Alabama Secretary of State: If State GOP Pulls Support for Moore and He Gets the Most Votes, Election Would Be ‘Null and Void’

[DiogenesLamp]

Roy Moore is hardly the hill to make any last stand on.   

For the cuckservatives,  there is no hill on which they are willing to make a last stand.   There is an infinite variety of retreats in their quiver,  and that is  all. 


They once again counsel "retreat."   

[skeeter]

I know - and unless Moore steps down, they'll decide to elect Doug Jones.   

A win win for you.

So why all the b*tching?

[DiogenesLamp]

As a judge, he was reprimanded/removed twice for failing to follow the law. 

No,  he refused to follow the made up bullsh*t that Liberal Kook judges proclaimed to be the law.   The law itself goes the opposite of what they said it did.   

He followed the correct law,  not their lies. 

[roamer_1]

No one's seeking a "conviction".   

Yeah.. more like a lynching.

I just don't want his sorry bigoted hypocritical ass in the Senate.

Tough for you, because here he comes.

and most dispassionate observers have concluded that Moore's accusers are credible.

Oh bullshit.

You no doubt clucked in glee at the accusations leveled at Bill Clinton, and you've turn a blind eye to the accusations leveled at Roy Moore.  Your demand for "proof" is cynical

No, as a matter of fact - I have already answered that accusation. I believed Juanita Broderick, I did. But it was the blue dress that made up my mind. So emphatically NO! My demand is just and remains the same.

Moore's your boy,  your redneck, salt-of-the earth religious fanatic.  You'll defend him because you view him as a martyr for your cause - just as the Dems defended Clinton to the tune of two terms in the White House.       

Nope.  If he's dirty, he's gone. All that redneck Christian stuff should have told you that much. I'm pretty used to throwing leaders o8ut on their ass for things that are proven.

Come up with evidence I can judge, or you're just another of the tongue wagglers.

[EasyAce]

Right now the question is WHETHER the allegations are true. Conservatives don;t convict a man on hearsay.

Nobody's convicting him of anything yet; technically, nobody can convict him in a criminal case
because of the expired statute of limitations, and the only court of law into which the allegations can
be heard would be a civil court in the event of litigation from any side.

It is not equal to convicting someone---on "hearsay" or otherwise (I suggest six accusers is
quite a bit more and deeper than mere hearsay)---to suggest that a man facing such accusations
as Mr. Moore faces ought not to think further about running for office until there is a final resolution
of those accusations. Why should the right do what it so often excoriates the left for doing when
the left yields up tainted or at least viably suspect candidates? (Which reminds me: are any
Democrats calling for an investigation into Al Franken's alleged gropery? Edit: word has
just come that Mitch McConnell called for an ethics investigation into Franken, and he called
on Democrats to join in the call.)

I can't fathom any candidate with a conscience (Mr. Moore's supporters speak often of his own
conscience) staying in a race while tainted by the accusations that now taint Mr. Moore. If Mr. Moore
ultimately proves not guilty of the things he is accused of having done, let him run free and clear
for any office he chooses, never mind that he might have one or two other political problems
having nothing to do with the current accusations. But those would be purely political
problems, as opposed to what he faces now.

[jpsb]

No,  he refused to follow the made up bullsh*t that Liberal Kook judges proclaimed to be the law.   The law itself goes the opposite of what they said it did.   

He followed the correct law,  not their lies.

[Hoodat]

As a judge, he was reprimanded/removed twice for failing to follow the law.

What law?  Please be specific.

As for his bigotry,  we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

What disagreement?  I simply asked you to come up with an example.  And you failed miserably.  Contempt prior to investigation.  If anyone here is guilty of bigotry, it is you.

But you'll chalk it up to his religion.

I'm not the one here bringing up religion.  You are.  (See:  bigotry)

[roamer_1]

Nobody's convicting him of anything yet; technically, nobody can convict him in a criminal case
because of the expired statute of limitations, and the only court of law into which the allegations can
be heard would be a civil court in the event of litigation from any side.

Yes he is precisely being convicted - just not in a court of law.

