Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige

[Claudette]

It should be a state issue mandated by public voting

-Geaux
------------------------------------------

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling
BY JONATHAN KAMINSKY

Tue Jan 27, 2015 6:54pm EST


n">(Reuters) - In a move viewed skeptically by legal experts, the socially conservative chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court on Tuesday encouraged judges in his state to ignore a federal ruling last week striking down its ban on gay marriage.

Justice Roy Moore, in a letter addressed to Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, said Friday's federal ruling, which was put on hold for two weeks and could be superseded by a U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay marriage due by the end of June, violates the state constitution.

"I am dismayed by those judges in our state who have stated they will recognize and unilaterally enforce a federal court decision which does not bind them," Moore wrote. "I would advise them that the issuance of such licenses would be in defiance of the laws and constitution of Alabama."

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling Reuters

I agree. Let the States decide what they want done in their State and whats considered legal.

So when CA decides they want to ban handguns and automatic rifles, you'd be just fine with that right?

Why not.

No on has to live in CA. If they don't like the laws they can always move or vote those out that make the laws.

The same goes for all States. If you don't like the laws then vote those making them out of office.

Well it's a dandy idea...and is not our current system of government. What I described is unconstitutional...just like bans on gays marrying the partner of their choice.

I guess if you don't like the laws of our country, like the Constitution that says you can't violate my right to equal protection, you can move to a different one.

No on has to live in CA. If they don't like the laws they can always move or vote those out that make the laws. The same goes for all States. If you don't like the laws then vote those making them out of office.

Then why even have a Constitution, if no one has to follow it?

Of course I believe in the Constitution and the right to bear arms. I have guns and know how to use them.

I was speaking about laws that the States pass that you don't like. If you don't like those laws then vote out those passing them.

He knows perfectly well as do I that the right to bear arms is in the Constitution. Of course some on the left would rather it weren't. They think no one should own a gun for any reason.

 

[konradv]

Of course I believe in the Constitution and the right to bear arms. I have guns and know how to use them. I was speaking about laws that the States pass that you don't like. If you don't like those laws then vote out those passing them. He knows perfectly well as do I that the right to bear arms is in the Constitution. Of course some on the left would rather it weren't. They think no one should own a gun for any reason.

Then what about the fact that federal courts have precedence? If it went your way, we'd still have Jim Crow and Gore would have been president in '00. You can't just accept the laws you like. They have to pass Constitutional muster, as set by the USSC.

 

[Seawytch]

It should be a state issue mandated by public voting

-Geaux
------------------------------------------

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling
BY JONATHAN KAMINSKY

Tue Jan 27, 2015 6:54pm EST


n">(Reuters) - In a move viewed skeptically by legal experts, the socially conservative chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court on Tuesday encouraged judges in his state to ignore a federal ruling last week striking down its ban on gay marriage.

Justice Roy Moore, in a letter addressed to Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, said Friday's federal ruling, which was put on hold for two weeks and could be superseded by a U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay marriage due by the end of June, violates the state constitution.

"I am dismayed by those judges in our state who have stated they will recognize and unilaterally enforce a federal court decision which does not bind them," Moore wrote. "I would advise them that the issuance of such licenses would be in defiance of the laws and constitution of Alabama."

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling Reuters

I agree. Let the States decide what they want done in their State and whats considered legal.

So when CA decides they want to ban handguns and automatic rifles, you'd be just fine with that right?

They already are. But I'll give you a pass since I think you meant all guns and rifles

-Geaux

No, handguns are not banned in California...and it does not change my point. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional. Claudette is advocating to just ignore the Constitution.

 

[Seawytch]

It should be a state issue mandated by public voting

-Geaux
------------------------------------------

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling
BY JONATHAN KAMINSKY

Tue Jan 27, 2015 6:54pm EST


n">(Reuters) - In a move viewed skeptically by legal experts, the socially conservative chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court on Tuesday encouraged judges in his state to ignore a federal ruling last week striking down its ban on gay marriage.

Justice Roy Moore, in a letter addressed to Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, said Friday's federal ruling, which was put on hold for two weeks and could be superseded by a U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay marriage due by the end of June, violates the state constitution.

"I am dismayed by those judges in our state who have stated they will recognize and unilaterally enforce a federal court decision which does not bind them," Moore wrote. "I would advise them that the issuance of such licenses would be in defiance of the laws and constitution of Alabama."

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling Reuters

I agree. Let the States decide what they want done in their State and whats considered legal.

