Little Round Top, Gettysburg. Three times Col. William Oates of Alabama led the Confederate forces to take it. Running out of ammunition, Col. Joshua Chamberlain of Maine had his men fix bayonets to desperately repel the attack. What brought those two brave men, one from Alabama and one from Maine, together was war—two sides believing so strongly in their cause that they were willing to die for it. Those times are past, long ago, and our country is better for it. But now we fight too often over other matters. It seems as if we're coming apart. I want to go to Washington and meet the representatives from Maine and those from every other state not on a battlefield, but to find common ground, because there's honor in compromise and civility.That's exactly what Democrats need to hear. They'll be glad enough to win a seat in the Deep South that they never expected to see again, maybe they'll even listen.
Plus, Roy Moore is simply not fit for office. All the current turmoil aside, he thinks the Constitution is compatible with religious tests for office. It was reasonable to oppose him even before we found out anything beyond his understanding of Constitutional law. Maybe you don't think that 30+ year-old charges should matter that much; maybe his long history of apparently faithful marriage shows that he's past whatever problems he had as a younger man. Maybe you don't believe the charges against him. But he still believes in violating black-letter Constitutional principles, and that's got to be enough.
27 comments:
Surely he doesn't think religious tests are acceptable on the federal level, does he? They actually were perfectly constitutional for state governments until some 14th amendment rulings decided the states had to follow the Bill of Rights as well, I believe (although I am not a lawyer or legal historian ... I'm not an illegal historian, either, in case you were wondering. Although if the SJWs take over (Heaven forbid!), I am likely to become one.)
He's been hedging in the last two weeks, but he's nowhere near a complete rejection of the idea.
https://hotair.com/archives/2017/10/31/roy-moore-no-dont-support-religious-tests-bar-muslims-serving-congress/
The Moore-Jones contest is a single Senate term contest (if I read the calendar right, it's to fill the remaining 4 years of a term, too), and were Moore to win, there are Constitutional ways to curtail him--with no small number of Progressive-Democrats in support--and with a Republican governor to appoint a replacement into a vacancy.
There will be 1-3 Supreme Court openings in the next three years, and there are potsful of openings extant, as well as in the offing, in the lower Federal courts. Our Federal court system is generational and critical to the welfare of our Republic. We do not need more Ginsburgs, Kagans, Soto-Mayors, or Breyers on the Supreme Court; the current membership is iffy enough already. Nor do we need any more circuits as badly stacked as the DC circuit. Nor do we need more Hawaiian-style trial courts.
I'll still vote for Satan before I'll vote for anything that puts us in jeopardy of a Progressive-Democratic Party majority in the Senate.
Eric Hines
I live in Alabama and so can vote in this election.
Here is where Doug Jones stands on various issues: https://dougjonesforsenate.com/priorities/
I disagree with him on almost everything so there's no way I can vote for him. I won't be voting for Roy Moore either and wouldn't have even before the recent scandals - although Eric's point about the courts is a powerful one.
I read his op-ed on the question of 'is Sharia law compatible with the constitution and can an advocate and practitioner of Sharia swear an oath to protect and defend the constition?'. It was not on whether Muslims can serve in congress per se. Froma all the reaction, I expected something more inflammatory, and instead saw a reasonable piece. I understand many may disagree with the view, but it's not unreasonable, or even prejudiced. I think Hot Air's analysis of the article is flawed and distorted. I thought the worst thing about Moore's piece was that it was in WND.
That said, Moore needs to say he's going to step aside immediately should he be elected, and give the GOP and the voters the easiest way out, but I'm skeptical he will.
Elise,
If I may ask, what was your objection to Moore before the sexual accusations? I only really started paying attention to him then.
douglas,
I agree that Moore should announce that he'll step aside if elected and the Senate that they'll refuse to seat him if he wins as well. That might free people up to vote for him who wouldn't otherwise.