It is not equal to convicting someone---on "hearsay" or otherwise (I suggest six accusers is
quite a bit more and deeper than mere hearsay)

Oh baloney. Then Cruz should have stepped down, eh? Because the allegations against him were just as valid as these - read 'valid' as 'vapid'.

to suggest that a man facing such accusations
as Mr. Moore faces ought not to think further about running for office until there is a final resolution of those accusations.

Then there is no sense in running at all. Because these 'November surprises' happen all the time.

Why should the right do what it so often excoriates the left for doing when
the left yields up tainted or at least viably suspect candidates? (Which reminds me: are any
Democrats calling for an investigation into Al Franken's alleged gropery?)

I am not doing what thew left does - They don't care. I care a helluva lot. Character is primary for me. But as part of character, defending the honor of an honorable man requires proof, and not just waggin tongues.

I can't fathom any candidate with a conscience (Mr. Moore's supporters speak often of his own
conscience) staying in a race while tainted by the accusations that now taint Mr. Moore.

That's insanity. Did you say the same for Cruz? Where are all his accusers now?

If Mr. Moore ultimately proves not guilty of the things he is accused of having done, let him run free and clear
for any office he chooses, never mind that he might have one or two other political problems
having nothing to do with the current accusations. But those would be purely political
problems, as opposed to what he faces now.

What he faces now is purely political too. There isn't a whit of evidence. You don't throw a 40 year career away - impeccable in honor - over allegations that amount to nothing more than gossip.

Show me a bastard kid. Show me a blue dress. Show me motel receipts. there is *NOTHING*.

[INVAR]

If Mr. Moore ultimately proves not guilty of the things he is accused of having done, let him run free and clear
for any office he chooses...

So we have arrived at the place where the populace believes that those accused must now prove their innocence of alleged charges, the presumption of guilt is now of primacy and it is the individual who must prove the charges false.

Gotcha.

[Smokin Joe]

Nobody's convicting him of anything yet; technically, nobody can convict him in a criminal case
because of the expired statute of limitations, and the only court of law into which the allegations can
be heard would be a civil court in the event of litigation from any side.

It is not equal to convicting someone---on "hearsay" or otherwise (I suggest six accusers is
quite a bit more and deeper than mere hearsay)---to suggest that a man facing such accusations
as Mr. Moore faces ought not to think further about running for office until there is a final resolution
of those accusations. Why should the right do what it so often excoriates the left for doing when
the left yields up tainted or at least viably suspect candidates? (Which reminds me: are any
Democrats calling for an investigation into Al Franken's alleged gropery? Edit: word has
just come that Mitch McConnell called for an ethics investigation into Franken, and he called
on Democrats to join in the call.)

I can't fathom any candidate with a conscience (Mr. Moore's supporters speak often of his own
conscience) staying in a race while tainted by the accusations that now taint Mr. Moore. If Mr. Moore
ultimately proves not guilty of the things he is accused of having done, let him run free and clear
for any office he chooses, never mind that he might have one or two other political problems
having nothing to do with the current accusations. But those would be purely political
problems, as opposed to what he faces now.

Well, Ace, I hate to be the one to break it to you but there is no statute fo limitations on some things in Alabama.

Statute: AL § 15-3-1 et seq.

Felonies:   3 years after the commission of the offense.

There is no statute of limitations for:  (1) Any capital offense; (2) Any felony involving the use, attempted use, or threat of, violence to a person; (3) Any felony involving serious physical injury or death of a person; (4) Any sex offense involving a victim under 16 years of age, regardless of whether it involves force or serious physical injury or death; (5) Any felony involving arson of any type; (6) Any felony involving forgery of any type; (7) Any felony involving counterfeiting; and (8) Any felony involving drug trafficking.

Emphasis mine.

So the possibility to clear all this up in court exists. It appears, however that the standards of proof for a criminal conviction have not been met, and such proof might not exist.
One of the obvious reasons it might not exist is that this is all a political hit, and not a real complaint.

Filing false charges (making a false report of a crime to police) and altering or fabricating 'evidence' are crimes there, too.

[Bigun]

Well, Ace, I hate to be the one to break it to you but there is no statute fo limitations on some things in Alabama.
Emphasis mine.

So the possibility to clear all this up in court exists. It appears, however that the standards of proof for a criminal conviction have not been met, and such proof might not exist.
One of the obvious reasons it might not exist is that this is all a political hit, and not a real complaint.