So when CA decides they want to ban handguns and automatic rifles, you'd be just fine with that right?

Why not.

No on has to live in CA. If they don't like the laws they can always move or vote those out that make the laws.

The same goes for all States. If you don't like the laws then vote those making them out of office.

Well it's a dandy idea...and is not our current system of government. What I described is unconstitutional...just like bans on gays marrying the partner of their choice.

I guess if you don't like the laws of our country, like the Constitution that says you can't violate my right to equal protection, you can move to a different one.

No on has to live in CA. If they don't like the laws they can always move or vote those out that make the laws. The same goes for all States. If you don't like the laws then vote those making them out of office.

Then why even have a Constitution, if no one has to follow it?

Of course I believe in the Constitution and the right to bear arms. I have guns and know how to use them.

I was speaking about laws that the States pass that you don't like. If you don't like those laws then vote out those passing them.

He knows perfectly well as do I that the right to bear arms is in the Constitution. Of course some on the left would rather it weren't. They think no one should own a gun for any reason.

He didn't say you didn't like the 2nd Amendment, he asked why have a Constitution if the states can just say "fuck you, I do what I want".

The right to marry has been declared a fundamental right and therefore, anti gay marriage bans based solely on animus are being found unconstitutional...just like handgun bans were.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ah! Enlightened, progressive Alabama! They told us that slavery and the subsequent Jim Crow laws were matters of "state's rights".

So these southern knuckledraggers have no problem with repression. It's their "right" as a state to be idiots.

"Segregation now, segregation tomorrow!" Said Fascist-in-Chief George Wallace. Today's Alabamian is not that different.

Imagine being so convinced that hatred is the right thing to do that you would wrap yourself in e time worn State's Rights argument.

Do you ever tire of being stupid?
Wallace was a progressive, btw.
Anyway, Judge Moore is correct. States should nullify the federal law, just as COlorado did.

The issue isn't federal law. The issue is federal court rulings. There's no supreme court ruling that says states must outlaw marijuana. So Colorado didn't nullify any such ruling.

Colorado nullified Federal law. Alabama should do the same.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ah! Enlightened, progressive Alabama! They told us that slavery and the subsequent Jim Crow laws were matters of "state's rights".

So these southern knuckledraggers have no problem with repression. It's their "right" as a state to be idiots.

"Segregation now, segregation tomorrow!" Said Fascist-in-Chief George Wallace. Today's Alabamian is not that different.

Imagine being so convinced that hatred is the right thing to do that you would wrap yourself in e time worn State's Rights argument.

Do you ever tire of being stupid?
Wallace was a progressive, btw.
Anyway, Judge Moore is correct. States should nullify the federal law, just as COlorado did.

Moron.

George Wallace was a racist Conservative of the first order.

Just because he was evil incarnate, you want to label him Progressive because it validates your myopic view of political ideology.

Mr "Evil Incarnate" won his last election with the majority of black voters, ignorant asshole. He was hailed for his progressive views on education and expanding the state. Wallace was a progressive, live with it.

 

[Skylar]

It should be a state issue mandated by public voting

-Geaux
------------------------------------------

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling
BY JONATHAN KAMINSKY

Tue Jan 27, 2015 6:54pm EST


n">(Reuters) - In a move viewed skeptically by legal experts, the socially conservative chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court on Tuesday encouraged judges in his state to ignore a federal ruling last week striking down its ban on gay marriage.

Justice Roy Moore, in a letter addressed to Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, said Friday's federal ruling, which was put on hold for two weeks and could be superseded by a U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay marriage due by the end of June, violates the state constitution.

"I am dismayed by those judges in our state who have stated they will recognize and unilaterally enforce a federal court decision which does not bind them," Moore wrote. "I would advise them that the issuance of such licenses would be in defiance of the laws and constitution of Alabama."

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling Reuters

I agree. Let the States decide what they want done in their State and whats considered legal.

So if a state decided that say....guns were illegal, you wouldnt have a problem with that?

 

[The Rabbi]

It should be a state issue mandated by public voting

-Geaux
------------------------------------------

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling
BY JONATHAN KAMINSKY

Tue Jan 27, 2015 6:54pm EST


n">(Reuters) - In a move viewed skeptically by legal experts, the socially conservative chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court on Tuesday encouraged judges in his state to ignore a federal ruling last week striking down its ban on gay marriage.

Justice Roy Moore, in a letter addressed to Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, said Friday's federal ruling, which was put on hold for two weeks and could be superseded by a U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay marriage due by the end of June, violates the state constitution.

