Larry Bates Debates Bob on Do Not Murder

[Shadowx]

I just listened to Enyart/Bates debate.

Larry is dishonest and ignorant. I can't believe..he is using Romans 13 to justify his position.He is basically saying that God is going to punish believers for resisting any wickedness a particular government does, how sick and ignorant can a person be..

I like how when he thought he had Bob with his Romans 13 justification and he paused at "And shall receive damnation on themselves (ENYART THIS MEANS YOU!! <--added)"..Enyart with out a sweat dismantled that in a way that made Larry feel completely stupid.., because it was so obviously a wrong interpretation by Bates..
I guess John the Baptist was damned by God for rebuking king Herod..

Larry's evidence Alito is pro life, "Everyone believes he is, even his enemies"!
Bobs evidence Alito is not pro life, Alito's own rulings..
Let me think..which is the more credible evidence Larry?....:doh:

Bates, "Did you read all of the rulings from cover to cover!!"
Larry, Bob read his vote, his ruling..which is more then you read. :nono:

Good grief..

 

[Mr. 5020]

More high-quality work by Enyart. :up:

 

[Vaquero45]

Awesome job Bob. It was really sad to hear Larry Bates dance around and avoid the question, "If a judge approves the killing of the innocent, is there blood on his hands?" (I probably didnt quote that correctly but close enough) He knew how he had to answer and how bad it would sound, after defending Alito. I usually like Chuck and Larry Bates show, Larry really disappointed me.

 

[CRASH]

I have met Larry Bates and really like him. This was a very sad day. We need to pray for Larry to be humble and reconsider his evil position regarding Christian leaders like himself that obey man instead of God!

 

[jeremiah]

It seemed to me that the main problem that Larry Bates was having, was with his pride. He did not care to admit that he was wrong about Alito, yet there were many pregnant pauses in his thinking, and his answers, where he could have admitted that he had been!
He seemed to be considering his own reputation as somewhat of an authority and an intellectual, rather than the weight of Bob"s argumentation, and all the "new" information that he was receiving!
He could have, and he still may, gracefully be able to say, after having heard this new info, I think that Alito is pro choice.
It is very difficult to admit when we are wrong, especially after we have invested so much of our own intelligence and pride, in coming to a conclusion about a person, and a method.

The fact is that Alito ruled to knock down the N. J. partial birth abortion ban!
You can not reconcile that, with being pro-life, and you can not reconcile it with the fifth {or sixth} commandment.
If you rule to allow partial birth abortion, you are ruling, THOU SHALT MURDER!...........according to the rules of the "Law of the Land".

 

[CRASH]

It seemed to me that the main problem that Larry Bates was having, was with his pride. He did not care to admit that he was wrong about Alito, yet there were many pregnant pauses in his thinking, and his answers, where he could have admitted that he had been!
He seemed to be considering his own reputation as somewhat of an authority and an intellectual, rather than the weight of Bob"s argumentation, and all the "new" information that he was receiving!
He could have, and he still may, gracefully be able to say, after having heard this new info, I think that Alito is pro choice.
It is very difficult to admit when we are wrong, especially after we have invested so much of our own intelligence and pride, in coming to a conclusion about a person, and a method.

The fact is that Alito ruled to knock down the N. J. partial birth abortion ban!
You can not reconcile that, with being pro-life, and you can not reconcile it with the fifth {or sixth} commandment.
If you rule to allow partial birth abortion, you are ruling, THOU SHALT MURDER!...........according to the rules of the "Law of the Land".

Good post :thumb:
Pride is a nasty thing....

 

[jhodgeiii]

The Futility of Supporting (and Judging) Justices

The Futility of Supporting (and Judging) Justices

I do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution, and laws of the United States. So help me God.

My friends, I think it's important to ask the following question: What believer would you like to see make this oath? Even Bob said that he would like to see Norton, a believer, on the bench. However, it's clear that by taking this oath, he would be swearing to uphold man's law, would he not?

I agree wholeheartedly that it's quite disappointing to see Christians elevate man's law above God's. It's simply wrong. However, since these justices must swear with an oath words implying that they decide all cases according to man's law (and God expects us to keep our oaths), how can any justice be supported by the Christian community?

