A different question on Roy Moore

Assuming that Moore wins, the senate should:

  • Attempt to eject Moore after he has been seated

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    32

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Dec 12, 2009
25,421
6,778
290
Washington State
So, I think that a lot has been lost in the noise with the Roy Moore allegations. Those against Moore tend to point out that Moore is being tried in the court of public opinion and not in an actual court so the veracity of the evidence is immaterial. Those supporting him point out that there are no charges (as there cannot be) and that the yearbook as well as the timing of the stories is questionable. All of this is background noise to me considering that I am not an Alabama voter so I do not have any influence in the matter. What does interest me though is what happens after the election. If Moore looses than it is a moot point, and a devastating blow for the republicans as they loose a crucial seat in the senate. If he wins, well, it is still bad for the republicans because they are going to have to decide what to do with Moore.


Now, there has been a lot of talk about not seating him but as far as I can tell, the senate does not have the power to keep him from taking his seat.
Why the Law Might Not Allow the Senate to Expel Roy Moore

This also deals with expelling him as well. There are some things to take into consideration here:

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.

IF Moore wins then he has been 'tried in the court of public opinion' and the people have spoken with the full knowledge of the allegations against him.

So, given Moore is innocent according to the law and the people of Alabama chose him (again assuming he wins) I do not see how the senate has the power or the standing to eject him from his seat. They are going to have to accept him as a senator and deal with the allegations IMHO and they should. No matter how distasteful one may or may not find the situation the voters will have decided and they should have the final say unless the constitution specifically states otherwise.

What do you think the senate should do or even can do?
 
They should accept his victory as "the people have spoken" but as we've seen since the last election, Democrats are not very good at accepting defeat.
 
So, I think that a lot has been lost in the noise with the Roy Moore allegations. Those against Moore tend to point out that Moore is being tried in the court of public opinion and not in an actual court so the veracity of the evidence is immaterial. Those supporting him point out that there are no charges (as there cannot be) and that the yearbook as well as the timing of the stories is questionable. All of this is background noise to me considering that I am not an Alabama voter so I do not have any influence in the matter. What does interest me though is what happens after the election. If Moore looses than it is a moot point, and a devastating blow for the republicans as they loose a crucial seat in the senate. If he wins, well, it is still bad for the republicans because they are going to have to decide what to do with Moore.


Now, there has been a lot of talk about not seating him but as far as I can tell, the senate does not have the power to keep him from taking his seat.
Why the Law Might Not Allow the Senate to Expel Roy Moore

This also deals with expelling him as well. There are some things to take into consideration here:

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.

IF Moore wins then he has been 'tried in the court of public opinion' and the people have spoken with the full knowledge of the allegations against him.

So, given Moore is innocent according to the law and the people of Alabama chose him (again assuming he wins) I do not see how the senate has the power or the standing to eject him from his seat. They are going to have to accept him as a senator and deal with the allegations IMHO and they should. No matter how distasteful one may or may not find the situation the voters will have decided and they should have the final say unless the constitution specifically states otherwise.

What do you think the senate should do or even can do?


I don't think the senate has any choice but to seat him. And they have no authority to judge him on things that may or may not have happened before he joins the senate, because he hasn't violated any senate ethics rules as a senator.


.
 
So, I think that a lot has been lost in the noise with the Roy Moore allegations. Those against Moore tend to point out that Moore is being tried in the court of public opinion and not in an actual court so the veracity of the evidence is immaterial. Those supporting him point out that there are no charges (as there cannot be) and that the yearbook as well as the timing of the stories is questionable. All of this is background noise to me considering that I am not an Alabama voter so I do not have any influence in the matter. What does interest me though is what happens after the election. If Moore looses than it is a moot point, and a devastating blow for the republicans as they loose a crucial seat in the senate. If he wins, well, it is still bad for the republicans because they are going to have to decide what to do with Moore.


Now, there has been a lot of talk about not seating him but as far as I can tell, the senate does not have the power to keep him from taking his seat.
Why the Law Might Not Allow the Senate to Expel Roy Moore

This also deals with expelling him as well. There are some things to take into consideration here:

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.

IF Moore wins then he has been 'tried in the court of public opinion' and the people have spoken with the full knowledge of the allegations against him.