"I am dismayed by those judges in our state who have stated they will recognize and unilaterally enforce a federal court decision which does not bind them," Moore wrote. "I would advise them that the issuance of such licenses would be in defiance of the laws and constitution of Alabama."

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling Reuters

I agree. Let the States decide what they want done in their State and whats considered legal.

So if a state decided that say....guns were illegal, you wouldnt have a problem with that?

Illinois and Chicago basically did just that. Libs cheered.
What's yer point?

 

[Skylar]

Ah! Enlightened, progressive Alabama! They told us that slavery and the subsequent Jim Crow laws were matters of "state's rights".

So these southern knuckledraggers have no problem with repression. It's their "right" as a state to be idiots.

"Segregation now, segregation tomorrow!" Said Fascist-in-Chief George Wallace. Today's Alabamian is not that different.

Imagine being so convinced that hatred is the right thing to do that you would wrap yourself in e time worn State's Rights argument.

Do you ever tire of being stupid?
Wallace was a progressive, btw.
Anyway, Judge Moore is correct. States should nullify the federal law, just as COlorado did.

The issue isn't federal law. The issue is federal court rulings. There's no supreme court ruling that says states must outlaw marijuana. So Colorado didn't nullify any such ruling.

Colorado nullified Federal law. Alabama should do the same.

A federal court ruling isn't 'federal law'. Making your post a non sequitur.

 

[Skylar]

It should be a state issue mandated by public voting

-Geaux
------------------------------------------

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling
BY JONATHAN KAMINSKY

Tue Jan 27, 2015 6:54pm EST


n">(Reuters) - In a move viewed skeptically by legal experts, the socially conservative chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court on Tuesday encouraged judges in his state to ignore a federal ruling last week striking down its ban on gay marriage.

Justice Roy Moore, in a letter addressed to Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, said Friday's federal ruling, which was put on hold for two weeks and could be superseded by a U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay marriage due by the end of June, violates the state constitution.

"I am dismayed by those judges in our state who have stated they will recognize and unilaterally enforce a federal court decision which does not bind them," Moore wrote. "I would advise them that the issuance of such licenses would be in defiance of the laws and constitution of Alabama."

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling Reuters

I agree. Let the States decide what they want done in their State and whats considered legal.

So if a state decided that say....guns were illegal, you wouldnt have a problem with that?

Illinois and Chicago basically did just that. Libs cheered.
What's yer point?

That the federal courts intervened on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees. If such intervention is 'judicial tyranny', wouldnt that be just as true for overturning gun restrictions as it would be for gay marriage?

Its the exact same process overturning the will of duly elected representatives and state authority in both cases.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ah! Enlightened, progressive Alabama! They told us that slavery and the subsequent Jim Crow laws were matters of "state's rights".

So these southern knuckledraggers have no problem with repression. It's their "right" as a state to be idiots.

"Segregation now, segregation tomorrow!" Said Fascist-in-Chief George Wallace. Today's Alabamian is not that different.

Imagine being so convinced that hatred is the right thing to do that you would wrap yourself in e time worn State's Rights argument.

Do you ever tire of being stupid?
Wallace was a progressive, btw.
Anyway, Judge Moore is correct. States should nullify the federal law, just as COlorado did.

The issue isn't federal law. The issue is federal court rulings. There's no supreme court ruling that says states must outlaw marijuana. So Colorado didn't nullify any such ruling.

Colorado nullified Federal law. Alabama should do the same.

A federal court ruling isn't 'federal law'. Making your post a non sequitur.

Of course it is. It is a distinction without a difference.

 

[The Rabbi]

It should be a state issue mandated by public voting

-Geaux
------------------------------------------

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling
BY JONATHAN KAMINSKY

Tue Jan 27, 2015 6:54pm EST


n">(Reuters) - In a move viewed skeptically by legal experts, the socially conservative chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court on Tuesday encouraged judges in his state to ignore a federal ruling last week striking down its ban on gay marriage.

Justice Roy Moore, in a letter addressed to Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, said Friday's federal ruling, which was put on hold for two weeks and could be superseded by a U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay marriage due by the end of June, violates the state constitution.

"I am dismayed by those judges in our state who have stated they will recognize and unilaterally enforce a federal court decision which does not bind them," Moore wrote. "I would advise them that the issuance of such licenses would be in defiance of the laws and constitution of Alabama."

