Live Election Results: U.S. Senate Primary Runoff in Alabama

a reply to: TheRedneck

Absolutely the duly elected representatives on government are given power by We The People.

My hand-slapping comment was in reference to Alabama's long history of denying rights to individuals based on race, gender, religion, or sexual preference. That is not justice and equality for all. Protecting the rights of the individual versus the majority is the sole purpose of government.

I don't want a king, I want representatives who honor their oaths.

Moore has proven time and again through his actions and words that he is a religious zealot who has no interest in protecting the rights of people he disagrees with. No matter who he pisses off, that is NOT progress.

Moore is more of the same, a politician with his own enrichment at heart. He will get to Mordor on the Potomac and change NOTHING.

a reply to: cynicalheathen

My hand-slapping comment was in reference to Alabama's long history of denying rights to individuals based on race, gender, religion, or sexual preference.

Really? Really?

How long do you seriously expect people to keep quiet when you go around calling them racist, sexist, etc... based on what? WHERE THEY LIVE? You might want to look up the definitions of the words you throw around, because it's exactly what you just did that has caused Trump to become President and now Moore to become Senator. Keep it up and Louisiana will be sending Senator David Duke to Washington (something I would rather not see).

Sure, we've had our problems... our mistakes... we've turned left when we should have turned right. But as a "lifelong Alabamian," you share that history. It is yourself who you denounce, in an attempt to ease a conscience that only cries because of insecurity in who you are. I know who I am. I'm a white, Christian, male Southerner of so much mixed heritage I could fit the definition of a mutt. I will not apologize for any of that... most of it I had no control over, and the rest I chose freely as is my right. Any time I hear that tired old cliche, I want this government that supports this kind of blind condemnation you just espoused destroyed at all costs.

Name me one country, one region, one area, one people who have never committed any atrocity toward another people... you can't. We are all human and all make mistakes. The adults pick themselves off, figure out where they went wrong, and try again. Children and animals lie in the dust and scream angry rhetoric at others.

TheRedneck

Really? Really?

How long do you seriously expect people to keep quiet when you go around calling them racist, sexist, etc... based on what? WHERE THEY LIVE? You might want to look up the definitions of the words you throw around, because it's exactly what you just did that has caused Trump to become President and now Moore to become Senator. Keep it up and Louisiana will be sending Senator David Duke to Washington (something I would rather not see).

Hyperbole. The State of Alabama's goverment is representative of the people by your own reasoning, correct? Does anyone deny that that government has denied rights to various classes of people over the years? Those representatives who did so were elected by a majority vote of Alabamians, correct? So, those who voted for the goverment of the State of Alabama are responsible for it's actions, correct?

Moore was elected by majority vote twice, and was removed from office twice. So that means the people who elected him were wrong... twice. Does that mean the third time's the charm, or will history repeat itself once again?

It is the populace's responsibility to understand how government works and make selections of their representatives in an informed manner, not based on "feelings". Unfortunately as of late, it has been a rush to the bottom in an effort to pander to the lowest common denominator.

Sure, we've had our problems... our mistakes... we've turned left when we should have turned right. But as a "lifelong Alabamian," you share that history.

Indeed I do. I like to learn from it so as not to repeat it rather than keep electing politicians known for violating their oaths.

It is yourself who you denounce, in an attempt to ease a conscience that only cries because of insecurity in who you are. I know who I am. I'm a white, Christian, male Southerner of so much mixed heritage I could fit the definition of a mutt.

Who is denouncing anything? Pointing out that a certain area has a history of electing representatives who flaunt the Constitution and have no problem running roughshod over individual rights is "denouncing"? I prefer "being aware of so as not to make the same mistakes again"

My concience is very clear and I'm very secure in my own identity. I suffer no "white guilt" or any such other nonsense. However, I will call out injustice where I see it, and will advocate and fight for the equal rights of others, no matter if I agree with their views, lifestyles, whatever.

I'm a white male straight cisgender Southerner, and indeed a mutt myself. Doesn't stop me from seeing problems where they exist and pointing them out even if it makes some uncomfortable.

I will not apologize for any of that... most of it I had no control over, and the rest I chose freely as is my right. Any time I hear that tired old cliche, I want this government that supports this kind of blind condemnation you just espoused destroyed at all costs.

Not asking for an apology for any of that.

Blind condemnation of what? The only thing I'm condemning is representatives who violate their oaths, fail to uphold individual's rights, and clearly favor one group over another.

Name me one country, one region, one area, one people who have never committed any atrocity toward another people... you can't. We are all human and all make mistakes. The adults pick themselves off, figure out where they went wrong, and try again. Children and animals lie in the dust and scream angry rhetoric at others.

Electing a known religious zealot who doesn't recognize any authority but "the sovereignty of God" and has made bigoted statements in regards to other religions and sexual preferences does NOT do anything to forward the equal rights and justice of We The People.

a reply to: cynicalheathen

No hyperbole... just more of the same condemnation of an entire state because of historical actions. Do you realize how many Yankees think we are still segregating schools? That was back in the 1960s... when I was still getting excited because the Christmas edition of the Sears & Roebuck catalog (with all the toys in it) came in the mail.

I'll bet good money that back when you were born, you wet your pants. Does that make you a bedwetter to this day?

As long as you continue to debase me and my culture based on a historical stereotype that has long ceased relevancy, you'll get more of the same... Shelby is getting ready to retire soon, and I'm sure we can find someone who makes Roy Moore look like a Progressive to replace him. As I said, any government that not only condones but encourages the kind of hateful rhetoric you spout needs to be destroyed at all cost, and any memory of its existence wiped from the face of the planet. If that takes sending drunken bums to the Senate, so be it. Be thankful we sent someone like Moore, because there are much, much harsher possibilities.