Read the oath above again. Would YOU make it?

 

[CRASH]

My friends, I think it's important to ask the following question: What believer would you like to see make this oath? Even Bob said that he would like to see Norton, a believer, on the bench. However, it's clear that by taking this oath, he would be swearing to uphold man's law, would he not?

I agree wholeheartedly that it's quite disappointing to see Christians elevate man's law above God's. It's simply wrong. However, since these justices must swear with an oath words implying that they decide all cases according to man's law (and God expects us to keep our oaths), how can any justice be supported by the Christian community?

Read the oath above again. Would YOU make it?

Hi JH!
Maybe. Either modify the oath to say you will fear God or don't take it. I think you could even take the oath and break it based upon the example given by the Hebrew midwives.

 

[Jefferson]

Larry Bates Debates Bob on Do Not Murder

Friday February 3rd 2006. This is show # 25.

BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW

Bob Enyart: Dr. Bates, if Samuel Alito voted to keep legal partial birth abortion, is he guilty of violating thou shall not murder?

Larry Bates: The law is guilty of violating thou shall not murder.

Bob: Is a judge? A judge who voted you can kill Jews...

Larry: Hey Bob, a judge can not write law.

Bob: A judge in Germany who was following the law...

Larry: A judge can not write law. Only legislators can law. Bob, you don't even understand the process my friend.

Bob: I do, Dr. Bates. But any law that violates thou shall not murder is not a valid law. It's lawless. And any judge that...

Larry: So you're saying that Sam Alito is pro abortion.

Bob: He's lawless. He's lawless because his commitment, like our Christian leaders, is to the process, not to thou shall not murder.

 

[rehcjam]

Wow, Larry couldn’t make a single point. Wow, this is very disappointing.

“Did you read the whole ruling? Did you read it all? What did his whole ruling say, Bob?”

(Student) “I’ll pass, because you didn’t do it for our class. So no matter what you show me, I cannot believe you.” (Bob) “OK, that is a very good excuse to reject everything I’ve said today.” from “Get Out of the Matrix”

Pro 10:8, 12:15, 13:16, 15:5, 17:10, 23:9, 26:12
1Cor 3:18

“The question, Bob, is Sam Alito Pro-Life or Pro-Abortion?”
“You’ll never be effective for the unborn (by apposing Pro-Abortion judges)”

Sam Alito isn’t qualified to be a justice. He doesn’t even know the difference between right and wrong. I guess I could say the same thing for most of our Christian leadership. . : :help: :em:

 

[Vine&FigTree]

Would Larry Bates Support Slavery?

Would Larry Bates Support Slavery?

Originally Posted by Judiciary Act of 1789, re: Oath of Office for U.S. Supreme Court and District Court Justices

I do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution, and laws of the United States. So help me God.

Not a single member of the Congress who voted for this Act in 1789 would agree that this oath requires a judge to uphold a human law legalizing murder over God's Law against murder. Nor would any of them agree with Larry Bates that Romans 13 requires a judge to support a bad precedent.

http://LibertyUnderGod.com/Romans13

Under "stare decisis," my copy of an older edition of Black's Law Dictionary (rev. 4th ed.), citing McGregor v. Provident Trust Co. of Philadelphia, 119 Fla. 718, 162 So. 323, says:

Under [this] doctrine, when point of law has been settled by decision, it forms precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from, and, while it should ordinarily be strictly adhered to, there are occasions when departure is rendered necessary to vindicate plain, obvious principles of law and remedy continued injustice.

"Justice" -- that's what the oath of office requires judges to uphold, not "stare decisis."