Filing false charges (making a false report of a crime to police) and altering or fabricating 'evidence' are crimes there, too.

B R A V O ! ! !

 

[RetBobbyMI]

As a judge, he was reprimanded/removed twice for failing to follow the law.   That to me, makes him unfit for office.   As for his bigotry,  we're just going to have to agree to disagree.  To me, it's as clear as the nose on his face.  But you'll chalk it up to his religion.

What "law" did he fail to follow? He didn't violate any Federal or State law.  He upheld the constitution of the state of Alabama.

[Smokin Joe]

What "law" did he fail to follow? He didn't violate any Federal or State law.  He upheld the constitution of the state of Alabama.

Actually he was upholding the Alabama Constitution, as Amended:

Amendment 774 of the Constitution of the State of Alabama (2006)

  Amendment 774
   

Sanctity of Marriage Amendment.

(a) This amendment shall be known and may be cited as the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment.

(b) Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting this unique relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children. A marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in this state.

(c) Marriage is a sacred covenant, solemnized between a man and a woman, which, when the legal capacity and consent of both parties is present, establishes their relationship as husband and wife, and which is recognized by the state as a civil contract.

(d) No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to parties of the same sex.

(e) The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex that occurred or was alleged to have occurred as a result of the law of any jurisdiction regardless of whether a marriage license was issued.

(f) The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any common law marriage of parties of the same sex.

(g) A union replicating marriage of or between persons of the same sex in the State of Alabama or in any other jurisdiction shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state as a marriage or other union replicating marriage.[1]

https://ballotpedia.org/Amendments_501_through_926,_Alabama_Constitution

Amendment approval

    This legislatively referred constitutional amendment was passed on June 6, 2006 via primary election approval of Alabama Sanctity of Marriage, Constitutional Amendment 774.
Just doing what he swore he would in the oath of office. http://eforms.alacourt.gov/Oaths%20of%20Office/Oath%20of%20Office%20Judge,%20Justice.pdf

Just because he would not go against Alabama's Constitution because a Federal Court made up a 'right', doesn't mean he was breaking a law. He was defying the opinion of a handful of people in black robes vs. the approval of the people of Alabama for an Amendment to their Constitution.

Considering there is no authority granted to the Federal Government to oversee matters of marriage by the Constitution of the United States, I would think the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States would apply, even against judicial overreach by SCOTUS.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Actually he was upholding the Alabama Constitution, as Amended:

Amendment 774 of the Constitution of the State of Alabama (2006)
https://ballotpedia.org/Amendments_501_through_926,_Alabama_Constitution

Amendment approval

    This legislatively referred constitutional amendment was passed on June 6, 2006 via primary election approval of Alabama Sanctity of Marriage, Constitutional Amendment 774.
Just doing what he swore he would in the oath of office. http://eforms.alacourt.gov/Oaths%20of%20Office/Oath%20of%20Office%20Judge,%20Justice.pdf

Just because he would not go against Alabama's Constitution because a Federal Court made up a 'right', doesn't mean he was breaking a law. He was defying the opinion of a handful of people in black robes vs. the approval of the people of Alabama for an Amendment to their Constitution.

Considering there is no authority granted to the Federal Government to oversee matters of marriage by the Constitution of the United States, I would think the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States would apply, even against judicial overreach by SCOTUS.

And there goes the Bigot accusations.

[EasyAce]

Well, Ace, I hate to be the one to break it to you but there is no statute fo limitations on some things in Alabama.
Emphasis mine.

I appreciate the clarification; I was genuinely certain that in terms of criminal charges there had been
a statute of limitations.

So the possibility to clear all this up in court exists. It appears, however that the standards of proof for a criminal conviction have not been met, and such proof might not exist.
One of the obvious reasons it might not exist is that this is all a political hit, and not a real complaint.

They might, they might not. I'd been thinking up to and including now that it was likelier to come
forth in civil litigation first, based on what's been said around all sides until now. Would it surprise
me if the entire matter were proven to be a political hit job? Hardly. But right now I really
don't know if it was. I know only that some extremely serious accusations are leveled at Mr.
Moore. And we have a serious problem in terms of where to go if a) Mr. Moore is proven to
have committed the sexual crimes of which he's accused; or, b) if the entire business does
prove a political hit job.