As for getting removed from office, the people didn't remove him... the establishment did, both times. The people supported him, and still do to this day obviously. Or are you one who thinks free and fair elections are secondary to the wishes of those in power?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: TheRedneck

I think trump backed strange as an appeasment to establishment republicans.

And I think it was a bad idea.

But if anything, to me this shows the movement to elect trump wasn't about trump, it was about being tired of the establishment.

Agree - it was a mistake on Trump's part and you have to wonder who he is listening to.
The good news from this result is that it reaffirms that Trump's win was about the policy and not Trump himself. This will send him a pretty clear message that he needs to hold the course on the policies that got him elected, something he has wavered from in the last 3 months.

originally posted by: [post=22707146]TheRedneck

No hyperbole... just more of the same condemnation of an entire state because of historical actions. Do you realize how many Yankees think we are still segregating schools? That was back in the 1960s... when I was still getting excited because the Christmas edition of the Sears & Roebuck catalog (with all the toys in it) came in the mail.

When we as a state keep electing "representatives" who embarass us, why do you think other regions think ill of us?

As long as you continue to debase me and my culture based on a historical stereotype that has long ceased relevancy, you'll get more of the same...

Who is debasing you and your culture by wanting equal protection under the law?

What does it hurt the White, Christian, Southern male to allow other people to live their lives and enjoy equal protections?

Oh, and btw, I still have other white people ( some, not all ) who automatically assume that I share in their racist views and look like I slapped them in the face when they discover otherwise. Luckily that seems to be fading with my generation ( X, if you must know ) and the younger crowd, so that's encouraging. I also have been shunned by co-workers, friends, and family members when they discover that I do not attend church every Sunday. So some stereotypes do in fact, justify themselves.

I do not care what religion or lifestyle choices someone else makes, so long as they do not try to impose it upon me. Live and let live.

Shelby is getting ready to retire soon, and I'm sure we can find someone who makes Roy Moore look like a Progressive to replace him.

No doubt. It's a shame that Obama isn't still in office so that candidate could just continue Shelby's campaign slogans. Ah, who am I kidding, they still will.

As I said, any government that not only condones but encourages the kind of hateful rhetoric you spout needs to be destroyed at all cost, and any memory of its existence wiped from the face of the planet.

Point out "hateful rhetoric" that I've spouted. With quotes, if you please.

The only destruction of any government which needs to occur is the one that doesn't protect the individual rights of its citizens. Period. The only legitimate functions of government are to provide for the common defense, provide a court system to correct wrongs to individuals, and protect the individual rights of its citizens.

If that takes sending drunken bums to the Senate, so be it. Be thankful we sent someone like Moore, because there are much, much harsher possibilities.

I can't think of any examples of those harsher than Moore right off hand, but I don't disagree with that point.

As for getting removed from office, the people didn't remove him... the establishment did, both times. The people supported him, and still do to this day obviously. Or are you one who thinks free and fair elections are secondary to the wishes of those in power?

Moore was removed from for ethics violations resulting from his refusal to follow the law which he swore an oath to uphold. His oath was a pact with the PEOPLE of Alabama, which he then broke. I would argue that the people did remove him through other duly elected judges which recognized that Moore had violated his oath. Also, I believe that Moore puts a lot of stock in a book which has some pretty strong warnings against lying.

The people can be wrong, and have been wrong before. Think about how smart the average person is, and then think about the fact that 50% of them are dimmer than that. Ask the average person about Government and Civics and you are likely to get incorrect information or a blank stare. For a Republic to function correctly, you need an informed citizenry. We have strayed far, far from that.

Free and fair elections? In this country? When have those happened? Not in my lifetime. Free and fair would mean no collusion to get certain candidates nominated and no collusion to keep third-party candidates out of the election process. Ask yourself why millions are spent for a position which barely pays a salary in the six-figure range...

If voting actually meant anything, it would be illegal. We ceased to be a Republic when the people became apathetic. Our "leaders" are bought and paid for. We are in effect an oligarchy. We are ruled by the Corporations. Moore will do exactly zilch to change that. Trump will do exactly zilch to change that.

a reply to: UKTruth

The good news from this result is that it reaffirms that Trump's win was about the policy and not Trump himself.

Hahaha, I see you have much to learn about US culture, UK. It was always about the idea and not the man. Donald Trump is a New York real estate tycoon... there is no way he could have taken the Southern vote to the extent he did on his personality alone. It was his ideal, the ideal that the government should work for the people, not the people for the government, and the fact he is not a politician that let him catch a wave of popularity.

TheRedneck

a reply to: cynicalheathen

When we as a state keep electing "representatives" who embarass us, why do you think other regions think ill of us?

Oh, please...

In the first place, the disdain the rest of the country has for us has existed since before there was radio.

In the second place, you remind me of cryin' Chuck Schumer. "We'll work with you, gladly! Just give us everything we want and don't expect anything in return and we'll be happy to negotiate."

What does it hurt the White, Christian, Southern male to allow other people to live their lives and enjoy equal protections?

Where did I say I was against equal protection under the law? Quotes, please.

I actually have said multiple times that I don't agree with everything Moore says, but at least I know when he says it, he means it. Honesty matters to me.

It's a shame that Obama isn't still in office...

... and apparently honesty doesn't matter to you.

Thank God Almighty Obama is gone. Although his legacy of destruction is still with us, at least temporarily.

Point out "hateful rhetoric" that I've spouted. With quotes, if you please.

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
Moore will be great for you if you're White, Male, Protestant, and Straight. If you're not one of the above, your mileage may vary.
...
Alabama will once again be a laughing stock when Moore hoists himself by his own petard.

