Meet Roy Moore Accuser, Beverly Young Nelson: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

[catfish1957]

  I believe the people should have the freedom and the right to shape their society as they see fit.  And you do not.

I also find it hypocritical that in some cases "that right to shape"  takes the form of zealotry that creates unneeded impositions.

Everyone has their own right to what ever faith they have.  THAT DOES NOT Mean everyone wants to hear it.

[Jazzhead]

Prior to devoted his life to Christ it is possible that 40 years ago Roy Moore fooled
around with teenage girls. (I flat out do not believe the accuser that claimed Roy
molested her at age 14.) However Judge Moore since being born again has been a
perfect gentleman around women of all ages. Isn't not forgiveness for those that
repent and change an admirale (to admire) trait?

Judge Moore deserves our support even if the accusers are not lying because that
Moore of 40 years ago is not the Moore standing for US Senator from the great state
of Alabama.

We're in the middle of a culture-wide witchhunt for perpetrators of "sexual harassment",  and Moore's been caught up in it.  It's besmirched or taken down men on both the left and the right.    It is now de riguere for jock culture to be held up,  as if in the old Soviet days,  for denouncement and criticism/self-criticism.   Most of the liberals caught up in it are playing the game,  admitting and apologizing for incorrect behavior.   

Moore, of course, has chosen to fight back.   

Moore is, simply, a raised middle finger,  to the prevailing culture and to the rule of law he once swore to uphold.    He will become, for better or for worse, the symbol that will define conservatism,  the easy bigoted, nihilist caricature the Dems will raise millions off of and provide the theme for their takeover of Congress in 2018.

Know well that by backing this guy's fight, that conservatives will reap the whirlwind.   Shall we abandon all pretense of responsible governance in favor of rabble rousing for a culture war?   I resist that paradigm, think it's sick and un-American,  and wonder if conservatism has indeed split irrevocably between the Bannonites and those of us old-school types who want to get back to the ideals of Goldwater, Kemp and Reagan.     

[Hoodat]

@Jazzhead

What law did Judge Moore defy?

[INVAR]

What law did Judge Moore defy?

The "Law" that judges make up out of thin air.

"Laws" they decide by decree and establish by precedent and without accountability.  Laws set in concrete unless as he stated, Congress overturns them by legislation.

What the courts rule in favor of abortion, homosexuality, healthcare and confiscatory taxation is forever binding and supreme since he agrees with it.  God and nature's laws and millennia of civilized institutions are irrelevant in his eyes, as are your rights and mine unless they comport with his beliefs that we must think as he does about behaviors and practices and needs and dependencies.

Otherwise we are 'bigots' he has promised to advocate government 'punish'.

I've said  this before - People like Jazzhead are exactly the reason why we have a Second Amendment.

[Smokin Joe]

We're in the middle of a culture-wide witchhunt for perpetrators of "sexual harassment",  and Moore's been caught up in it.  It's besmirched or taken down men on both the left and the right.    It is now de riguere for jock culture to be held up,  as if in the old Soviet days,  for denouncement and criticism/self-criticism.   Most of the liberals caught up in it are playing the game,  admitting and apologizing for incorrect behavior.   

Moore, of course, has chosen to fight back.   

Moore is, simply, a raised middle finger,  to the prevailing culture and to the rule of law he once swore to uphold.    He will become, for better or for worse, the symbol that will define conservatism,  the easy bigoted, nihilist caricature the Dems will raise millions off of and provide the theme for their takeover of Congress in 2018.

Know well that by backing this guy's fight, that conservatives will reap the whirlwind.   Shall we abandon all pretense of responsible governance in favor of rabble rousing for a culture war?   I resist that paradigm, think it's sick and un-American,  and wonder if conservatism has indeed split irrevocably between the Bannonites and those of us old-school types who want to get back to the ideals of Goldwater, Kemp and Reagan.   

He upheld the Constitution of the State of Alabama, approved by 81% of voters in the State, in the face of a single Federal District Judge's edict. The defense of marriage amendment had been in place for roughly ten years, law of the State, before one person in a robe gave the State of Alabama, its Constitution, and 81% of the voters the finger.

Moore stood up for the Law, The State of Alabama, its Constitution and an overwhelming majority of its voters.

Just because you don't like that he stood up for the biblical, and traditional in Western Culture concept of marriage, does not make him an evil person. We disagree on the issue, so it's no surprise we disagree on Judge Moore's rulings and orders to his subordinates. 

[Hoodat]

The "Law" that judges make up out of thin air.

"Laws" they decide by decree and establish by precedent and without accountability.  Laws set in concrete unless as he stated, Congress overturns them by legislation.

In other words, Judge Moore stood up against tyranny.  That explains why Jazzhead, one of tyranny's biggest supporters, doesn't like him.  Not sure why he feels compelled to lie about Moore, though.