So, given Moore is innocent according to the law and the people of Alabama chose him (again assuming he wins) I do not see how the senate has the power or the standing to eject him from his seat. They are going to have to accept him as a senator and deal with the allegations IMHO and they should. No matter how distasteful one may or may not find the situation the voters will have decided and they should have the final say unless the constitution specifically states otherwise.

What do you think the senate should do or even can do?

FA_Q2
* Not being found guilty and even
* Being FOUND not guilty
are not the same as being innocent!

OJ Simpson was found "not guilty" under criminal charges
but was convicted of "wrongful death".
So since he WAS found guilty of "wrongful death" that makes him
NOT INNOCENT of killing, even though he was found "not guilty" of murder.

In Texas, it was ruled that court rulings were the basis of death penalty decisions
and not someone's actual innocence.

So you cannot say that "innocence"
can be equated with rulings of the court or the lack thereof.

OJ may have been found "not guilty" of murder
but in the court of public opinion, he has been treated otherwise.

As for Roy Moore, he has threatened lawsuits to force the
accusers to drop their accusations if they cannot meet court and legal standards.

When Cruz threatened Trump to sue and depose him
to get him to stop the false accusations and statements, that worked.

Let's see if Moore has to follow through in order to resolve the accusations.
Houston Mayor Turner had to sue and won his case when he
was slandered by a smear tactic in the media that cost him a previous election.
Moore may have to do the same if he is serious about defending his
position and resolving the issue of false accusations.

So yes it can still go to court and be resolved legally
in order to base future decisions on that resolution.
 
If Democrats reject the wishes of the CITIZENS of the state of Alabama then the state will reject the wishes of Democrats for at the very least 20 years!
 
If Democrats reject the wishes of the CITIZENS of the state of Alabama then the state will reject the wishes of Democrats for at the very least 20 years!

DarkFury
Is there any way to break through this deadlock of mutual rejection?
Why can't we just openly recognize that people divide into two separate
schools of political thought and belief.
Then agree to let each respective school manage and choose their own policies
to fund and be under.

If we remove both political parties as political religions separate from govt,
then govt can remain NEUTRAL and only make and enforce policies
where both groups and all the public AGREES on policy.

Then keep the rest of the "social programs and agenda" OUT OF GOVT
and then we might quit fighting over these (which causes people to
push one party or another into govt to protect their respective beliefs).

Keep those beliefs out of govt to begin with.
Let groups choose and govern themselves independently,
fund their own programs and deduct their investments and donations
from taxes so they have fully control over their own representation.

wouldn't that stop the need to bully and dominate
by one party or political belief over another?

Why can't we the taxpayers, citizens and people of America
demand that? And insist on NO Taxation without Separation.

Is this the next key step in govt reform and democratic development?
 
If Democrats reject the wishes of the CITIZENS of the state of Alabama then the state will reject the wishes of Democrats for at the very least 20 years!

DarkFury
Is there any way to break through this deadlock of mutual rejection?
Why can't we just openly recognize that people divide into two separate
schools of political thought and belief.
Then agree to let each respective school manage and choose their own policies
to fund and be under.

If we remove both political parties as political religions separate from govt,
then govt can remain NEUTRAL and only make and enforce policies
where both groups and all the public AGREES on policy.

Then keep the rest of the "social programs and agenda" OUT OF GOVT
and then we might quit fighting over these (which causes people to
push one party or another into govt to protect their respective beliefs).

Keep those beliefs out of govt to begin with.
Let groups choose and govern themselves independently,
fund their own programs and deduct their investments and donations
from taxes so they have fully control over their own representation.

wouldn't that stop the need to bully and dominate
by one party or political belief over another?

Why can't we the taxpayers, citizens and people of America
demand that? And insist on NO Taxation without Separation.

Is this the next key step in govt reform and democratic development?
I say we respect the people of Alabama and seat their choice.
 
Congress', in this case the Senate's, authority to refuse to seat a duly elected individual accrues from Article 1 of the Constitution. There is ample precedent for duly elected individuals not being seated by a chamber of Congress.

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.
Since you are of a mind to hold tight to legal minutia/technicalities, our legal system doesn't determine innocence, but rather that there is insufficient evidence to find one guilty, or, as it was presented, the evidence does not militate adequately for a guilty verdict. Trial verdicts are "guilty" or "not guilty," not "innocent."