And then there's this little tidbit:

What does it hurt the White, Christian, Southern male to allow other people to live their lives and enjoy equal protections?

which you felt necessary to bring up even though I never claimed otherwise. Nice assumption. Bigoted assumption, but a nice bigoted assumption.

Anyone from Alabama is guilty of being racist, backwards, deplorable, even less than fully human until proven otherwise. That's your rhetoric you spout, and that's why you get to watch Roy Moore on the Senate floor backing President Donald Trump. But yeah, keep the attitude up. 2018 will be that much sweeter.

The only legitimate functions of government are to provide for the common defense, provide a court system to correct wrongs to individuals, and protect the individual rights of its citizens.

No government has ever protected the individual rights of its citizens. History is a continual soap opera of governments rising to power, usurping the rights of their citizens, and falling from corruption and bloat, only to be replaced by another one.

The Constitution is not a restriction on the people of the USA by the government. It is a restriction on the government of the USA by the people. And it has been abused for decades now. I know Moore won't abuse it. Obama seemed to have a fetish for doing so.

Trump... eh, he couldn't abuse it more than Obama...

The people can be wrong, and have been wrong before.

And that is the scariest statement of all. If the people are to be assumed to be wrong, who determines that?

Remember that the government is run by... people. I trust the average person more than I do some elitist, self-righteous bag of wind with a semi-permanent tourniquet around his neck.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: TheRedneck

I think trump backed strange as an appeasment to establishment republicans.

And I think it was a bad idea.

But if anything, to me this shows the movement to elect trump wasn't about trump, it was about being tired of the establishment.

Agree - it was a mistake on Trump's part and you have to wonder who he is listening to.
The good news from this result is that it reaffirms that Trump's win was about the policy and not Trump himself. This will send him a pretty clear message that he needs to hold the course on the policies that got him elected, something he has wavered from in the last 3 months.

Trump, officials and informal advisers say, felt misled by McConnell and his political team, who encouraged him to endorse and campaign for Strange.

Link

In the first place, the disdain the rest of the country has for us has existed since before there was radio.

Agreed. But why give them more ammo to make fun of us? A disgraced judge riding a horse and waving a gun almost writes the jokes by itself.

In the second place, you remind me of cryin' Chuck Schumer. "We'll work with you, gladly! Just give us everything we want and don't expect anything in return and we'll be happy to negotiate."

I'll admit, I chuckle every time I'm compared to one of those "liberals". Thanks for the laugh. I'm an Independent, fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Where did I say I was against equal protection under the law? Quotes, please.

You didn't, but Roy Moore sure seems to be. You support Moore.

Moore has stated:

That the power of the state should be used to punish homosexuality.

That the Judeo-Christian God reigned over both the church and state in this country, and that they both owe their allegiance to that God.

That without God there can be no ethics.

That a Muslim cannot honestly take an oath of office.

Seems to me like there might be some genuine concern for fair treatment by Moore.

I actually have said multiple times that I don't agree with everything Moore says, but at least I know when he says it, he means it. Honesty matters to me.

Great. That's a healthy outlook. Honesty apparently doesn't matter to Roy Moore, since he has twice lied when taking an oath to uphold the law.

Thank God Almighty Obama is gone. Although his legacy of destruction is still with us, at least temporarily.

And what I said was sarcasm, referring to Richard Shelby's last campaign where he seemed to be running against Obama for U.S. Senate.

which you felt necessary to bring up even though I never claimed otherwise. Nice assumption. Bigoted assumption, but a nice bigoted assumption.

I don't see any of that as hateful rhetoric, especially given Roy Moore's track record and statements.

I never referenced your personal feelings, since I don't know you.

I never said all people from Alabama are that way, or all Christians, whites, males, etc. Just that Roy Moore seems to favor certain groups over others.

Anyone from Alabama is guilty of being racist, backwards, deplorable, even less than fully human until proven otherwise. That's your rhetoric you spout, and that's why you get to watch Roy Moore on the Senate floor backing President Donald Trump. But yeah, keep the attitude up. 2018 will be that much sweeter.

Okay. I was merely making a comparision between previous representatives elected by Alabamians who have had their decisions overturned by a higher authority and Roy Moore.

Don't know where you're getting all the other words you're putting in my mouth, but whatever.

You also seem to be laboring under the assumption that I think there is a dimes worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats. ( Hint: There's not ) In fact, if you follow the money, you'll see that they all largely have the same donors.

No government has ever protected the individual rights of its citizens. History is a continual soap opera of governments rising to power, usurping the rights of their citizens, and falling from corruption and bloat, only to be replaced by another one.

This one did, at least in the beginning. It does appear that we are in the death throes of the Republic though, largely due to our own failures as good citizens.

The Constitution is not a restriction on the people of the USA by the government. It is a restriction on the government of the USA by the people. And it has been abused for decades now.

That's correct. The Constitution operates as a negative authority. Congress only has the privileges We The People grant it. The flip side to that is that Congress needs to be closely supervised, and We The People have done a poor job of it.

Who is to blame when the dog runs off and bites someone else? The dog, or the owner who failed to control it?

I know Moore won't abuse it. Obama seemed to have a fetish for doing so.

Moore already has. The 14th Amendment comes to mind.

And why Obama? Many, many more of our "representatives" have done as bad or worse, regardless of what letter is next to their name.

Trump... eh, he couldn't abuse it more than Obama...

Please don't tell him that. He'll take it as a challenge.

The people can be wrong, and have been wrong before.

And that is the scariest statement of all. If the people are to be assumed to be wrong, who determines that?

Natural law and jurisprudence for one. Note I used the qualifiers "can be" and "have been", not "are assumed to be" or "always are".

Remember that the government is run by... people. I trust the average person more than I do some elitist, self-righteous bag of wind with a semi-permanent tourniquet around his neck.