[INVAR]

In other words, Judge Moore stood up against tyranny.  That explains why Jazzhead, one of tyranny's biggest supporters, doesn't like him.  Not sure why he feels compelled to lie about Moore, though.

Like all Leftists, Jazzy operates via ends justifies means, even though he will deny it - his own arguments from Abortion, to ObamaCare to Homo Marriage to taxation, illustrate that fact.

[Jazzhead]

In other words, Judge Moore stood up against tyranny.  That explains why Jazzhead, one of tyranny's biggest supporters, doesn't like him.  Not sure why he feels compelled to lie about Moore, though.

The man's made a fool of himself, and so have his supporters trying to defend him.   He was removed from office twice for breaking his oath of office.   By the State of Alabama.   

What "tyranny"?   That's such bullshit.   The law changed to allow gay folks to marry.   Nothing to take away anyone's rights or property.   No harm to anyone else's marriage, or family, or faith, or wealth or privilege.   Gay folks were allowed to marry under the CIVIL law.    And Judge Moore refused to enforce it,  acting as if the State of Alabama was a theocracy and to hell with the rule of law. 

To hell with rogue Judge Moore and his self-styled crusade to impose his stinking morals on the rest of us.    Peggy Noonan had it dead right this morning -  since the men of Alabama are prepared to prostrate themselves before this altar of ugliness,  it is up to the women of Alabama to rise up and insist on a real Republican, a real conservative - of which there are plenty of good ones in Alabama.


Alabama Women - Say No to Roy Moore, by Peggy Noonan

[EdJames]

I hear that Geraldo Rivera is thinking about retiring, you could be a dead ringer replacement for him.

[Oceander]

Once again, what law did he defy?  Your intentional avoidance of the question indicates that you know full well your claim is a lie.

The Constitution, which by its terms is the supreme law of the land.

[RetBobbyMI]

To satisfy Jazzy, I wonder how many lib jobs the Dems will try to bus over from Atlanta or Tallahassee to try and vote illegally in the Alabama election?

[RetBobbyMI]

The Constitution, which by its terms is the supreme law of the land.

He did NOT violate the Constitution, either the US or Alabama's.  He defended both the constitutions and was improperly remove for that reason because some wacko Federal District judge thought he had jurisdiction in contravention to the US Constitution (Art III, Sec 2).

[Hoodat]

The man's made a fool of himself, and so have his supporters trying to defend him.   He was removed from office twice for breaking his oath of office.   By the State of Alabama.

@Jazzhead

That's beautiful and all, but it does not address your earlier repeated claim.  Again, what law did he defy?  Or are you ready to come clean and admit the truth that he did not violate the law.

What "tyranny"?   That's such bullshit.

You have openly advocated again and again and again that the rule of law should be discarded for the tyranny imposed by unelected judges wearing black robes.  Your record speaks for itself.

The law changed to allow gay folks to marry.   

Not in California.  In fact the California Constitution specifically sanctions marriage as being between one man and one woman.  Yet you really don't give a damn about the law at all.  Instead, you demand that Vermont law be imposed upon California by black-robed tyrants - at least as long as you support what they are doing.  Yet that same rule doesn't apply when it comes to California law being imposed upon Vermont.

(See:  Tyranny above)

Nothing to take away anyone's rights or property.   No harm to anyone else's marriage, or family, or faith, or wealth or privilege.

Nothing taken away except for the freedom to establish their own laws per the Constitution of the United States of America - something else you oppose.

Gay folks were allowed to marry under the CIVIL law.    And Judge Moore refused to enforce it,  acting as if the State of Alabama was a theocracy and to hell with the rule of law.

Alabama law does not sanction same-sex marriage.  Moore upheld the law.  The only one saying the hell with the rule of law here is you.

To hell with rogue Judge Moore and his self-styled crusade to impose his stinking morals on the rest of us.

To hell with you imposing your morals on the rest of us.  Again, the difference between me and you is that I have no problem letting Alabama, or Vermont, or California enact their own laws regarding marriage.  In contrast, you oppose that.  You seek to deny that right to those states, choosing instead tyranny.

I am willing to take my chances with what the people decide.  You on the other hand see the people as the enemy here, not to be trusted with the right to choose their own governing laws.

[Hoodat]

Once again, what law did he defy?  Your intentional avoidance of the question indicates that you know full well your claim is a lie.

The Constitution, which by its terms is the supreme law of the land.

@Oceander

Which part exactly?   Please be specific.  I am definitely interested to see where the Constitution allows Vermont law to be imposed upon the rest of the States at the point of a gun.

[TomSea]

I wouldn't gloat at Jazzhead too much, in the end, people have stood on the same side as he has because they have been against the Republican nominee.  Time to adjust your halos.

I've defended Romney, Dubya, virtually everyone and voted for them. John McCain is the only one I seriously disagreed with.