"Stare decisis" is not a mandate of the Constitution, it's just a tradition or court-created policy (and generally a good one) not to re-litigate every case when the same facts again come before the court. Nobody taking an oath to "support the Constitution" takes an oath to support "stare decisis" over the principles of justice, or over the principles of "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," that is to say, Scripture.

http://LibertyUnderGod.com/nature

Even "public policy" can override "stare decisis":

The doctrine is a salutary one, and should not ordinarily be departed from where decision is of long standing and rights have been acquired under it, unless considerations of public policy demand it. Colonial Trust Co. v. Flanagan, 344 Pa. 566, 25 A.2d 728,729

Do Christian Republican cheerleaders believe (as Gary Bauer apparently does) that after 1857 (Dred Scott v. Sandford) Appellate Court judges were obligated by oath to rule in favor of slavery by following the Dred Scot precedent, even though that case was destined to be overruled -- by Constitutional Amendment? Surely this is a case where "justice," and "public policy" (who makes "public policy" anyway?) require a Christian judge to ignore bad precedent.

Alito would be violating his oath of office by dissenting against judges who uphold partial birth abortion?? Who would have said this about a judge ignoring Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson (upholding "separate but equal" segregation)?

Larry Bates counters the record of Alito's actual vote in favor of partial birth abortion by citing Alito's mother, who says he's "against abortion." But Bates forgets that during the confirmation hearings Alito (like all other Republican-nominated judges who are "against abortion") promised under oath not to allow his "personal opinions" (the kind of opinions one is taught by one's mother -- and by God) to override Roe v. Wade.


Kevin Craig
http://i.am/not-a-lawyer
www.LibertyUnderGod.com

 

[jeremiah]

My friends, I think it's important to ask the following question: What believer would you like to see make this oath? Even Bob said that he would like to see Norton, a believer, on the bench. However, it's clear that by taking this oath, he would be swearing to uphold man's law, would he not?

I agree wholeheartedly that it's quite disappointing to see Christians elevate man's law above God's. It's simply wrong. However, since these justices must swear with an oath words implying that they decide all cases according to man's law (and God expects us to keep our oaths), how can any justice be supported by the Christian community?

Read the oath above again. Would YOU make it?

You make it sound like the law of the Medes and the Persians. Even the King could not rescind his own law! If the legislature passed a law to throw a Daniel into a lion's den, for praying, your "take" is that a SCJ could not overturn it according to the oath he swore.
But that is not what judges are appointed for, nor is it their job to simply follow the laws! That is what Gary Bauer and apparently Larry Bates think that their job is.
Their job is to administer justice in accordance with the Constitution and the laws of the land, so help them God! That means they can call into question any law that they find not in keeping with either the letter, or the intent of the Constitution!
In the oath they are given that latitude with the word "agreeably", are they not?
Certainly Alito could have ruled in favor of upholding the NJ partial birth abortion ban in keeping with the intent of the Constitution of the U.S. , and certainly if he can't, then neither could he as a SCJ according to the oath as you understand it.

 

[Jukia]

Yet it would be nice if Pastor Enyart bothered to read Alito's decisons. He admitted that he did not. Once again he picks and chooses what he bases his decisions on. See the beer can manganese nodule thread.
And all of you who want judges to be "Your Judges". Pastor Enyart is happy to use the Nazi judges killed Jews cause the law said they could do it but neglects to further understand that those were judges the Nazi's considered "theirs".
Bates has a much better understanding of the actual basis of the US judicial system than Pastor Enyart does.

 

[Yorzhik]

Yet it would be nice if Pastor Enyart bothered to read Alito's decisons. He admitted that he did not. Once again he picks and chooses what he bases his decisions on.

Hey, the nice thing about the case being done is that we can skip to the conclusion. It doesn't matter by what by what logic someone came to the conclusion that murder is okay. Only a lawyer would think it matters.

And all of you who want judges to be "Your Judges". Pastor Enyart is happy to use the Nazi judges killed Jews cause the law said they could do it but neglects to further understand that those were judges the Nazi's considered "theirs".

I don' think you thought this through. Perhaps you could elaborate on what you mean. You seem to be saying that the Nazi's judges were right to have Jews murdered "according to the law".

Bates has a much better understanding of the actual basis of the US judicial system than Pastor Enyart does.

You got that right! But why someone would want to invest much in such a rotton system is beyond me. Now if you had said that Bob has a much better understanding of justice, or the basis of what the US judicial system should be, then you'd be right again!