To a degree. The problem is that power almost always corrupts. Politicians and diapers should be changed often and for the same reason.

a reply to: cynicalheathen

But why give them more ammo to make fun of us? A disgraced judge riding a horse and waving a gun almost writes the jokes by itself.

I don't see him as "disgraced," and judging by the election tallies, neither do most people in Alabama. Besides, come December, he will be more than a "judge riding a horse and waving a gun"... he'll be a US Senator. That means the joke is on those who see him as disgraced.

I'll admit, I chuckle every time I'm compared to one of those "liberals". Thanks for the laugh. I'm an Independent, fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Independent here too. Never pledged any loyalty to any party, and until recently my votes were split between the parties.

People judge others based on their perception of the words spoken. I try to keep that in mind when people start judging me... perhaps you should do the same. Your earlier posts sounded to me like something straight out of Nancy Pelosi's mouth.

You didn't, but Roy Moore sure seems to be. You support Moore.

So do the majority of Alabamians.

Has Moore ever used the power of his positions to "punish homosexuals"?

You do realize that as a Christian, I also believe God reigns over the church and the state? It's one of the tenets...

I would love to argue the ethics question with you on another thread.

I want to hear the entire context and transcript of his Muslim comment.

Seems to me like there might be some genuine concern for fair treatment by Moore.

There was a lot of concern over fair and equal treatment for the last 8... no, more like 20... years. Putting people out of work, sending businesses overseas, promoting failures in companies, allowing extreme corruption in government, using the IRS as a tool to quash religious speech, and trying to take over and mismanage a sixth of the nation's economy... ol' Roy is going to have to work real hard to outdo that record.

Honesty apparently doesn't matter to Roy Moore, since he has twice lied when taking an oath to uphold the law.

There seems to be some confusion over what the definition of a lie is. I'd like to know exactly what the oath he supposedly broke said, and exactly what actions he took that you claim break it. Not agreeing with you on an issue is not the same as lying.

On the other hand, "If you like your healthcare you can keep your healthcare" certainly fits the definition of a lie in every way I know of.

I don't see any of that as hateful rhetoric, especially given Roy Moore's track record and statements.

I never referenced your personal feelings, since I don't know you.

I never said all people from Alabama are that way, or all Christians, whites, males, etc. Just that Roy Moore seems to favor certain groups over others.

Your statements certainly sounded like you were referencing the state of Alabama, which includes me, my family, my friends, and an awful lot of good people who simply want the US government to get out of their lives and leave them alone.

Okay. I was merely making a comparision between previous representatives elected by Alabamians who have had their decisions overturned by a higher authority and Roy Moore.

We have had quite a few decisions overturned recently by activist judges... that's a huge part of the problem.

And a subject for another thread.

This one did, at least in the beginning. It does appear that we are in the death throes of the Republic though, largely due to our own failures as good citizens.

The Constitution operates as a negative authority. Congress only has the privileges We The People grant it. The flip side to that is that Congress needs to be closely supervised, and We The People have done a poor job of it.

I cannot argue with any of that.

Moore already has. The 14th Amendment comes to mind.

Exactly which part of the 14th amendment has Moore violated again?

And why Obama? Many, many more of our "representatives" have done as bad or worse, regardless of what letter is next to their name.

True. Obama is just the latest, so the memory of his contribution to misery is fresh. Also, he does make a pretty good example with so many screw-ups to choose from.

I wasn't much of a Bush 43 fan, either.

Natural law and jurisprudence for one.

I have yet to hear a solid definition of "natural law" and have yet to be assured of the correctness of jurisprudence.

That's just a fancy way of saying "I/we should decide what is right or wrong for others."

The problem is that power almost always corrupts. Politicians and diapers should be changed often and for the same reason.

Again, agreed. So why are you saying this one time there shouldn't be a change? We just changed Senators, because the old one had too much in common with that diaper.

TheRedneck

I don't see him as "disgraced," and judging by the election tallies, neither do most people in Alabama. Besides, come December, he will be more than a "judge riding a horse and waving a gun"... he'll be a US Senator. That means the joke is on those who see him as disgraced.

Roughly 262,000 out of roughly 3,100,000 registered voters cast a ballot for Moore. That's a little less than 8.5% Hardly a majority.

Has Moore ever used the power of his positions to "punish homosexuals"?

See D.H. vs H.H. where Moore used homosexuality as an argument against child custody

Also recall his orders to probate judges to deny marriage licenses to same sex couples.

You do realize that as a Christian, I also believe God reigns over the church and the state? It's one of the tenets...

And that's absolutely fine. But as a public servant, you have to be objective. You cannot favor one faith over another or impose the beliefs of solely your faith.

I want to hear the entire context and transcript of his Muslim comment.

Look up Moore's comments on Minnesota Representative Keith Ellison

There was a lot of concern over fair and equal treatment for the last 8... no, more like 20... years. Putting people out of work, sending businesses overseas, promoting failures in companies, allowing extreme corruption in government, using the IRS as a tool to quash religious speech, and trying to take over and mismanage a sixth of the nation's economy... ol' Roy is going to have to work real hard to outdo that record.

Irrelevant to the discussion, but I'm sure everyone but Obama is blameless in that.

There seems to be some confusion over what the definition of a lie is. I'd like to know exactly what the oath he supposedly broke said, and exactly what actions he took that you claim break it. Not agreeing with you on an issue is not the same as lying.

Alabama Constitution Article XVI Section 279

"I, …, solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Alabama, so long as I continue a citizen thereof; and that I will faithfully and honestly discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter, to the best of my ability. So help me God."

His duty was to see that the probate judges did their job. He failed to faithfully discharge that duty.

He also violated the 1st and 14th Amendments.

He swore an oath to do certain things. He failed to do those things. He lied. Period.