[TomSea]

The Constitution, which by its terms is the supreme law of the land.

This is all sophisticated talk for one like me. What we do know, if I have this correct, is that the Alabama Supreme Court itself removed Moore so, I doubt if we can say the liberal Supreme Court (signifying a number of Judges) did this as say, if we were talking about a deep blue state.

[Hoodat]

I wouldn't gloat at Jazzhead too much, in the end, people have stood on the same side as he has because they have been against the Republican nominee.  Time to adjust your halos.

You will never see me standing on the same side with Tyranny.  I will stand by the Constitution instead.

Article 4, Sec 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government

Republic - a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives governing according to law

[Oceander]

The Constitution, which by its terms is the supreme law of the land.


@Oceander

Which part exactly?   Please be specific.  I am definitely interested to see where the Constitution allows Vermont law to be imposed upon the rest of the States at the point of a gun.

You’re such a liberal. You don’t like the way the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and you immediately run off and cry tyranny.  You call it tyranny, liberals call it a “living Constitution” but it all amounts to the same thing. 

[TomSea]

Judge Moore was removed 2 times as well, once for that 10 commandments incident. Again, I just read the news, I don't know the mechanics of the whole story.  It was the Supreme Court of Alabama that removed him.

[RetBobbyMI]

Judge Moore was removed 2 times as well, once for that 10 commandments incident. Again, I just read the news, I don't know the mechanics of the whole story.  It was the Supreme Court of Alabama that removed him.

Not! It was the state Judicial Ethics Commission.  And they misrepresented his constitutional duties.

[Hoodat]

You’re such a liberal. You don’t like the way the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution  .  .  .

Your argument is based upon the erroneous assumption that the Constitution was interpreted.  It wasn't.  Instead, it was completely ignored.

.  .  .  and you immediately run off and cry tyranny.

I cry 'tyranny' precisely because the Constitution was ignored.  I cry 'tyranny' because a federal court imposed it's will upon the people of the State of California without regard to the wording of the Constitution, and contrary to the wishes of the inhabitants of that State.  And I cry 'tyranny' because there is no equal protection here - because I see that same court completely abandon that argument when it comes to gun ownership or motorcycle helmet laws.

Just because you choose to call something 'constitutional' does not make it so.  You have to dive into the wording and produce supporting evidence from that document.  Because without it, you are doing EXACTLY what liberals do.

[jmyrlefuller]

You’re such a liberal. You don’t like the way the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and you immediately run off and cry tyranny.  You call it tyranny, liberals call it a “living Constitution” but it all amounts to the same thing.

what constitutional clause allows courts to strike down and rewrite law on false premise?

[TomSea]

Not! It was the state Judicial Ethics Commission.  And they misrepresented his constitutional duties.

Okay, whatever the state oversight organization is. Anyway, they are the state apparently.

[Smokin Joe]

You’re such a liberal. You don’t like the way the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and you immediately run off and cry tyranny.  You call it tyranny, liberals call it a “living Constitution” but it all amounts to the same thing.

Moore's act of defiance was toward the decree of a District Judge, essentially ordering probate judges in Alabama to violate the State Constitution. The SCOTUS ruling was two years later.

The Constitutional Amendment in Alabama defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman was from 2006, and had received 81% approval at the polls. I would say the law was established, and the people had spoken on the issue. 

When California Proposition 187 was overturned by a District Court, negating the votes of a mere 59% of Californians to stop providing public funded services to illegals, Conservatives raised unholy hell at the idea that a District Judge could overturn the will of the people.

When Moore defies such a ruling on a Constitutional amendment approved by 81% of the electorate, "conservatives" are excoriating him for "violating law"?

I think people need to decide how much weight to give Federal District Judges in matters against State Constitutions. In this case, if the matter is between the Federal Government and the State, the SCOTUS is the place to try the question. Even then, the question of Federal vs National Government comes into play.

[INVAR]

You have openly advocated again and again and again that the rule of law should be discarded for the tyranny imposed by unelected judges wearing black robes.  Your record speaks for itself.

Instead, you demand that Vermont law be imposed upon California by black-robed tyrants - at least as long as you support what they are doing.  Yet that same rule doesn't apply when it comes to California law being imposed upon Vermont.

Your assessment is correct.

To wit: if anyone recalls and remembers, Jazzy specifically stated his opposition to "Texas gun culture" being imposed on his state via rulings and efforts approving national carry-conceal.  He was quite out of his mind in rage that the exercise of the Second Amendment without infringement would be upheld nationally.  Amusing to say the least considering he has repeatedly stated that all our enumerated rights are subject to 'reasonable regulation' (as determined by liberals like himself) - while at the same time, insisting the "rights' created by SCOTUS are beyond review and, unless the Congress overturns a ruling via legislation that the court does not rule unConstitutional; 'the law of the land'.