evolution theory.

      • BigHobbit

        He has shown contempt for the Constitution before. And contempt for the legal system he is required to support.

      • chthompson

        SCOTUS does not get to make “law.” They need to be restrained urgently. States need to start fighting back.

      • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart-slowlyboiledfrog.com

        It seems worth noting that a majority of citizens are still opposed to the ruling in Loving v.Virginia. What Loving and Obergefell did is actually not the establishment of new laws. In both cases they nullified existing laws prohibiting interracial and same-sex marriage respectively.

        While about two-thirds of our citizenry support same-sex marriage (some are just indifferent) it is irrelevant to Equal Protection and Due Process.

  • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart-slowlyboiledfrog.com

    High School civics: Marbury v. Madison has been precedence for over 200 years. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution and—like it or not—the Court has ruled that gay couples have a constitutional right to marry. It does not require Moore’s approval.

    Southern states tried the same nonsense after Brown v. Board of Education desegregated the schools. This was resolved by Cooper v. Aaron as Judge Moore is most certainly aware.

    Enough with this guy. He is clearly a theocrat at heart and that won’t change.

    • Slidellman4life

      Apparently you haven’t read Marbury v Madison.

    • chthompson

      Wrong. The court does not get to define its own power. The ruling inventing a constitutional “right” to marriage is beyond illegitimate. It is a joke that should be laughed at by all sensible people. There is not and can never be a homosexual marriage.

      • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart-slowlyboiledfrog.com

        It’s not doctrinal. Marbury has been the accepted precedent because the alternative is chaos. It has been respected for over 200 years. There are two ways, however, to overrule the Court:

        1. By constitutional amendment or;
        2. By bringing a new case before the Court causing a reconsideration.

        Neither of those options are likely to succeed. 38 states to ratify an amendment don’t exist. Bringing a new case requires a plaintiff with Article III standing. Thus far that seems impossible.

        There is not and can never be a homosexual marriage.

        The Supreme Court has established that gay couples have a constitutional right to marry. Neither your approval nor that of the Catholic Church is relevant or required. Thousands of gay couples are happily—and legally—married. Some are raising children. That seems to contradict your “not” and “never.”

        • chthompson

          Wrong.

          • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart-slowlyboiledfrog.com

            Thank you for your insightful comment. I guess that “Right” will have to suffice.

          • Joey Grimmett

            Wow! What a retort of DavidHart’s facts.

            Did you go to law school for dummies?

  • Ambulance Chaser

    “[N]othing in the orders of Judge Grenadae requires Alabama probate judges to issue marriage licenses that are illegal in Alabama,” he wrote. “Pursuant to … the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Alabama probate judges are not subject to those orders because the probate judges are not parties or associated with any party in those cases.”

    No, but Obergefell v. Hodges DOES require you to.

    • Slidellman4life

      Except Obergefell is an illicit ruling, for reasons already discussed.

      • Ronald Carter

        No it’s not, Matthew.

      • Ambulance Chaser

        An “illicit ruling?” Who says? You? Do your opinions overrule the Supreme Court?

        • Slidellman4life

          This has already been explained to you. It shall not be again.

          • BigHobbit

            Yet it stands, legally. In all 50 states.
            The GOP has both houses of congress, where is the impeachment?

          • Slidellman4life

            It stands, but it is not legal. We just have governors without backbones that allow out of control judges to do whatever they want and get away with it.

            Makes me wish I was a state governor. I would have publically announced a non-compliance to an illegal and unconstitutional ruling and went about my business.

          • BigHobbit

            You are using language differently than the rest of us.

            When I say legal, what I mean is that every govt agency, including the court system treats all marriages as legally equal, they treat them the same.

            When you say not legal, what you are saying is that YOU don’t think they OUGHT to be legal.

            You are expressing your desire for how the world should be.

            I am expressing a description of how the world actually is.

      • BigHobbit

        Why do you feel that Obergefell is an “illicit ruling”? What do you think the status of “illicit” means?
        Do you favor a constitutional amendment or a replacement of enough of the supreme court so that when another case comes along in five to ten years, they will come to a different decision?

        • Slidellman4life

          You should have been here when this was originally discussed. I said I would not be going over it again and you seem to have a problem comprehending that so I am going to help you by sending you to the Cornfield.

          Bye.

          • BigHobbit

            Should have been, where?
            I have followed the thread to the TLP, and I don’t see what you are talking about.
            For a second, it seemed like you were interested in getting your point across. For a second.

      • uninvitedguest

        LOL!

        • Slidellman4life

          Glad I can entertain you.