Exactly which part of the 14th amendment has Moore violated again?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Bolded parts apply, in reference to Obergefell v. Hodges

I have yet to hear a solid definition of "natural law" and have yet to be assured of the correctness of jurisprudence.

That's just a fancy way of saying "I/we should decide what is right or wrong for others."

I look at it this way, the individual is free to do as they please until they cause demonstrable harm to others, abridge the equal rights of others, or there is a consent issue. Basically live and let live.

So why are you saying this one time there shouldn't be a change? We just changed Senators, because the old one had too much in common with that diaper.

I'm not a big fan of swapping a Hitler for a Stalin. If Moore was new, without his baggage and track record, I'd probably give him a chance. Based on his record, I just can't do it.

a reply to: cynicalheathen

Roughly 262,000 out of roughly 3,100,000 registered voters cast a ballot for Moore. That's a little less than 8.5% Hardly a majority.

Specious argument. Obviously the remainder had no opinion.

I find it interesting how whenever the election results indicate a preference, those on the losing side like to throw up the voter turnout stats. That never happens when the election goes their way.

Moore used homosexuality as an argument against child custody

There is a concern over the effect the lack of a male or female role model would have on children. While I have no informed opinion on this, I can see the argument.

Also recall his orders to probate judges to deny marriage licenses to same sex couples.

That IMO was due to the US Supreme Court striking down a state Constitutional amendment. That was a states' rights issue at its core.

But as a public servant, you have to be objective. You cannot favor one faith over another or impose the beliefs of solely your faith.

Do you believe that such an obligation is at odds with having a personal belief?

If your answer is yes, you have just insinuated that Christians (and Jews, and Muslims) are second-class citizens, barred from holding a public office solely on the basis of their religion... not exactly how the 1st Amendment reads...

There is a difference between action and belief.

Look up Moore's comments on Minnesota Representative Keith Ellison

Nah, too busy. If you want to put forth your argument, feel free to do so. I'm not debating both sides of this.

His duty was to see that the probate judges did their job. He failed to faithfully discharge that duty.

Actually, you are discussing a legal crisis brought on by the US Supreme Court over-reaching their authority (IMO). This goes back to the earlier portion of our debate: who decides right form wrong? The people themselves en masse, or nine people in black robes that were never elected to the office?

The duty of the Supreme Court is to resolve conflicts arising from implementation of the US Constitution and to ensure Federal law does not infringe on the Constitutional restrictions on government power. They are not legislators.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

Whose privileges or immunities did he abridge?

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

Who did he unjustly imprison or refuse to provide legal protection to?

I look at it this way, the individual is free to do as they please until they cause demonstrable harm to others, abridge the equal rights of others, or there is a consent issue. Basically live and let live.

It would be wonderful if others in the government felt the same way.

I'm not a big fan of swapping a Hitler for a Stalin. If Moore was new, without his baggage and track record, I'd probably give him a chance. Based on his record, I just can't do it.

I'm not sure Strange rises to the level of Hitler, nor Moore to the level of Stalin. Hyperbole is not an effective debating technique.

But yes, you will "give him a chance" because the majority of the citizens elected him. You have a chance in December to vote for the Democratic candidate, of course, but we both know that is a useless exercise in utter futility. Roy Moore will be the next Alabama Junior Senator, like it or not. That's simply how democratic selection works: the majority wins and the minority loses. There is no participation trophy (other than the little "I voted" stickers they give out).

I would prefer if individuals could just veto the majority myself... I would have thrown Obama out of office after three weeks, despite voting for him the first time. But it just doesn't work that way.

TheRedneck

Specious argument. Obviously the remainder had no opinion.

I find it interesting how whenever the election results indicate a preference, those on the losing side like to throw up the voter turnout stats. That never happens when the election goes their way.

Just pointing out that Moore was supported by nowhere near the majority of Alabamians who are registered to vote, much less "most of Alabama." In fact, in my circle of friends, I hear a lot of talk of people voting for Jones against Moore. It will be interesting for sure

There is a concern over the effect the lack of a male or female role model would have on children. While I have no informed opinion on this, I can see the argument.

I have seen great homosexual parenting and absolutely horrible heterosexual parenting. It should be judged on a case-by-case basis, not a blanket judgement.

That IMO was due to the US Supreme Court striking down a state Constitutional amendment. That was a states' rights issue at its core.

I personally feel that ALL government should stay out of the marriage business. Why anyone would choose to involve the government in something that is between 2 people boggles my mind.

Moore doesn't get to pick and choose which Supreme Court decisions he wants to obey.

Do you believe that such an obligation is at odds with having a personal belief?

The problem is that when judges or other public officials start enforcing or making laws then hiding behind religion as the reason, anything is possible.

Let's say a Muslim judge imposes punishment because someone spoke against Islam. Is it better to abridge the defendant's 1A rights to allow the punishment, or let the judge have his freedom of speech?

Let's say a Christian judge in civil court makes a 10% tithe on each and every defendant a requirement of judgement because of his genuinely held belief that each person should tithe.

What if a Satanist became a judge and decided against each and every Christian which came into his courtroom because in his belief, the Christians were wrong?

What if a fundamental Christian judge decided that a Wicca practicioner should be sentenced to death, Old Testament style?

Judges are allowed to have whatever beliefs they like, but when they violate the Establishment clause by endorsing or favoring one religion over another, they are violating the individual's rights.

It seems like a good idea to allow judges to interpret the law through a prism of their religion, right up until the religion they ascribe to is opposite of yours.

Actually, you are discussing a legal crisis brought on by the US Supreme Court over-reaching their authority (IMO). This goes back to the earlier portion of our debate: who decides right form wrong? The people themselves en masse, or nine people in black robes that were never elected to the office?

So the individual should just decide what laws to follow? Why even have government to begin with?