I'll still vote for Satan before I'll vote for anything that puts us in jeopardy of a Progressive-Democratic Party majority in the Senate.
That's an easy to understand standard. My only suggestion is that it might be possible to ensure a Democratic Senate majority by electing guys like Roy Moore, too. You might get there faster with Moore setting a highly visible example.
It's distinct from 2016, in other words: then, the loss of SCOTUS followed as an immediate consequence of losing the election. Here, a Dem majority Senate doesn't follow immediately; and it's not clear that it won't become more rather than less likely as a consequence of Moore winning the election.
I disagree with him on almost everything so there's no way I can vote for him. I won't be voting for Roy Moore either and wouldn't have even before the recent scandals - although Eric's point about the courts is a powerful one.
I feel your pain. Not voting at all has frequently seemed like the most plausible course of action lately.
...can an advocate and practitioner of Sharia swear an oath to protect and defend the constition?'. It was not on whether Muslims can serve in congress per se.
What he argues is that Muslims per se could not, because to take the oath of office would make them apostates. That's wrong, for one thing. The doctrine of 'covenant of security' in the several fiqhs of Shariah examines this question. It's perfectly possible for a Muslim who lives in a non-Islamic country, and accepts the protection of its laws, to enter into such a covenant.
There was a big fuss about this a decade or so back when one of the radical Islamic leaders in the UK said that Britain had violated the terms of a 'covenant of security,' and thus was open for conquest and jihad. Hizb ut Tahrir has frequently argued against accepting that Western states are due the respect the traditional law accords to such things. Moore's taking the side of the radical Muslims here.
For another thing, he's putting more ordinary Muslims in danger by giving Christian endorsement to the idea that they'd have to be apostates to join the Congress. But I'm not sure he understands the issue well enough to know that he's affirming that they'd deserve to be killed by their more radical brethren.
Doug Jones supports partial birth abortion, which is to say, infanticide.
In earlier times, in a saner age, Jones would have been considered not merely being immoral,
but a homicidal psychopath.
Jones, should he be elected, fully intends to continue supporting infanticide.
whereas Judge Moore will support pro-life Christian moraljity
The choice is clear, Jones must not be elected.
Here is how I see this election playing out.
The people of Alabama are going to give a big, fat middle finger to McConnell and the GOP establishment.
The attacks on him have hardened the resolve of many of the voters because they see it
as a desperate attempt to derail him.
Thats my prediction. Go Alabama!
-Mississippi
It's distinct from 2016, in other words: then, the loss of SCOTUS followed as an immediate consequence of losing the election. Here, a Dem majority Senate doesn't follow immediately....
It's not that distinct, and a subsequent Prog-Dem majority will be facilitated by a Jones victory. And that puts the Supreme Court at distinct risk. A Jones victory increases, drastically, the risk to our court system in the near term, too, with three unreliable Republican Senators to go with him. Two of the 1-3 retiring Justices could easily be from the Conservative or nominally conservative side, leaving the Soto Mayors and Kagans, and the Ginsburgs and the Breyers "the Constitution is what we say it is" in the majority. And it would leave the DC Circuit badly stacked with that majority unmolested. And it would leave too many vacancies at the trial level with too many Hawaiian style trial courts relatively numerous.
A Moore victory would facilitate a Prog-Dem majority only if the Republicans fail to throttle him while he's sitting (and I'm not sure tossing him after seating him would be politically smart). Along those lines, it's time for the Republicans--as Graham has begun arguing, albeit from a different angle--to demand that names be named. Don't allow Speier, et al., to claim she knows of Congressmen harassing women and then refuse to name names. If she/they won't identify the harassers, the harassment didn't occur; call her out for her smear by unsubstantiated accusation and innuendo.
Eric Hines
To be fair to Muslims, is devotion to Shariah any more likely to prevent someone from protecting and defending the Constitution than devotion to the idea of a "living constitution"?
