stand simply for the purpose of political gain, I'd still rather vote for someone taking the side of Christianity for political gain than someone taking a left-wing stand for political gain. I
thought you were going to give me some "smoking gun" proof that he is a "hypocrite", but sounds like you are just basing your dislike for him on your suspicions.
I, too, don't really care if my politicians really believe their own bull#badword#. The "so and so" is a hypocrite is a weak argument. Ronald Reagan may have been, at heart, a fellow travelling peacenik, but as long as he acted as if he were a cold warrior in word and deed, who, other than God, Who alone knows the heart, really can say. I thionk Reagan did believe what he said and did. But does it matter? (if its just words, with no deeds, or if its words with deeds that have the exact opposite intended result, then it does matter.)
Case in cheif is George Wallace. Ask J.L. Chestnutt, one of the few black lawyers in Alabama in the 1950's, what he thinks of George Wallace, the circuit judge. As a judge, Chestnutt says that Wallace was the most liberal judge he has ever appeared before. Wallace was a moderate, might even had been "liberal" on the issue of race. But once he lost the election by not seeking nor accepting the Klan's endorsement in 1958 and having lost to the vile John Patterson, he vowed to never be out #badword#ed again. By most, if not all,accounts Walace never really believed in his segregation bull#badword#.
So whether Roy Moore believes his own bull#badword# is not high on my list. But I have read the entire trial transcript, reviewed the breifs and the actual orders entered by Judge Thompson and the 11th Circuit, as well as the ancilliary orders from the SC of Alabama (in the age of the internet, don't rely on news accounts if you really want to know what happens in Court or what a Court says. Read it for yourself. Then ask TRO what it means if you don't understand). I also have talked extensively with a lawyer who assisted with the amicus brief for the ADL.
I come to one of two conclusions about Moore: a. He and his legal team are the most incompetent bunch of nimcompoops to ever argue a First Amendment establishment case; or b. He tried to lose the case on purpose.
I have to go with "a.", because I find it hard to believe someone could mishandle a case as badly as his lawyers did even if they tried. First, he refused to get Bill Pryor involved, instead spending tax payers' money on some guys who ultimately blew the appeal time and didn't even know it. Secondly his trial testimony: he clearly testified that the First Amendment's establishmnet and free exercise clauses applied only to Christianity (and implied that it was only Protestantism and then not all of them). There are scores of others mistakes and miscuses, my favorite is that on appeal Moore's lawyers argued that Thompson erred by going and taking a view of the statue. Of course they are the ones who asked Thompson to do that at trial. This is called "inviting error". You can't ask a judge to do something and then when he does it, argue that it was error on appeal (there may be some exceptions in criminal cases; but none in civil cases). The defense did a pitiful job attacking the standing issue (an issue won by Moore in his Circuit Court case).
Reasonable minds can differ on whether Moore lost on purpose though: he certainly made a hell of a lot more headlines than he would have had he won.
Oh and I think that displaying the Ten Commandments at a Courthouse is perfectly constitutional.
Moore, by his foolishness or knavery, has set a bad precedent. (But as Col. Tom Parker said about Elvis dying "Good career move". ) His botching the case should make people mad at him.
Whether he is a knave or a fool is really immaterial. He shows either lack of intelligence to be Governor or a lack of character to be Governor.
Either way I don't live in Alabama so I can't vote.