I believe that the Supremes need a little more restrictions placed on them, but without a Constitutional Convention, we have what we have.

The duty of the Supreme Court is to resolve conflicts arising from implementation of the US Constitution and to ensure Federal law does not infringe on the Constitutional restrictions on government power. They are not legislators.

And the same-sex marriage issue was a 14th Amendment issue. Alabama ( among other states ) was violating the rights of its citizens through law.

Whose privileges or immunities did he abridge?

The same-sex couples he denied the right to marry through his actions.

Who did he refuse to provide legal protection to?

See above.

It would be wonderful if others in the government felt the same way.

If We The People did our job as citizens, there'd be more of it.

I'm not sure Strange rises to the level of Hitler, nor Moore to the level of Stalin. Hyperbole is not an effective debating technique.

Give them time. I'm sure Moore will get the stonings and witch-burnings rolling along soon.

But yes, you will "give him a chance" because the majority of the citizens elected him.

Again, 8.45% =/= A majority

You have a chance in December to vote for the Democratic candidate, of course, but we both know that is a useless exercise in utter futility. Roy Moore will be the next Alabama Junior Senator, like it or not.

I likely will hold my nose and vote for Jones, simply because I believe Moore is a bad choice.

That's simply how democratic selection works: the majority wins and the minority loses. There is no participation trophy (other than the little "I voted" stickers they give out).

Except this is a Republic, and the majority cannot abridge the rights of the individual, no matter if they have 99.99% of the vote.

I have to put up with other's selection of representatives, but I don't have to put up with having my rights violated.

You had better bet that if Moore gets elected, the nanosecond he does something that could be construed as improper, they'll be all over him to remove him a 3rd time.

a reply to: cynicalheathen

Just pointing out that Moore was supported by...

According to that argument, we should have no elected representatives. Even the closely contested, high-turnout elections never show a majority of registered voters for any single candidate.

Anyone registered to vote who does not do so is officially accepting the decision of those that do.

I have seen great homosexual parenting and absolutely horrible heterosexual parenting. It should be judged on a case-by-case basis, not a blanket judgement.

Therein lies the problem with determining whether or not such is a good idea for the children involved. Unlike a heterosexual couple, it is not possible for a homosexual couple to conceive and bear a child between them; not prejudice, just biological fact. Therefore the children involved are either involved via adoption or some sort of artificial conception means. The former should require a thorough review of all involved factors, of which household makeup is only one, but is one which has evidence both pro and con, and an inherent difficulty in establishing baseline expectations.

I personally feel that ALL government should stay out of the marriage business.

I absolutely agree and have stated so for many years now. A marriage should be within the bounds of a religious association and all secular unions should be something else.

In other words, any two people should be able to secularly partner, and any two people who can find a church (or mosque, or temple, or whatever) willing to marry them should be able to get married.

But I disagree there is a "right to marry."

The problem is that when judges or other public officials start enforcing or making laws then hiding behind religion as the reason, anything is possible.

That's quite a leap you're making there. I hope you have a net.

Every example you have given is based on actions taken, not beliefs held. There is a difference between beliefs and actions. For example, I staunchly believe abortion is the taking of a human life, but were I in a position to make it a crime, I would not. Why? Because my belief is not binding on others. In my personal life, I would never condone an abortion, but I do not believe I have any business making such a decision for others.

And I can point you to the section of the Bible that reinforces that stance.

So the individual should just decide what laws to follow? Why even have government to begin with?

That's not what I said at all. I said people en masse, through their representatives. The Supreme Court has no right to make law, only to ensure that laws made are not inconsistent with the Constitution.

And the same-sex marriage issue was a 14th Amendment issue. Alabama ( among other states ) was violating the rights of its citizens through law.

Again, I do not believe there is a right to marry. Marriage requires the assistance of another person, which makes it impossible to be a right unless one wishes to bring back slavery.

I need no one's assistance to speak, to worship, to create and use weaponry (arms), to be secure in a home I already have, to speak out against government abuses, etc. I cannot marry someone without their consent and assistance.

I'm sure Moore will get the stonings and witch-burnings rolling along soon.

And if he doesn't? Will you retract those words?

No, you won't.

I likely will hold my nose and vote for Jones, simply because I believe Moore is a bad choice.

And that is your right. I'm sure you will not be alone. But I'm also sure you will be in the minority.

Except this is a Republic, and the majority cannot abridge the rights of the individual, no matter if they have 99.99% of the vote.

That's why we have the Bill of Rights.

I have to put up with other's selection of representatives, but I don't have to put up with having my rights violated.

I hate to break this to you, but having a representative you didn't vote for is NOT a violation of your rights.

You had better bet that if Moore gets elected, the nanosecond he does something that could be construed as improper, they'll be all over him to remove him a 3rd time.

Just like Donald J. Trump, eh?

You need to understand that there has to be a reason to remove a sitting Senator, more that just not liking him or calling him a bigot. It simply doesn't work that way, no matter how much you want it to. Heck, Hilary Clinton herself, the most corrupt politician to ever grace the country, was never removed from office. Apparently the only thing that will accomplish removal is far worse than murder, treason, or espionage.

TheRedneck

According to that argument, we should have no elected representatives. Even the closely contested, high-turnout elections never show a majority of registered voters for any single candidate.

No argument, just pointing out that "most of Alabama" didn't vote for Moore. "A majority of voters who actually showed up voted for Moore" would be accurate.

Anyone registered to vote who does not do so is officially accepting the decision of those that do.

Agreed. Acceptance =/= support though. There are plenty of reasons people don't vote.