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling Reuters

I agree. Let the States decide what they want done in their State and whats considered legal.

So if a state decided that say....guns were illegal, you wouldnt have a problem with that?

Illinois and Chicago basically did just that. Libs cheered.
What's yer point?

That the federal courts intervened on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees. If such intervention is 'judicial tyranny', wouldnt that be just as true for overturning gun restrictions as it would be for gay marriage?

Its the exact same process overturning the will of duly elected representatives anf state authority in both cases.

You obviously fail. I mean that in a general sense.
The 2A is explicit about firearms and the people's rights to them.
Where is marriage even mentioned in the Constitution?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It should be a state issue mandated by public voting

-Geaux
------------------------------------------

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling
BY JONATHAN KAMINSKY

Tue Jan 27, 2015 6:54pm EST


n">(Reuters) - In a move viewed skeptically by legal experts, the socially conservative chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court on Tuesday encouraged judges in his state to ignore a federal ruling last week striking down its ban on gay marriage.

Justice Roy Moore, in a letter addressed to Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, said Friday's federal ruling, which was put on hold for two weeks and could be superseded by a U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay marriage due by the end of June, violates the state constitution.

"I am dismayed by those judges in our state who have stated they will recognize and unilaterally enforce a federal court decision which does not bind them," Moore wrote. "I would advise them that the issuance of such licenses would be in defiance of the laws and constitution of Alabama."

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling Reuters

Nonsense.

Citizens' civil rights aren't subject to popular vote.

 

[Skylar]

Ah! Enlightened, progressive Alabama! They told us that slavery and the subsequent Jim Crow laws were matters of "state's rights".

So these southern knuckledraggers have no problem with repression. It's their "right" as a state to be idiots.

"Segregation now, segregation tomorrow!" Said Fascist-in-Chief George Wallace. Today's Alabamian is not that different.

Imagine being so convinced that hatred is the right thing to do that you would wrap yourself in e time worn State's Rights argument.

Do you ever tire of being stupid?
Wallace was a progressive, btw.
Anyway, Judge Moore is correct. States should nullify the federal law, just as COlorado did.

The issue isn't federal law. The issue is federal court rulings. There's no supreme court ruling that says states must outlaw marijuana. So Colorado didn't nullify any such ruling.

Colorado nullified Federal law. Alabama should do the same.

A federal court ruling isn't 'federal law'. Making your post a non sequitur.

Of course it is. It is a distinction without a difference.

Of course it isn't. As the entire basis and process of each is wildly different. Federal law is a legislative action based on constitutionally granted powers. Federal court rulings relevant to this discussion are interpretations of the constition itself based on individual rights.

You may equate powers of the government with rights of people, but a rational person never would. And the law certainly doesn't.

Colorado isn't violating any federal court ruling. Nullifying your nullification arguement.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Constitution and SCOTUS trumps.

 

[Roadrunner]

It should be a state issue mandated by public voting

-Geaux
------------------------------------------

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling
BY JONATHAN KAMINSKY

Tue Jan 27, 2015 6:54pm EST


n">(Reuters) - In a move viewed skeptically by legal experts, the socially conservative chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court on Tuesday encouraged judges in his state to ignore a federal ruling last week striking down its ban on gay marriage.

No, it is time for a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage.

Personally, I don't give a fuck how it is defined.


Justice Roy Moore, in a letter addressed to Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, said Friday's federal ruling, which was put on hold for two weeks and could be superseded by a U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay marriage due by the end of June, violates the state constitution.

"I am dismayed by those judges in our state who have stated they will recognize and unilaterally enforce a federal court decision which does not bind them," Moore wrote. "I would advise them that the issuance of such licenses would be in defiance of the laws and constitution of Alabama."

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling Reuters

 

[The Rabbi]

It should be a state issue mandated by public voting

-Geaux
------------------------------------------

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling
BY JONATHAN KAMINSKY

Tue Jan 27, 2015 6:54pm EST


n">(Reuters) - In a move viewed skeptically by legal experts, the socially conservative chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court on Tuesday encouraged judges in his state to ignore a federal ruling last week striking down its ban on gay marriage.

Justice Roy Moore, in a letter addressed to Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, said Friday's federal ruling, which was put on hold for two weeks and could be superseded by a U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay marriage due by the end of June, violates the state constitution.

"I am dismayed by those judges in our state who have stated they will recognize and unilaterally enforce a federal court decision which does not bind them," Moore wrote. "I would advise them that the issuance of such licenses would be in defiance of the laws and constitution of Alabama."