          • uninvitedguest

            Thanks

  • legaliis

    “…
    “This court (COJ) can conclude this matter now, deny the Chief
    Justice’s motion for summary judgment, enter judgment as a matter of law
    in favor of the commission (JIC), remove the Chief Justice from
    judicial office, and reaffirm Alabama’s fidelity to the rule of law,”….” so then as the “rule of law” disregard all that has law for hundreds if not thousands of years and cow-tow to the left, lib. wimps???? Some court, be ashamed very ashamed.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      If it was overturned as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, yes.

      • Amos Moses

        Unconstitutional rulings of the SCOTUS are null and void …………

        • Ambulance Chaser

          There is no such thing as an “unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling.” 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. U.S. Const. Art. III.

          And anyway, even if such a thing were possible, who decides whether s SCOTUS ruling is “unconstitutional?” The Even More Supreme Court? You?

          • http://www.dontneednostinkinwebsite.com/ Midlandr

            Of course there is.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Maybe you should scroll up and read that passage from Article III again.

          • Slidellman4life

            Dude, enough. SCOTUS doesn’t have absolute power. They are supposed to make rulings based on what the Constitution says and nothing more.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yes, and they did.

          • Slidellman4life

            No, they did not. They just made a ruling that you like, so you defend it no matter what. You have demonstrated as many others have that for you the ends justify the means.

          • uninvitedguest

            your opinion only

          • Slidellman4life

            And? What’s your point?

          • Amos Moses

            i did see Ginsburg bend over the other day ………… the sunlight was astounding …… did not realize the darkest spot on her backside shined so brightly …………………

          • Amos Moses

            Maybe you need to realize we live in a constitutional republic and not a judicial tyranny …………. a black robe theocracy ……… courts do not make laws ……….. justices are not rulers ………. and if you do read what you posted ………. it says ….”under such regulations as the Congress shall make.” U.S. Const. Art. III. ………….. so they are UNDER congress and we are OVER congress ………..

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “courts do not make laws”

            The Court didn’t make a law. They made a ruling interpreting the 14th Amendment.

            it says ….”under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”

            Which would be relevant if Congress had passed a law restricting SCOTUS’ power to rule on this matter. But they didn’t.

          • Amos Moses

            “There is no such thing as an “unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling.”

            Yes, there is ………… if they rule contrary to Gods law ……. they have nullified their jurisdiction ……..

  • Amos Moses

    When government cease to be a terror to evil …… and becomes a harbor for evil …… it has lost all credibility and we have no duty to obey it …………….

    • Stephen W.

      Blah blah .. blah blah blah blah. Furthermore, you’re not a Supreme Court justice.

      • Amos Moses

        Further more ………… i do not have to be ……….. they are under us ………. not we under them …… you seem to have things a bit out of whack ……….

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Who is “we?” Is anyone asking you to recognize gay marriages in some way?

      • http://www.dontneednostinkinwebsite.com/ Midlandr

        You are, under threat of persecution, the “gay way”.

      • Amos Moses

        Society is ………. people like yourself ……….. who continuously argue the lie that it is a marriage ………. when it is not ………..

        • Ronald Carter

          If you find yourself in a court of law making the statement that two people of the same sex who have legally married are not really married, you will be found in contempt of court and at the very least, fined. It’s a shame that your denial of reality has to teach you this way when the rest of us can accept the law.

          • Amos Moses

            IF ………… the middle word in LIFE ………..

            “It’s a shame that your denial of reality has to teach you this way when the rest of us can accept the law.”

            They did not follow the law before ……. when homo”marriage” was illegal ……… but they will follow it now with regard to other depravity ……….. when the law of lawlessness has been established …………. what color is the sky in your world ………..

          • Ronald Carter

            Yes, they followed the law before. They didn’t get married. Now they can, so they do. “DEPRAVITY” is merely your opinion.

          • Amos Moses

            Depravity is not an opinion …………… it is an act ………….. and the law made no difference to them then ………. and it makes no difference to them now ………….. and we are seeing an increase in lawlessness on a weekly if not daily basis ……………. Orlando, Dallas, Baton Rouge ……….. more to come soon …………….

          • Ronald Carter

            Your definition of depravity differs from the one used by normal people. But I don’t know why you think homosexuals are to blame for Orlando, Dallas or Baton Rouge. Why are you now making homosexuals your scapegoat?

          • Amos Moses

            Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record–Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963
            [From “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen]

            24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.

            25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

            26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

            Their goal is to destroy this country …….. this is how they are doing it ……… good job in your assistance of those goals ……

          • Amos Moses

            Homosexuality is lawlessness ……….. it breeds even more lawlessness ………… the results are evident ………….