I haven't been watching this race all that closely (actually, not at all). So I can't comment on the relative merits of Moore or Jones as a Senator.
But the moral aspect is interesting. Which option is more "moral"? Is it better to vote for a candidate whose publicly professed values and policy preferences align the most closely with your own (but whose private life and personal sexual morality conflict with your values)?
Or should voters weight private sexual morality (as evidenced by multiple accusations and circumstantial evidence) over public morality (as expressed in policy preferences and voting records)?
There are significant moral questions in both the public and private realms.
I don't talk about this much, but I happen to believe that many Democrat policy preferences erode public morality, families, and civic trust. On the otter heiny, I'm frequently somewhat appalled by the personal weaknesses of many Republican candidates. That said, I'm likewise appalled by the personal weaknesses of many *Democrat* candidates - it's just that the press spend so much time not covering these stories/covering them up that I'm less aware of lefty peccadillos.
Black and white thinking doesn't make much sense to me. If I say, "I just can't vote for a guy like Moore - he's creepy and conservatives shouldn't support candidates who act as he has allegedly acted", I get to feel virtuous (I'm principled!). On the otter heiny, if I say, "I despise people who act as Moore is alleged to have acted, but I'd rather vote for a Congresscritter who will oppose policies I believe are actively immoral and harmful than one who supports policies I consider wrongheaded and noxious", then I've elevated one set of principles that - IMO - impact far more people - at the expense of another set (private sexual morality) that I also think are worth upholding.
Doesn't seem like an easy choice, here. And when you weigh in the balance of power in the Senate and the damage done to the conservative brand by holding one's nose and voting for the guy who's in your ideological corner (but who is something of a poster child for personal hypocrisy), the choice only gets harder.
Long way of saying I understand Elise's position, and frankly the foregoing explains why I ended up voting for Donald Trump.
One clarification:
I see a bright line between holding one's nose and voting for a candidate who has only been accused of wrongdoing in his private sexual life (not convicted or even brought up on charges, which means we don't have much in the way of evidence) and excusing/ignoring credible accusations against an elected/appointed official brought by multiple parties who stepped forward - often at considerable personal cost - to hold the accused accountable under law.
Every person on the face of this earth places a higher priority on some moral values that others. These distinctions are usually based on the anticipated harm that flows from their violation and the likelihood that taking a stand will produce worthwhile results. My oldest friend is a Dem and we share most of the same values. Where we disagree is on (1) the expected results from implementing policy X, and (2) the relative ranking of the values we share.
I don't understand how she can support a party that advocates for identity politics, institutionalized sexism, and moral hazard/dependency. And she doesn't understand how I can
support a party that prioritizes national security over education, relieving human suffering/helping the most vulnerable among us.
Both of us agree that the other person's values are worth upholding. But we don't agree in their priority, nor on the best way to uphold them.
...a bright line between holding one's nose and voting for a candidate who has only been accused of wrongdoing in his private sexual life (not convicted or even brought up on charges... and excusing/ignoring credible accusations against an elected/appointed official brought by multiple parties... to hold the accused accountable under law.
So older accusations, past the point of the statute of limitations, are on the wrong side of the bright line you propose? They can't be tested in court, and thus...?
Thus, one may believe them or not. And act accordingly, according to one's personal ranking of values. Absent a court remedy, we are left with social shaming and shunning which - if we believe this guy is some kind of sexual predator - is unlikely to deter him.
Someone who comes forth in court - against a sitting official (and moreover, a sitting official of the accuser's own party) - and tries to hold that official accountable under law carries far more weight with me than someone who does not take those steps.
I weigh accusations of an official using his official power to carry out sexual harassment/assault more heavily than a private citizen doing the same thing.
Finally, people (and what society views as acceptable behavior) change over time. So I weigh decades old accusations less heavily than contemporaneous ones. People can and do weigh all these things when making moral decisions, and IMO it is proper they should do so.