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling Reuters

Nonsense.

Citizens' civil rights aren't subject to popular vote.

It's not a civil rights issue. In any case voting qualification, firearms ownership, and everything else is regulated and subject to restriction. Marriage is no different.

 

[The Rabbi]

Do you ever tire of being stupid?
Wallace was a progressive, btw.
Anyway, Judge Moore is correct. States should nullify the federal law, just as COlorado did.

The issue isn't federal law. The issue is federal court rulings. There's no supreme court ruling that says states must outlaw marijuana. So Colorado didn't nullify any such ruling.

Colorado nullified Federal law. Alabama should do the same.

A federal court ruling isn't 'federal law'. Making your post a non sequitur.

Of course it is. It is a distinction without a difference.

Of course it isn't. As the entire basis and process of each is wildly different. Federal law is a legislative action based on constitutionally granted powers. Federal court rulings relevant to this discussion are interpretations of the constition itself based on individual rights.

You may equate powers of the government with rights of people, but a rational person never would. And the law certainly doesn't.

Colorado isn't violating any federal court ruling. Nullifying your nullification arguement.

That is grossly ignorant. So ignorant it doesnt even bear refuting.

 

[Skylar]

It should be a state issue mandated by public voting

-Geaux
------------------------------------------

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling
BY JONATHAN KAMINSKY

Tue Jan 27, 2015 6:54pm EST


n">(Reuters) - In a move viewed skeptically by legal experts, the socially conservative chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court on Tuesday encouraged judges in his state to ignore a federal ruling last week striking down its ban on gay marriage.

Justice Roy Moore, in a letter addressed to Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, said Friday's federal ruling, which was put on hold for two weeks and could be superseded by a U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay marriage due by the end of June, violates the state constitution.

"I am dismayed by those judges in our state who have stated they will recognize and unilaterally enforce a federal court decision which does not bind them," Moore wrote. "I would advise them that the issuance of such licenses would be in defiance of the laws and constitution of Alabama."

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling Reuters

I agree. Let the States decide what they want done in their State and whats considered legal.

So if a state decided that say....guns were illegal, you wouldnt have a problem with that?

Illinois and Chicago basically did just that. Libs cheered.
What's yer point?

That the federal courts intervened on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees. If such intervention is 'judicial tyranny', wouldnt that be just as true for overturning gun restrictions as it would be for gay marriage?

Its the exact same process overturning the will of duly elected representatives anf state authority in both cases.

You obviously fail. I mean that in a general sense.
The 2A is explicit about firearms and the people's rights to them.
Where is marriage even mentioned in the Constitution?

And where does the constitution limit the rights of the people to that which is explicitly enumerated in the constitution? There is no such limit. In fact, the founders explicitly refuted the very idea with the 9th amendment....insisting that the people retain reserve rihts not enumerated in the constitution.

If you'be never read the 9th amendment, I can't see how you can participate in this conversation intelligently.

And of course the 14th requires equal protection in the law. If you are going to deny rights to one group, you need a valid reason to do so. And in the case of gay marriage bans , the state has no compelling interest nor a valid reason. Which is why 44 if 46 federal court rulings have ruled against such bans.

 

[The Rabbi]

I agree. Let the States decide what they want done in their State and whats considered legal.

So if a state decided that say....guns were illegal, you wouldnt have a problem with that?

Illinois and Chicago basically did just that. Libs cheered.
What's yer point?

That the federal courts intervened on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees. If such intervention is 'judicial tyranny', wouldnt that be just as true for overturning gun restrictions as it would be for gay marriage?

Its the exact same process overturning the will of duly elected representatives anf state authority in both cases.

You obviously fail. I mean that in a general sense.
The 2A is explicit about firearms and the people's rights to them.
Where is marriage even mentioned in the Constitution?

And where does the constitution limit the rights of the people to that which is explicitly enumerated in the constitution? There is no such limit. In fact, the founders explicitly refuted the very idea with the 9th amendment....insisting that the people retain reserve rihts not enumerated in the constitution.

If you'be never read the 9th amendment, I can't see how you can participate in this conversation intelligently.

And of course the 14th requires equal protection in the law. If you are going to deny rights to one group, you need a valid reason to do so. And in the case of gay marriage bans , the state has no compelling interest nor a valid reason. Which is why 44 if 46 federal court rulings have ruled against such bans.

That's so simplistic and ignorant as not to even warrant rebuttal.