Either one would be described most politely as grave.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

For the cuckservatives,  there is no hill on which they are willing to make a last stand.   There is an infinite variety of retreats in their quiver,  and that is  all. 


They once again counsel "retreat."

Look at you all proud of your defense of lecher Moore...oblivious to the stink coming off your self-righteous indignation.   pitiful

[Fantom]

Look at you all proud of your defense of lecher Moore...oblivious to the stink coming off your self-righteous indignation.   pitiful

Pound the table Councler(interestingly my spelt checker wants to put "Uncleaner" here  )...pound the table...... for you have neither law nor fact..... only bellicose fiction is your  ally.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

A win win for you.

So why all the b*tching?

@skeeter

Ask a Norwegian.

They know Jazzhead's type well enough to put up road crossing signs.

[Jazzhead]

No,  he refused to follow the made up bullsh*t that Liberal Kook judges proclaimed to be the law.   The law itself goes the opposite of what they said it did.   

He followed the correct law,  not their lies.

No, he defied the law.   It was a lawful order.   If you can't follow a lawful order, you resign.   You don't flaunt your authority and force your removal.    Moore's an Elmer Gantry with delusions of grandeur.  He was an officer of the court who defied the law.   He is unfit to serve in the Senate. 

Conservatives should believe in the rule of law, not this drunk-on-religion nihilism.   

[Smokin Joe]

No, he defied the law.   It was a lawful order.   If you can't follow a lawful order, you resign.   You don't flaunt your authority and force your removal.    Moore's an Elmer Gantry with delusions of grandeur.  He was an officer of the court who defied the law.   He is unfit to serve in the Senate. 

Conservatives should believe in the rule of law, not this drunk-on-religion nihilism.   

There IS a difference between the written Amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alabama, approved by vote of the people, and a ruling by some judges in DC. One is truly written law, the other judicial fiat.

[corbe]

    @Jazzhead

Conservatives should believe in the rule of law, not this drunk-on-religion nihilism.

    That's a Classic Jazzy.   

[Jazzhead]

There IS a difference between the written Amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alabama, approved by vote of the people, and a ruling by some judges in DC. One is truly written law, the other judicial fiat.

The man was an officer of the court.  It was a lawful order.  If you cannot follow a lawful order, you resign.   Not force your own removal by your insubordinate behavior.   I consider such open defiance of one's oath of office a disqualifier for future public service.

[DiogenesLamp]

No, he defied the law.   It was a lawful order.

It was not.   It was an order issued under false pretenses.   It had no moral compulsion behind it. 

  If you can't follow a lawful order, you resign.   You don't flaunt your authority and force your removal. 

When your colleagues go full Nazi,  you don't have to follow them down that dark path.  You can and should defy them.    It is in fact what you must do. 

  Moore's an Elmer Gantry with delusions of grandeur.  He was an officer of the court who defied the law.   He is unfit to serve in the Senate. 

I don't care what motivates him so long as it achieves the correct result.   He didn't defy the law,  he protected it while others undermined it.   That's what we need to keep "consent of the governed."   

Conservatives should believe in the rule of law, not this drunk-on-religion nihilism.   

We do.  That why we don't accept the utter horse sh*t that some judges try to pawn off on us.  We can read for our selves,  and we can tell when they are lying about the meaning of the 14th amendment.   

[Cyber Liberty]

The man was an officer of the court.  It was a lawful order.  If you cannot follow a lawful order, you resign.   Not force your own removal by your insubordinate behavior.   I consider such open defiance of one's oath of office a disqualifier for future public service.

@corbe he's on a roll....

[DiogenesLamp]

The man was an officer of the court.  It was a lawful order.  If you cannot follow a lawful order, you resign.   Not force your own removal by your insubordinate behavior.   I consider such open defiance of one's oath of office a disqualifier for future public service.

I consider defying the lies of Liberal Kooks in Judges robes to be an excellent qualifier for public service.   I would like to see enough of such people elected that we can impeach,  and throw off the bench these liars that would twist our laws to their own personal preferences instead of applying them as they were intended. 


These liberal liars turn "consent of the governed"  on it's head.   The law never meant what they are trying to twist out of it's verbiage or "penumbra".   "Sophistry"  does not constitute law.