• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses[W:344,535,718]

Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

I made the point when people in this thread were claiming these probate judges were breaking the law, acting in contempt, were going to be sued and disbarred for their refusal to issue licenses. All false because they were not a party to the lawsuit and therefore are not (yet) required to abide by the decision. As I also said earlier, this will likely change starting tomorrow when the judge hears requests to add the first judge as a defendant.

Fair enough. My understanding is that you don't have to be a party to the lawsuit to be held in civil contempt. You only need to be subject to a court order. Judge Garande denied the contempt motion because in her words "the order didn't directly order [Probate Judge] Davis to do anything." She drafted the order so we have to take her word for it's interpretation but I read it to be inclusive of all state agents.

In any case you're right. They'll be added as defendants in the next few days and will either comply or be held in contempt.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Fair enough. My understanding is that you don't have to be a party to the lawsuit to be held in civil contempt. You only need to be subject to a court order.
Yes, it's certainly true that state officials over which the attorney general has control must comply without being named specifically.

With respect to Davis, he was originally named as a defendant, but for some odd reason they requested he be removed, now they're fixing that error.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

As are you. It's because of people with your attitude that we had black and white drinking fountains and black students not allowed to attend state universities. Thankfully, you are a vanishing breed.

That's just funny. If there were more people like me, who want the Constitution enforced, there would not have been black & white drinking fountains. It's the people like you, on the left, who just care about the ends, and screw the Constitution, that enable governments to take our liberties.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

[/B]

To the bolded, that's interesting commentary. Which, if either, do you consider superior?

I prefer to think of myself as a US citizen first, and actually don't really think that much about being a citizen of the state I live in. It may have to do with many things. For one, I haven't lived in the same state since I became an adult for longer than 4 years, and even then I knew it would be "temporary" since it was due to being stationed there, either me or my husband. And I never really cared which state I ended up in once I got out, so long as I got to check out the specific area we would be moving to beforehand. It started prior to my joining the military though. This could be because my parents are from different states and their families from different parts of the country (mother from North, father from South). My mother and her family seemed to be much more positive influences on my feelings and how I was raised though. Being raised in the South, there were plenty of my peers that would say things like "the South will rise again". I was actually born in a different state than the one I consider my home state because my parents were in the Army at the time.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think there is any issue with having pride in the state you are from or trying to defend it. I do however feel that the main argument people use concerning states' rights is that the federal government is attempting to create a tyranny over the states, to "steal" their power. The problem here is that in most cases, the states are actually trying to prevent individuals from doing something or treating them unequally using laws and justifying this as "the majority of this state wants this". A tyranny of the majority is such whether it is a majority of the country or a majority within the state. The most important thing the Constitution was meant to protect was individual freedoms, and despite many beliefs, the founding fathers were not in agreement in whether states or the federal government should have more power. There was a lot of division in this.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

That's just funny. If there were more people like me, who want the Constitution enforced, there would not have been black & white drinking fountains. It's the people like you, on the left, who just care about the ends, and screw the Constitution, that enable governments to take our liberties.

the majority of your posts prove this wrong lol
also when you say "left" your post is sure to fail just like when a person says "right" and groups them all together
you have proven many times over that you are not interested in the constitution or individual rights
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

I didn't say the SCOTUS can't take cases on Constitutionality. Who would enforce it? That's the problem. Who is enforcing the Constitution now? Seems to me that nobody is, or just barely, if at all.

That's why Obama can run around threatening Congress that they better make a law that he wants, or he'll do it himself. Absolutely a separation of powers issue. But he doesn't care, who is going to stop him? No one on the left and very few republicans. He is abusing the system.

The Founders just assumed that if the President tried to take Congress's powers, that they would stop him. They never thought that they would just lay down like these idiots. So we are left with no one to stop this stuff.

