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

[Skylar]

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.

Translation: you know I'm right, you have no counter argument, and you can't even find a point to disagree with.

You're not very good at this, Rabbi.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Laughing......so once again, you can't rebut or refute any point raised. So you run.

Well that was easy.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Laughing......so once again, you can't rebut or refute any point raised. So you run.

Well that was easy.

Yeaj thats it. Here's your trophy, kid.
Your stupidity and ignorance ooze out of every thread you post on. I just dont have time to explain why you are completely wrong. Go ask an adult for help.

 

[Skylar]

Rabbi.....you've removed yourself from this conversation by refusing to discuss the topic. When and if that changes you'll be permitted to return. Until then you have nothing to contribute.

 

[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

Nonsense.

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

Exactly. Any state law that violates the priveleges and immunities of federal citizens is forbidden by the 14th amendment. Rights trump powers. Be it the right to keep and bear arms, the right to vote or the right to marry.....if the state violates those rights the federal courts can intervene and over rule such laws.

And regularly do.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Rabbi is merely posting his opinion without any reason why it should be adopted.

 

[bodecea]

Roy Moore is an old unreconstructed social conservative confederate.

What he states does not mean anything.

It will be interesting to watch him fail.............again.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is just a façade those hostile to gay Americans use to hide their unwanted fear and hate.

 

[Skylar]

The Rabbi is merely posting his opinion without any reason why it should be adopted.

Don't forget Rabbi's 'secret arguments'. You know, the one's that prove he's right...but he doesn't have time to explain. Or the one's he did explain....but can't locate, describe or cite in anyway.

Rabbi has a retort for every argument. Well, as long as you don't ask to see any of it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Rabbi is merely posting his opinion without any reason why it should be adopted.

Don't forget Rabbi's 'secret arguments'. You know, the one's that prove he's right...but he doesn't have time to explain. Or the one's he did explain....but can't locate, describe or cite in anyway.

Rabbi has a retort for every argument. Well, as long as you don't ask to see any of it.

A number on the far right and the far left do that: the say the have proved something or posted arguments (which they never), then accuse anyone of pointing that out as liars.

Some will do it as general practice (Yurt, The Rabbi) and a few will do it only one subject (Hollie on atheism).

Folks find them out quickly enough.

To the OP: the judge in AL is a loon, has been censured before, and will be again.

 

[Skylar]

The Rabbi is merely posting his opinion without any reason why it should be adopted.

Don't forget Rabbi's 'secret arguments'. You know, the one's that prove he's right...but he doesn't have time to explain. Or the one's he did explain....but can't locate, describe or cite in anyway.

Rabbi has a retort for every argument. Well, as long as you don't ask to see any of it.

A number on the far right and the far left do that: the say the have proved something or posted arguments (which they never), then accuse anyone of pointing that out as liars.

Some will do it as general practice (Yurt, The Rabbi) and a few will do it only one subject (Hollie on atheism).

Folks find them out quickly enough.

To the OP: the judge in AL is a loon, has been censured before, and will be again.

Censured? He was removed from office for nearly a decade. Removed in 2003 for exactly this kind of shit by the Court of the Judiciary in Alabama.

 

[The Rabbi]

This is just a façade those hostile to gay Americans use to hide their unwanted fear and hate.

Yeah yeah yeah. Fear and hate are the only reasons to oppose gay marriage. Youve beaten that horse to death.

 

[Skylar]

This is just a façade those hostile to gay Americans use to hide their unwanted fear and hate.

Yeah yeah yeah. Fear and hate are the only reasons to oppose gay marriage. Youve beaten that horse to death.

Its not the only reason. But its a sadly common reason among your ilk.

With 'Where_r_my_keys' threatening that unless gays 'sit down and shut the fuck up' a war would be waged against them that would 'make hate crimes look like a Sunday brunch'. With St. Mikey defending the threats, insisting 'even Jesus went on a rampage'.

Which is just base thuggery dripping with hate and fear.

 

[Seawytch]

This is just a façade those hostile to gay Americans use to hide their unwanted fear and hate.

Yeah yeah yeah. Fear and hate are the only reasons to oppose gay marriage. Youve beaten that horse to death.

Look, Rabbi got something right for once!!!!

Not a single anti gay law has a rational basis and are based on animus.

 

[The Rabbi]

This is just a façade those hostile to gay Americans use to hide their unwanted fear and hate.

Yeah yeah yeah. Fear and hate are the only reasons to oppose gay marriage. Youve beaten that horse to death.

Look, Rabbi got something right for once!!!!

Not a single anti gay law has a rational basis and are based on animus.

That's certainly what you believe.
It isnt true, not remotely. But you believe it anyway.

 

[Seawytch]

This is just a façade those hostile to gay Americans use to hide their unwanted fear and hate.

Yeah yeah yeah. Fear and hate are the only reasons to oppose gay marriage. Youve beaten that horse to death.

Look, Rabbi got something right for once!!!!

Not a single anti gay law has a rational basis and are based on animus.

That's certainly what you believe.
It isnt true, not remotely. But you believe it anyway.

If it wasn't true, they wouldn't keep losing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is just a façade those hostile to gay Americans use to hide their unwanted fear and hate.

Yeah yeah yeah. Fear and hate are the only reasons to oppose gay marriage. Youve beaten that horse to death.

Nope, you keep trying to revive the dead horse of fear mongering hetero-fascist hatred.

 

[Syriusly]

It should be a state issue mandated by public voting

Sure- just like Alabama voters decided to eliminate the ban on mixed race marriages.....in 1990

Alabama Interracial Marriage Amendment 2 2000 - Ballotpedia

23 years after the Supreme Court ruled that such bans were unconstitutional.

Let the voters decide.......

 

[Syriusly]

From the OP link:

"Ronald Krotoszynski, a constitutional law expert at the University of Alabama School of Law, said Moore's words carry little legal weight, as federal constitutional law trumps that of states.
"There is no credible legal argument that an order from a federal judge with jurisdiction over a matter isn't binding

The only federal judge Alabama should listen to on the question of so-called "gay marriage" is the highest ranking judge in the federal appelate system.

But not the Supreme Court?

That is a bizarre claim even for you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bizzaro = Sil

On constitutional issues, any federal judge in a state outranks the state's ranking judge.

Windsor is very clear that on matters constitutional, SCOTUS retains supremacy.