Inasmuch as that is the nature of our jurisprudential system, that Moore cannot be found guilty or not guilty in no way speaks to whether a defendant did , i.e., is innocent of having committed, or did not do the deed with which they were (or might otherwise have been) charged.
 
Last edited:
They should accept his victory as "the people have spoken" but as we've seen since the last election, Democrats are not very good at accepting defeat.
It's not the Democrats SJ, it's the REPUBLICANS who are talking about expelling Moore...

Republicans.

Yes, your party SJ.
 
So, I think that a lot has been lost in the noise with the Roy Moore allegations. Those against Moore tend to point out that Moore is being tried in the court of public opinion and not in an actual court so the veracity of the evidence is immaterial. Those supporting him point out that there are no charges (as there cannot be) and that the yearbook as well as the timing of the stories is questionable. All of this is background noise to me considering that I am not an Alabama voter so I do not have any influence in the matter. What does interest me though is what happens after the election. If Moore looses than it is a moot point, and a devastating blow for the republicans as they loose a crucial seat in the senate. If he wins, well, it is still bad for the republicans because they are going to have to decide what to do with Moore.


Now, there has been a lot of talk about not seating him but as far as I can tell, the senate does not have the power to keep him from taking his seat.
Why the Law Might Not Allow the Senate to Expel Roy Moore

This also deals with expelling him as well. There are some things to take into consideration here:

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.

IF Moore wins then he has been 'tried in the court of public opinion' and the people have spoken with the full knowledge of the allegations against him.

So, given Moore is innocent according to the law and the people of Alabama chose him (again assuming he wins) I do not see how the senate has the power or the standing to eject him from his seat. They are going to have to accept him as a senator and deal with the allegations IMHO and they should. No matter how distasteful one may or may not find the situation the voters will have decided and they should have the final say unless the constitution specifically states otherwise.

What do you think the senate should do or even can do?
He was an undesirable BEFORE those women spoke up against him Bannon a white nationalist, a racist supported him
 
As someone pointed out already, there's no such thing as being "legally innocent".

He hasn't been (and won't be) found guilty. But that's not the same thing.

As for the Senate, the precedent that your article mentions is true to the extent that the Senate cannot refuse to seat him.

Bit if there's a 2/3 majority of the Senate that wants him out, there's nothing to stop them from expelling him, and nothing the courts can do to stop it either.
 
So, I think that a lot has been lost in the noise with the Roy Moore allegations. Those against Moore tend to point out that Moore is being tried in the court of public opinion and not in an actual court so the veracity of the evidence is immaterial. Those supporting him point out that there are no charges (as there cannot be) and that the yearbook as well as the timing of the stories is questionable. All of this is background noise to me considering that I am not an Alabama voter so I do not have any influence in the matter. What does interest me though is what happens after the election. If Moore looses than it is a moot point, and a devastating blow for the republicans as they loose a crucial seat in the senate. If he wins, well, it is still bad for the republicans because they are going to have to decide what to do with Moore.


Now, there has been a lot of talk about not seating him but as far as I can tell, the senate does not have the power to keep him from taking his seat.
Why the Law Might Not Allow the Senate to Expel Roy Moore

This also deals with expelling him as well. There are some things to take into consideration here:

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.

IF Moore wins then he has been 'tried in the court of public opinion' and the people have spoken with the full knowledge of the allegations against him.

So, given Moore is innocent according to the law and the people of Alabama chose him (again assuming he wins) I do not see how the senate has the power or the standing to eject him from his seat. They are going to have to accept him as a senator and deal with the allegations IMHO and they should. No matter how distasteful one may or may not find the situation the voters will have decided and they should have the final say unless the constitution specifically states otherwise.

What do you think the senate should do or even can do?


I don't think the senate has any choice but to seat him. And they have no authority to judge him on things that may or may not have happened before he joins the senate, because he hasn't violated any senate ethics rules as a senator.


.
No, it seems they can. The Senate Ethics Committee will immediately be involved in an investigation if he is elected.
John Thune warns a Senate Ethics Committee probe into Roy Moore would be 'distraction' for Republicans
 
I have no doubt that if Moore is elected there will be yet another "investigation". Between the Democratic Communist Party and the enabling status quo Republicans, they have a majority, and investigations are their preferred method of dealing with outsiders. They'll do whatever they deem necessary to keep the swamp from being drained.
 