          • Ambulance Chaser

            It’s really that simple. It’s not a difficult concept.

          • Ronald Carter

            Not to you and I, at least…

    • Dean Lewis

      Disobey away right into a federal jail.. and from there you can stand on your imaginary soap box.. what was that?

      • Amos Moses

        Ready to go at the drop of a hat ………..

  • Stephen W.

    May the removal of this activist judge be swift.

    • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

      Surely you mean “activist judges” ?

      • Ambulance Chaser

        No, just Roy Moore.

        • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

          But you said activist. That was odd.

  • 201821208 :)

    Some men find it simply unimaginable that other men would act upon the basis of anything other than self-interest. They might acknowledge that a few young men, idealistic and naïve, would go off to some place like West Point and buy into that moral code which Douglas MacArthur so eloquently articulated in his Farewell Address to the U. S. Military Academy — “Duty, Honor, Country” — but certainly no grown man would. It is one of life’s great joys to enjoy the company and friendship of men who don’t become so jaded and sullied by living in this world. Chief Justice Moore is a man who has not become so jaded. One can only pity the man whose circle of friends and acquaintances only affirms the view of the cynic, the mocker, and the scoffer.

  • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

    Lawyers go to court, and argue at length, both sides laying claim to heaven and earth, and eternal rights to defend their cause. They don’t seem to care whether they actually have the rights of depth and height that they claim. Sure, they say “This court can conclude this matter now,” but they neglect to point out that it would do so at the expense of justice. The court can only conclude the matter as they request by betraying justice. Of course the accusers would like the case to be closed summarily in their favor: this would prevent them being embarrassed by their fictions being questioned.

  • Michael A. Todd

    Here’s what is wrong with society and govt:

    If it isn’t broken then don’t “fix it”.

    1) Marriage, has worked for thousands of years, now being redefined.
    2) Health insurance, has worked for decades, now broken and really needs to be fixed, again.
    3) Two parent families, used to always be the norm, but, decades ago, families started being broken with only one parent. Education and Govt promoting single parenting is just as good. Big NO there. So many families are broken now, leading to a bigger welfare state and other impacts on society.

    4) Legal system, people elect people to do what the people want. Not anymore, the common person’s vote means nothing. Activist judges on Supreme Court, Circuit Courts, etc. could care less about amendments voted in by the people. That’s how a lot of state laws were later overturned.

    • Jalapeno

      So..people should just be happy with “how things have been”, no matter what the situation is? They should just accept that they can’t marry the person they love, figure out a way to deal with watching their family go bankrupt because they got sick? We should go back and undo the balancing system that the founding fathers put in place?

      • Amos Moses

        “We should go back and undo the balancing system that the founding fathers put in place?”

        It is now more unbalanced than it has ever been ……….. it is at the tipping point …… hope your PRIDE in that keeps you warm at night …………..

        • Jalapeno

          It’s MORE balanced than ever…

          The original way it was balanced had black people and women still worth less than other people. It’s going more and more in the direction of equality by the day, just as it should be.

      • Jolanda Tiellemans

        In other words, going back to the good old days.

    • BigHobbit

      Marriage, including same sex marriage, has been working for more than a decade in Massachusetts. It isn’t broken, and it doesn’t need fixing.

      Health insurance is broken, but it is off topic to this discussion.

      Many studies show that two parent families are shown to have children with better outcomes. The studies also show that the gender of the parents is not statistically different. ( a small benefit is shown for having two moms, but it might just be statistical “noise”)

      The legal system is a creation of the constitution itself. The constitution forms three co-equal branches, with separate powers, to form a system of checks and balances.
      The framers did this, as their papers show, to prevent what John Adams coined “the tyranny of the majority.” It’s constitutional role is to ensure individual rights are not denied by unconstitutional laws.

      The same Supreme court that protects your right to marry who you chose from unconstitutional laws ALSO protects your right to bear arms from unconstitutional laws.

      There HAS to be a place where individuals can seek protection when the govt takes away rights. It is a good thing.

    • BigHobbit

      Slavery, has worked for thousands of years, now it has been taken away.
      The fact that something is traditional doesn’t make it right, it just makes it old.

  • Amos Moses

    Media analyst Mark Dice convinced California residents to sign a fake petition recently that would divert tax money towards “gay reparations.”

    youtube;com/watch?v=TNnSe9sYU6M

  • Josey

    The supreme court in the state should have the authority not the federal

    • Michael C

      The Framers of this great Nation disagree with you. Are you saying they were they wrong?