Therein lies the problem with determining whether or not such is a good idea for the children involved. Unlike a heterosexual couple, it is not possible for a homosexual couple to conceive and bear a child between them; not prejudice, just biological fact. Therefore the children involved are either involved via adoption or some sort of artificial conception means. The former should require a thorough review of all involved factors, of which household makeup is only one, but is one which has evidence both pro and con, and an inherent difficulty in establishing baseline expectations.

There are infertile couples who can't naturally conceive as well. That's biological fact as well. They seem to adopt or artificially conceive without much fanfare. Why not same-sex couples who meet the same requirements?

I disagree there is a "right to marry."

What is marriage but a contract between 2 consenting adults and [ insert deity of choice here ]? Rights come from self-ownership. If two consenting adults agree to cleave to each other, then what grounds does the government have to prevent it?

Marriage is a contract, the right to contract is unlimited.

Every example you have given is based on actions taken, not beliefs held. There is a difference between beliefs and actions. For example, I staunchly believe abortion is the taking of a human life, but were I in a position to make it a crime, I would not. Why? Because my belief is not binding on others. In my personal life, I would never condone an abortion, but I do not believe I have any business making such a decision for others.

Actions which could be backed up with a "well that's my belief, and you're violating my rights by not letting me do it."

Good on you for being mature enough to keep things separate. There are plenty who can't or won't. Moore has proven he's one.

That's not what I said at all. I said people en masse, through their representatives. The Supreme Court has no right to make law, only to ensure that laws made are not inconsistent with the Constitution.

You're right, the Supreme Court doesn't make law, however it does strike them down from time to time.

Again, I do not believe there is a right to marry. Marriage requires the assistance of another person, which makes it impossible to be a right unless one wishes to bring back slavery.

I disagree. Marriage requires consent, which is wholly incompatible with slavery.

What authority does the government have to restrict people from marriage?

I cannot marry someone without their consent and assistance.

Again, a distinct difference between forcing someone to marry and a consensual agreement between adults. What difference does it make that the government is involved?

An interesting tidbit, marriage licenses weren't always required. Not until after the Civil War were they required, and only then for interracial marriage. So for almost 100 years in the US, a license was not required.

And if he doesn't? Will you retract those words?

No, you won't.

Again, sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet.

And that is your right. I'm sure you will not be alone. But I'm also sure you will be in the minority.

I guess we shall see. I actually am looking at a write-in Libertarian candidate now rather than Jones.

I hate to break this to you, but having a representative you didn't vote for is NOT a violation of your rights.

I didn't say it was.

You need to understand that there has to be a reason to remove a sitting Senator, more that just not liking him or calling him a bigot. It simply doesn't work that way, no matter how much you want it to. Heck, Hilary Clinton herself, the most corrupt politician to ever grace the country, was never removed from office. Apparently the only thing that will accomplish removal is far worse than murder, treason, or espionage.

Once again, I am well aware of how it is *supposed* to work. I am also aware that once you're in "The Club" they protect their own.

Moore is not Hillary Clinton though. He admitted to sleeping on sandbags because he was worried his own men would frag him with a grenade.

The man is principled, I'll give him that, but to the point that by his own admission he rubs people the wrong way.

Washington D.C. will be much, much worse. It's a den of vipers.

a reply to: cynicalheathen

No argument, just pointing out that "most of Alabama" didn't vote for Moore. "A majority of voters who actually showed up voted for Moore" would be accurate.

Semantics.

Acceptance =/= support though. There are plenty of reasons people don't vote.

The effect is the same.

Your assumption is that because a large percentage of people do not vote, there is a valid reason to believe their overall opinion varies significantly from those who do vote. I see no correlation to support that assumption.

There are infertile couples who can't naturally conceive as well. That's biological fact as well. They seem to adopt or artificially conceive without much fanfare. Why not same-sex couples who meet the same requirements?

The "unable to conceive" argument was included for completeness, not as a reason against homosexual marriage. The concern in my case is the effect a lack of either gender as an integral role model may or may not have on child development, not whether it is scientifically possible to force conception through artificial means. Again, there is not enough information on this to make a statement one way or another IMO.

I do tend to have much more compassion for those who use alternate methods of conception than for those who adopt, especially in the case of lesbian marriage. The bond between biological mother and child is tremendously strong and tremendously critical in child development IMO. That may be an emotional rather than rational opinion, but I do not believe so at this time.

But back to the original topic... the very fact that there is a debate to be had indicates that it is wholly facetious to assume that just because one looks upon one side of the debate more favorably than the other, that person is somehow 'bigoted.' Indeed, the fact that such assumptions persist in such number as they do (on multiple issues) is the very reason people are wiling to back someone as admittedly non-centrist as Roy Moore.

Marriage is a contract, the right to contract is unlimited.

Since when?

Indentured servitude is a contract that actually predates modern marriage, and is illegal (as it is essentially slavery). That's one example; there are many more areas where a contract can be declared null and void because of legal restrictions. A recent example is the illegality of price gouging in the wake of the recent hurricanes. Commerce is a contract between seller and buyer, an exchange of one item of value for another. Yet in this case (many would say rightly so, and I do not disagree) the execution of the contract can lead to criminal charges.

No, sir, there is no blanket right to contract.

Actions which could be backed up with a "well that's my belief, and you're violating my rights by not letting me do it."

Good on you for being mature enough to keep things separate. There are plenty who can't or won't. Moore has proven he's one.

Could be, should be, would be... irrelevant. Please show me one clear instance where Roy Moore has made a legal decision based solely on religious conviction. Even in the Ten Commandments issue, there was not a single example of his rulings being based on the Ten Commandments... it was all about the fact he displayed a plaque that some overly-sensitive activists objected to, alongside plaques of other historical legal documents such as the Magna Carta.

You're right, the Supreme Court doesn't make law, however it does strike them down from time to time.

Shouldn't make law. That's the problem. They often do.