The truth of the matter is that whatever one might believe about Moore, there is precious little evidence. Certainly one does not need a court of law or even an accuser who does more than attempt to litigate a dispute in the press - one who walks the walk, and actually tries to stop the accused - to form a personal belief that where's there's smoke, there must be fire. Again, that's a personal judgment, not some sort of inflexible moral law one violates at the risk of losing one's immortal soul :p
I find the current avalanche of sexual assault/harassment accusations quite disturbing. People's lives and reputations are being ruined and the mob atmosphere (much of it coming from people who have steadfastly looked the other way for decades) seems deeply unhealthy to me.
If the law has been broken, there are remedies for that and they lie in the courts and justice system. If the law has not been broken, but the accused's behavior is out of line with society's morals, social opprobrium is the remedy.
With the power of the internet and an unashamedly biased press, it has become far too easy to take opponents down by rumor/innuendo/popular acclaim.
So yes - I take it more seriously when the accuser felt so strongly that the behavior was wrong that they risked their own comfort and reputation trying to right that wrong. I take accusations less seriously when they have a bandwagonish aspect to them. It's not that I dismiss the latter - I just have far more doubt in the latter case.
I am not sure whether I would vote for Moore or not. I don't live in Alabama, and am inclined to personally dislike the man (from what I've seen of him). I'm just saying I don't think the decision is a slam dunk.
If I may ask, what was your objection to Moore before the sexual accusations? I only really started paying attention to him then.
I had a generally negative view of Moore always just from odds and ends picked up from friends in Alabama. After I moved back here and realized I'd have to vote on the man, I did some quick research. There are two major controversies around Moore: the Ten Commandments one and the same-sex marriage one. (Wikipedia has summaries of both.)
I read both of these as Moore saying that law of the State of Alabama overrides Federal law. Do I wish it did, in at least the same-sex marriage case? Yes. (The Ten Commandments thing is trickier. This was not "leave my religious/cultural/historical stuff alone" this was a 2-1/2 ton, in your face, my way or the highway move.) But State law doesn't trump Federal law and I don't support the idea that we should ignore laws we don't like. That way lies madness (not to mention 11 million illegal aliens, sanctuary cities, a chunk of what Obama did, etc.)
I agree with Cassandra's points about sexual assault/harassment claims and the factors that go into deciding whether to believe them. For me, there's another factor - my existing beliefs about the character of the accused.
I voted for Mo Brooks in the original primary and did not vote in the run-off. If accusations like those against Moore had been brought against Brooks, I would be disinclined to believe them because I think well of Brooks' character.* Against Moore, I'm inclined to believe them because I have a poor opinion of Moore to begin with. Similarly, I had no trouble believing the sex-related accusations against Bill Clinton because it fit with what I felt about his character anyhow - he always reminded me of the somewhat sleazy used-car salesmen I would see on late-night TV in Alabama in the 70s and 80s.
This isn't fool-proof, of course. I absolutely did not believe the first stories about John Edwards (cheating/lying rather than harassment/assault). And I was inclined to give Anita Hill the benefit of the doubt. So what I believe about someone's character isn't always what that character actually is. And my belief about someone's character can be changed by events. To wit:
* This statement makes me uncomfortable with Brooks:
America faces huge challenges that are vastly more important than contested sexual allegations from four decades ago.
I understand Brooks' point about "contested allegations" and about the age of the accusations but his wording makes me queasy. It's awfully easy to read what he says as, "The right policy is more important than any harm done to a few women (girls, really) all those years ago." In other words, what those on the Left said about the Clinton scandals. I'm inclined - still - to give Brooks the benefit of the doubt but now there's a little crack in my estimation of his character.
The problem with Democrats is that the House and Senate has more blackmail material on their fellow Demoncrats that they do even on their fellow Republicans...
That's why people who get sent to DC change or suddenly learn to play ball with the Deep State.