      • Amos Moses

        Is that the Federalists or the Anti-Federalists ………………

      • Amos Moses

        Actually ………. in certain cases ……… the court has no jurisdiction ……….

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Mr. Moore is the right vessel to become the President of the United States of America, if not Mr. Cruz. Nothing is more important to Americans than Christianity. Today’s America is so sad. Too many villains oppress good and excellent men in America.

    • Jolanda Tiellemans

      Oh, but didn’t you hear? Trump is a Christian. /sarc

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        I don’t think he is. No visible evidence. True Christians work to abolish blasphemies, infanticide, and Sodomy’s tyranny in the land.

        • Jolanda Tiellemans

          And you don’t do sarcasm. Got it!

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Lady, I mean self-proclamation is nothing without substance. Non-natives do not use sarcasm in the fear of being misunderstood.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Let me explain it to you again. This ‘/sarc’ means that I’m being sarcastic. And you didn’t get it.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Understood, but the topic is too sad to be sarcastic anyway. You need Jesus for salvation.

    • BigHobbit

      Mr. Moore is not running for president.
      Right now, he is trying to hang on to the job that he has.
      Judges swear an oath of office, and part of that oath is to make decisions on the law, and only on the law, that they will be impartial. Judge Moore has shown that he is incapable of honoring his sacred oath.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        US Sodom makes things hard for every righteous man. There is nothing sacred about today’s USA except for her Christians.

        • BigHobbit

          A Majority of Today’s Christians tell polling agencies that they support legal same sex marriage.
          The only thing “hard” for “righteous man”, is that they are not allowed to interfere with the freedoms of everyone else. A “righteous man” has the same rights as everyone else – no more, no less.

        • BigHobbit

          The first amendment prohibits the establishment of religion as a basis of govt. If the govt WAS to be “sacred”, it would violate the constitution.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Americans got religious words only from Christianity. Europe was based on Christianity and therefore America was, too. Americans got most of the things from the Christian Europeans. Americans invented stuff, but not thoughts.

          • BigHobbit

            Yea, that whole doing without nobility, kings, etc, and setting up the worlds first constitutional republic, that couldn’t possibly be thought of as a new thought.
            What a silly assertion.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Because Americans had the Holy Bible. Americans took a lot of things from Europe especially from the British Christians. Independence had to be won by a bitter war, but USA can exist only with the Holy Bible and the Christian Europe. Recognize other people’s contributions. It’s not that the USA started 230 years ago. Respect your parents.

          • BigHobbit

            Respect history, but not be shackled to it. We have discarded monarchy, slavery and theocracy.
            We continue with ethical philosophy from the Greeks and Romans. With democracy and civic virtue. We discard oppression, and embrace freedom.

          • Meepestos

            If only the Arawaks and Beothuks had a chance or at least had some successors so they could see the world today and learn about the world’s other ethical philosophies. Unfortunately Christendom didn’t provide that for them.

    • BigHobbit

      Nothing is more important to America than the Constitution and values such as freedom, independence, equality and justice for all.

      Moore is un-American when he is un-Constitutional.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        You are wrong. Mr. Moore is constitutional true American. America has no freedom or independence or equality or justice apart from Christianity; Non-christian America pushes oppressive immorality into the world. America needs more Bible-believing men to do what is right.

  • https://disqus.com/home/channel/fakethoughtsandprayers/ Chip01

    this rougue judge Moore needs to be removed
    He is a dangerous man.

    • chthompson

      Judge Moore is doing his duty. He should be commended by all civilized, God-fearing, law-abiding people.

      • https://disqus.com/home/channel/fakethoughtsandprayers/ Chip01

        Don’t fear a God… If that God loves you unconditionally.

        • chthompson

          The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

          • https://disqus.com/home/channel/fakethoughtsandprayers/ Chip01

            Sound controlling. If God loves you unconditionally… You should fear him/her

          • chthompson

            If you reject God with your free will, He will reject you. That should terrify you.

          • https://disqus.com/home/channel/fakethoughtsandprayers/ Chip01

            Not really… No

          • Joey Grimmett

            I don’t believe in your sky fairy, so not terrified.

          • Joey Grimmett

            Fear is the beginning of control, zombie lover…

  • BigHobbit

    Moore is a dominionist. He is no better than ISIS as he tries to replace the civil law of the country with his version of Sharia laws.

  • BobbyHead

    These godless liberal judges want a man of God removed. They will pay for this in the judgement day.

  • chthompson

    May God bless and protect Judge Moore from these agents of Satan. May his persecutors fall in the snares they have laid for the good judge. Thank you Judge Moore for standing firm. It’s good to know that sanity and faithfulness to God and the law are still alive and well among some Americans.