What authority does the government have to restrict people from marriage?

If marriage is defined as a religious institution (which it should be IMO), then the answer is "none." However, as a society we have redefined marriage as a secular activity, which can require legal approval. I support removing that latter definition by simply passing a Federal law that denies the government the ability to interfere in religious marriage in any way and replaces every legal reference to marriage with a reference to a non-religious legal status. That would solve the entire issue.

But suggesting such is "homophobic." So I stopped suggesting it.

I guess we shall see. I actually am looking at a write-in Libertarian candidate now rather than Jones.

I am somewhat sympathetic to the Libertarian platform; but I must admit Johnson lowered my opinion of that movement quite a bit in the last election.

The man is principled, I'll give him that, but to the point that by his own admission he rubs people the wrong way.

That is why I support him.

Washington DC has rubbed me the wrong way for decades now. I see fairness if my representative rubs them the wrong way.

Washington D.C. will be much, much worse. It's a den of vipers.

It's a known fact in these parts that one never kills certain snakes. They may be snakes, but they eat the vipers.

TheRedneck

The "unable to conceive" argument was included for completeness, not as a reason against homosexual marriage. The concern in my case is the effect a lack of either gender as an integral role model may or may not have on child development, not whether it is scientifically possible to force conception through artificial means. Again, there is not enough information on this to make a statement one way or another IMO.

There are also plenty of examples in society of single parents raising children who are messed up in one way or another. I strongly believe that a female cannot raise a man. She can raise a male to adulthood, but females are ill equipped to teach a boy to be a man. Likewise on the flipside, though less damaging when a single father tries to raise a daughter to be a woman. At least women will help each other. We men tend to be adversarial and tear each other down.

No, sir, there is no blanket right to contract.

Agree to disagree.

Could be, should be, would be... irrelevant. Please show me one clear instance where Roy Moore has made a legal decision based solely on religious conviction.

In the custody battle of Suzanne Borden and James Borden, Moore awarded custody to James Borden based on Suzanne Borden's admission of a lesbian affair. Moore was asked 3 times to recuse himself due to personal bias by S. Borden and the ACLU. He did not, and was removed by the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals.

From Moore's own mouth:

The judge, in contrast, argued that he ruled as he did because he believes Suzanne's lesbian affair is harmful to the children and ultimately to God's plan for a family. Homosexuality, he stressed, is a sin according to God, but more immediately according to the state of Alabama.

Sounds like religious conviction masquerading as "but yeah, the law says that's wrong too." seeing as how Lawrence v. Texas invalidated the Alabama sodomy law.

Even in the Ten Commandments issue, there was not a single example of his rulings being based on the Ten Commandments... it was all about the fact he displayed a plaque that some overly-sensitive activists objected to, alongside plaques of other historical legal documents such as the Magna Carta.

Do you honestly believe that Moore would have tolerated or fought for similar monuments from other faiths or lack of faiths?

The mere act of having the monument installed under cover of darkness without knowledge of the other justices indicates to me that Moore knew he was doing something wrong.

If marriage is defined as a religious institution (which it should be IMO), then the answer is "none." However, as a society we have redefined marriage as a secular activity, which can require legal approval. I support removing that latter definition by simply passing a Federal law that denies the government the ability to interfere in religious marriage in any way and replaces every legal reference to marriage with a reference to a non-religious legal status. That would solve the entire issue.

Not a bad solution. Not as good as removing government from the equation completely, but not bad.

I am somewhat sympathetic to the Libertarian platform; but I must admit Johnson lowered my opinion of that movement quite a bit in the last election.

Definitely agree. Johnson turned me off, so I went with Darrell Castle. Johnson was so wacky that it made me wonder if he wasn't offered something to turn off voters.

That is why I support him.

Washington DC has rubbed me the wrong way for decades now. I see fairness if my representative rubs them the wrong way.

I can see that line of reasoning.

It's a known fact in these parts that one never kills certain snakes. They may be snakes, but they eat the vipers.

Gotta watch though, that you don't wind up with a swamp that's just full of a different kind of snake.

This has been fun, but at this point I just think we agree to disagree, and are debating semantics. Neither one of us is going to change the other's mind. At best we are just offering a different perspective.

Until next time?

a reply to: cynicalheathen

There are also plenty of examples in society of single parents raising children who are messed up in one way or another.

I completely agree with the single parent problem.

Agree to disagree.

You can disagree all you want. Jack Kevorkian would likely not.

In the custody battle of Suzanne Borden and James Borden...

I said a clear instance. Custody battles are and should be a question of only what is best for the child. I'm sorry, but parents' rights become irrelevant when their actions are detrimental to a child's development/safety/emotional well-being. We just debated the issues arising from the lack of a male or female role model, and in this case Judge Moore had to decide what in his opinion as judge was the best outcome for the child.

In other words, an opinion that disagrees with you in a complex case is not what I meant by the word "clear."

Do you honestly believe that Moore would have tolerated or fought for similar monuments from other faiths or lack of faiths?

I'd like to think he would.

The mere act of having the monument installed under cover of darkness without knowledge of the other justices indicates to me that Moore knew he was doing something wrong.

Yeah, probably would have been better if workmen came in during a court trial to do their work.

Not a bad solution. Not as good as removing government from the equation completely, but not bad.

Thank you. It's totally unacceptable to most on the issue, for some strange reason I have yet to understand.

I can see that line of reasoning.

Good! Then we have actually found a base of agreement. That is a good thing.

Gotta watch though, that you don't wind up with a swamp that's just full of a different kind of snake.

At least black snakes don't poison their victims. At this point, that's a bigly enough improvement I can live with them for a while.

Besides, snake meat is kinda tasty.

Until next time?

Until nest time.

Alabama deserves Moore!

TheRedneck