I have no doubt that if Moore is elected there will be yet another "investigation". Between the Democratic Communist Party and the enabling status quo Republicans, they have a majority, and investigations are their preferred method of dealing with outsiders. They'll do whatever they deem necessary to keep the swamp from being drained.
Well, cheer up. The Senate traditionally doesn't do anything even after they've investigated someone.
 
Moore is such an ass!

Forget the sexual harassment stuff . This guy was removed from the Bama Supreme Court TWICE ! 2x for defying court orders !!!
 
So, I think that a lot has been lost in the noise with the Roy Moore allegations. Those against Moore tend to point out that Moore is being tried in the court of public opinion and not in an actual court so the veracity of the evidence is immaterial. Those supporting him point out that there are no charges (as there cannot be) and that the yearbook as well as the timing of the stories is questionable. All of this is background noise to me considering that I am not an Alabama voter so I do not have any influence in the matter. What does interest me though is what happens after the election. If Moore looses than it is a moot point, and a devastating blow for the republicans as they loose a crucial seat in the senate. If he wins, well, it is still bad for the republicans because they are going to have to decide what to do with Moore.


Now, there has been a lot of talk about not seating him but as far as I can tell, the senate does not have the power to keep him from taking his seat.
Why the Law Might Not Allow the Senate to Expel Roy Moore

This also deals with expelling him as well. There are some things to take into consideration here:

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.

IF Moore wins then he has been 'tried in the court of public opinion' and the people have spoken with the full knowledge of the allegations against him.

So, given Moore is innocent according to the law and the people of Alabama chose him (again assuming he wins) I do not see how the senate has the power or the standing to eject him from his seat. They are going to have to accept him as a senator and deal with the allegations IMHO and they should. No matter how distasteful one may or may not find the situation the voters will have decided and they should have the final say unless the constitution specifically states otherwise.

What do you think the senate should do or even can do?
It is not going to be bad if Senator Moore wins. The more attacks on him about these false allegation makes him have a more stronger case. In order to sue someone for defamation of character, that it must be proven that the slanderous acts had some affects on his career and caused health or emotional problems in his life. The worst it is, the more he can sue for. But since his accusers are poor little tramps, that will not ever gain anything in life. Senator Moore can sue them just in case if they have inherit some assets from their sugar daddy, that it automatically goes to Senator Moore. And so they will always stay in the whore house where they all were born. But if they receive any money from book deals from off of this lie. That the proceeds will goes to his account. Unless they move to Florida, where they has laws that it will help them from going straight to the whorehouse.



In most states, creditors can seek wage garnishment to recoup some of what they are owed from a debtor’s income. In Florida, the state where Simpson said he planned to live if granted parole, the garnishment is limited to 25 percent.

But there are ways Simpson could try to protect his assets avoid paying the judgment. He could rely on a friend to provide him with a place to live, an idea that has already been floated by his friend, Tom Scotto, who told USA Today Simpson might live at his house after his release.

Simpson could also purchase a home in a state where such property is protected.

Florida, for instance, is known for having especially strong “homestead” laws that guard one’s primary residence against creditors. That has prompted a number of wealthy people to declare residency in the state.

In addition, Simpson may try to transfer his assets into a trust intended to keep them from creditors, though such trusts are meant to protect against future liability, not to shield assets from a pending debt.

A lawyer for the families could sue Simpson if he tried to create a trust expressly to avoid paying the judgment, said Steven Gleitman, a Los Angeles attorney who specializes in asset protection.

In 2007, a federal bankruptcy judge in Florida awarded Goldman’s family the rights to Simpson’s controversial book “If I Did It,” finding that Simpson had fraudulently transferred them to his children in an effort to avoid creditors.

Some of Simpson’s money is already out of reach, such as his estimated $20,000 monthly pension from the National Football League. Federal law governing private pension plans generally protects such payments from creditors.
O.J. Simpson Faces $58 Million Wrongful Death Damages After Release from Jail
 
Last edited:
Congress', in this case the Senate's, authority to refuse to seat a duly elected individual accrues from Article 1 of the Constitution. There is ample precedent for duly elected individuals not being seated by a chamber of Congress.