 

[jhodgeiii]

Hi Crash nice to see you! :wave:

Not a single member of the Congress who voted for this Act in 1789 would agree that this oath requires a judge to uphold a human law legalizing murder over God's Law against murder.

It's interesting, Kevin, that your subtitled your post, "Would Larry Bates Support Slavery?" Do you realize that the Congress of 1789 supported slavery? Read this journal from the Annals of Congress that documents the dialog Congress had with the Quakers regarding the slave trade and the Quakers' desire to have it abolished. Focusing their argument on sound Biblical scripture, the Quakers argued:

Under this persuasion, as professors of faith in that ever blessed all-perfect Lawgiver, whose injunctions remain of undiminished obligation on all who profess to believe in him, "whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do you even so unto them;" we apprehend ourselves religiously bound to request your serious christian attention, to the deeply interesting subject...of trafficking in the persons of fellow-men;...divers of the Legislative bodies of the different States, on this Continent, have since manifested their sense of the public detestation due to the licentious wickedness of the African trade for slaves.

They went on to clearly state that slavery must be abolished. Yet this argument was brushed aside by Congress as merely an opinion of the Quakers. Slavery went on for almost a century longer.

Thus, the 1789 Congress supported slavery (which legalized the murder of slaves by their owners). They upheld man's law over God's with the principle that these slaves are the property of the slave owners. So why wouldn't this Congress or their judges believe the equally foolish principle that a woman has the right over her body concerning abortions?

I have much less trust in these guys than you do.

 

[jhodgeiii]

You make it sound like the law of the Medes and the Persians. Even the King could not rescind his own law! If the legislature passed a law to throw a Daniel into a lion's den, for praying, your "take" is that a SCJ could not overturn it according to the oath he swore.

Ultimately, I think my take would be that Christians should leave a state whose legislators pass such laws. However, under our own Constitution, a Christian SCJ could remain within the bounds of his oath and overturn such a law on the grounds of the due process clause.

[Judges'] job is to administer justice in accordance with the Constitution and the laws of the land, so help them God! That means they can call into question any law that they find not in keeping with either the letter, or the intent of the Constitution!

Yes.

Certainly Alito could have ruled in favor of upholding the NJ partial birth abortion ban in keeping with the intent of the Constitution of the U.S. , and certainly if he can't, then neither could he as a SCJ according to the oath as you understand it.

No! That's not my understanding of it. As a SCJ Alito certainly could vote pro-life in every case before him (on the grounds of due process) being that he would represent the final authority on constitutional interpretation and not subject to any higher U.S. court.

 

[Vine&FigTree]

It's interesting, Kevin, that your subtitled your post, "Would Larry Bates Support Slavery?" Do you realize that the Congress of 1789 supported slavery?

I have much less trust in these guys than you do.

I agree with Patrick Henry, who said, "I smell a rat in Philadelphia." He refused to sign the Constitution. I think the Constitution should not have been ratified and should now be abolished.

But that doesn't mean I agree with Bates, and the contention that Appellate Court Justices are required by the Constitution to rubber-stamp decisions like Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson. There are well-accepted limits to "stare decisis," and the Democrats joyfully admit those limits when they want a Supreme Court decision overturned. The questioning by Democrats of Republican nominees has been totally hypocritical.

Congress ignored the Quakers because Congress had no power under the Constitution to meddle with state laws on slavery. There was quite a discussion about that issue when the Constitution was being drafted and debated, and those who favored ratification of the new Constitution (with whom I disagree) believed that it was necessary to compromise on slavery in order to get the Southern states on board (I agree with that assessment, even though I would have opposed the Constitution anyway).

A good article on slavery by David Barton, "The Bible, Slavery, and America's Founders," is here:

http://wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=94


Kevin Craig
http://i.am/not-a-lawyer
www.LibertyUnderGod.com

 

[Lighthouse]

The US Constitution was a failing premise from the get go.

 

[CRASH]

The US Constitution was a failing premise from the get go.

Sad thing is most Christians now days think it is the God-Breathed 67th book of the Bible!

 

[CRASH]

Bump