In a sense, it almost doesn't matter who you elect, because unless it is a Trum or Alt Right or Tea Party candidate, they have been converted by DC before they even get to DC sometimes.
I read both of these as Moore saying that law of the State of Alabama overrides Federal law.
States can nullify federal law by refusing to enforce it, which is generally what states did back when they had State Rights. This would put the State Constitutions back on top.
The Civil War 1 was fought over the State Rights of abolitionist states like New York or territorities like Kansas, for whether they could nullify the Federal Fugitive Slave Acts or not. The rest of the details are listed in the Southern secession documents, primary source.
My impression from reading the sources is the sex scandal aspect of Moore's candidacy is a complete fabrication. When the Washington Post has to send out pickers and diggers to coax out accusations, forty years after the "fact", and the yearbook signature is an obvious forgery, and why nothing of this came forward before, say during the ten commandment bruhaha, I just don't believe a word of it, as the standard tactic of the left is to lie, lie again, and lie some more. And of course with the recent success in getting some to resign because of sexual accusations of one sort or another, and the current hysteria, this is the first tactic they will try.
"To be fair to Muslims, is devotion to Shariah any more likely to prevent someone from protecting and defending the Constitution than devotion to the idea of a "living constitution"?"
Tom- At least the proponents of the "living document" view give nominal allegiance to the constitution, and so have some standing in claiming to protect and defend the Constitution. Nominally.
Grim, yes- going back and reading the op-ed again, you're right that he's making a blanket statement on all Muslims, using extremists definitions to do it. That said, the Muslims I know well enough to have talked about it with have said that while they're in no hurry to Islamicize America, conceded that it had to be the inevitable desired end of their beliefs. This is from quite moderate Muslims. I can't see, given the beliefs mandated in the Quran, how you have any other end. You can take a long way to get there, but I don't see how you get anywhere else.
The Moore situation is not so simple, though being thoughtful about it is likely to get you called all sorts of unsavory things in this judgement-at-light-speed culture we live in now. I wish Moore would realize that if he really is innocent, he would be doing a great good to step away from the Senate and prove his innocence. That would be a service, if that's the case.
" if he really is innocent, he would be doing a great good to step away from the Senate and prove his innocence. That would be a service, if that's the case."
You can't prove a negative- that is the beauty (or horror) of these types of accusations.
Tom- At least the proponents of the "living document" view give nominal allegiance to the constitution, and so have some standing in claiming to protect and defend the Constitution. Nominally.
It seems your Muslim friends are more honest, too.
To balance the scales, though, both of them can get what they want and still fully support the Constitution. The Muslims could potentially get amendments passed to achieve their goals and then really support that amended Constitution. The "living constitutionalists" could get and maintain a long-term majority on the Supreme Court and reinterpret the Constitution into a document they could really support.
In either case, it does not seem like loyalty to the Constitution as written now, but rather to a potential Constitution that might exist in the future that re-constitutes the nation in the form they desire.
The Muslims are the least of your worries on that score. There's not three of them to the hundred of the other. If Roy Moore decides that leftists can't take the oath without becoming apostates, come talk to me.
Sure. Mostly I'm just playing around with this idea that some people have intellectual commitments that prevents them from giving "true allegiance."
Of course, Catholics were accused of that for centuries here.
Indeed, Sir James Edward Oglethorpe forbade Catholics from the colony of Georgia under just that idea. Now, in his defense, there were actual religious wars at the time; although I suppose that some, including Moore, would argue that this is also true right now.
Oglethorpe forbade two other categories of persons from Georgia, by the way: slaves, and lawyers. So, as they say, 'two out of three ain't bad.'
Ogethorpe was most likely correct. McCarthy was correct, even if DC was corrupt.
M might be correct too, but humans wont' figure it out until it is way too late to do anything about it.
Yuri Bezmenov's Disinformation youtube videos. Crucial for those that want to know more about the Deep State.
Post a Comment