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.
Since you are of a mind to hold tight to legal minutia/technicalities, our legal system doesn't determine innocence, but rather that there is insufficient evidence to find one guilty, or, as it was presented, the evidence does not militate adequately for a guilty verdict. Trial verdicts are "guilty" or "not guilty," not "innocent."

Inasmuch as that is the nature of our jurisprudential system, that Moore cannot be found guilty or not guilty in no way speaks to whether a defendant did , i.e., is innocent of having committed, or did not do the deed with which they were (or might otherwise have been) charged.


The most similar instance was Powell and he prevailed in court and was seated. Allegations are not convictions.


.
 
Congress', in this case the Senate's, authority to refuse to seat a duly elected individual accrues from Article 1 of the Constitution. There is ample precedent for duly elected individuals not being seated by a chamber of Congress.
Those instances are fundamentally different than the current one. The cited article notes that Powell v. McCormack shows that it is unlikely that the senate has the power to refuse to seat Moore because it does not fall under the powers outlined in the constitution. Your link mentions 9 cases:

1 is related to election problems and has no relation to Moore's situation

2 is a situation not even relevant in the senate at this time and unconstitutional now.

3 is blatantly unconstitutional now. This was mostly due to religious issues - something that the senate is
CLEARLY unable to do now and polygamy. Under current case law, I believe that anti-bigamy and polygamy laws (not related to marriage but simply cohabitation) would be unconstitutional.

4 was seated after all so does not support your point and, again, was related to religion and polygamy. Interestingly enough, he was seated even though it was supposed that he swore an oath AGAINST the US. Considering the circumstances, this goes against your supposition.

5 was not seated for a conviction of the espionage act. This is the closest example we have but is still far from your mark. Moore has not been convicted of anything. This is the closest example you have and still not really relevant for the mentioned reason and, even more importantly, examples 1 - 5 occurred before the SCOTUS ruled on this practice. That is key.

The first 5 are irrelevant in that they precede the SCOTUS ruling on the senate not seating members. Whatever the practice before the 6th example the SCOTUS ruled that the senate does not have the power to refuse to seat members due to requirements other than
6 seated and when the SCUTUS ruled not seating a member for reasons that are not age, citizenship and residence requirements that the constitution specifically calls out.

6 This is the one that the court ruled on.
Powell v. McCormack - Wikipedia

7 election issues. Again, not relevant to this case and such power is directly outlined in the constitution as well.

8 ejected - irrelevant to your point

9 seated. Again, countering your point.

Essentially, your link establishes the exact opposite - there is no real precedent to deny Moore the seat and that the SCOTUS has ruled that such power does not exist for situations like this one.

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.
Since you are of a mind to hold tight to legal minutia/technicalities, our legal system doesn't determine innocence, but rather that there is insufficient evidence to find one guilty, or, as it was presented, the evidence does not militate adequately for a guilty verdict. Trial verdicts are "guilty" or "not guilty," not "innocent."

Inasmuch as that is the nature of our jurisprudential system, that Moore cannot be found guilty or not guilty in no way speaks to whether a defendant did , i.e., is innocent of having committed, or did not do the deed with which they were (or might otherwise have been) charged.
Flatly incorrect. A core tenant of the judicial system here is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Tying to play word games around the verdict of guilty or not guilty does not change that reality unless you can show some functional difference between not guilty and innocent.
 
As someone pointed out already, there's no such thing as being "legally innocent".

He hasn't been (and won't be) found guilty. But that's not the same thing.
See above. The presumption of innocence disagrees. Either way, it is immaterial as there is no functional difference.
As for the Senate, the precedent that your article mentions is true to the extent that the Senate cannot refuse to seat him.

Bit if there's a 2/3 majority of the Senate that wants him out, there's nothing to stop them from expelling him, and nothing the courts can do to stop it either.
That is false. They MAY have that power BUT the court has not ruled on expelling a sitting member on events that occurred before becoming a senator or even before the election took place. Precedent has not been set so the statement that the courts can do nothing has not been established. The SCOTUS does have the final say in such a matter. I guess you can say they cant stop it but they certainly could overturn it.

The court may rule that expulsion due to conduct from before becoming a member is unconstitutional. More to the point I was trying to get at in the OP, I don't think that they should.

When the voters speak, no matter how distasteful, the senate should listen.
 

Forum List

Back
Top