The enforcement comes from various places, including the people believing that such rulings should be binding and enforced. We have also seen that the other branches are willing to enforce and/or abide by the SCOTUS' rulings as well, as is evidenced by the fact that states don't enforce sodomy laws or other laws that have been struck down by the SCOTUS in the past. Look at Loving or Brown, both contested by small groups of people or in at least one famous case, a governor, but still enforced even through action (National Guard escorts).

In reality, any law could simply be ignored if people wanted to do so and there would be nothing the legislature, the President, or SCOTUS could do about it if enough people ignored the law.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

The majority have no idea how this government runs. If they did, I doubt they would approve a jurocracy.

If you're willing to sell your power of self-determination as a people for the small price of allowing gay marriage....that's your decision. I disagree strongly.

I refuse to grant that power to the state governments, who have proven time and again that they have much less respect for individual rights, my individual freedoms, than the federal government has ever shown.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Best part about this . . . .

in the end it is and will actually HELP equal rights lol

just like all the bannings did and discrimination did before it

I knew when DOMA fell that was basically it, it would be a domino fact because states and business and bigots etc would be rushing to find ways to discriminate or to keep discriminating and that would give a very solid legal vehicle to use to fight for equal rights.

There was actually no bigger help than all the state banning . . . . it made it perfect to fight against that illegal discrimination and reverse it, making those unconstitutional laws reality is what helped more than anything else . . .

its awesome actually I laugh everyday at how stupid they were and bigots like them for actually helping without realizing it . . .

its sweat poetic justice and it leaves them upset, crying and with egg all over thier faces :laughat:
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Until a pattern is proven and they're hauled into court and have to choose between committing perjury and losing a lawsuit

The thought police haven't perfected mind reading. But keep your fantasies about being able to control people's lives, it will see you through.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Yes, keep naming two extremely rare and unlikely scenarios as if it comes remotely close to the harm done to gay couples. Taking pictures for a half hour doesn't force you to 'approve' anything either. It just means doing your ****ing job the same as always

Tons of people do things they don't like in their jobs, and i would laugh in the face of any right wing tears, except i know they don't give a damn about the bigot baker or photographer, except to use them to oppress

Oh, good, if you only destroy a few people's lives and life work that makes it okay. I'm so pleased.

BTW, I don't do things on the job I don't like, I enjoy my job, but then, I'm not you.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Oh, good, if you only destroy a few people's lives and life work that makes it okay. I'm so pleased.

BTW, I don't do things on the job I don't like, I enjoy my job, but then, I'm not you.

equal rights isn't destroying anybody lives or life work so you can rest easy now, that fantasy isnt happening
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

>

Today should be interesting; at 1:00 PM there is a hearing in Federal District court to determine if the court will issue an injunction against a Probate Court Judge ordering him to issue Civil Marriages licenses.

To recap the Federal District Court ruled Alabama Same-sex Marriage ban was unconstitutional (Link 1). A couple of days later a clarifying order was issued (Link 2). The State went to the 11 Circuit for a stay and it was rejected. Then they went to the SCOTUS and it was rejected. Some Probate Judges have been issuing licenses in accordance with the Federal Judge’s ruling, some have been issuing licenses only to different-sex couples, and some have refused to issue any licenses. Probate Judge Don Davis has been added as a named defendant (Link 3) and is the subject of the hearing today. Under Alabama Revised Statutes Title 30, Chapter 1, Section 9 (Link 4) Probate Judges are the only ones that can issue licenses and the law says they “may” (not that they “shall). Probate Judge Davis has already gone to the Alabama Supreme Court seeking assistance and they rejected him saying basically he was on his own (Link 5).

So it will interesting to see the outcome of today’s hearing for an injunction against Probate Judge Davis, here are the options I see:

Option #1:
Do nothing, which of course is always an option. I don’t see it happening where a Federal Judge is going to allow a lower court Judge to defy his or her order. But it could happen.

Option #2:
As the only official in the country that can issue Civil Marriage Licenses, the District Court Judge issues an injunction against Probate Judge Davis requiring him to reopen license issuing operations and that licenses will not be denied based on sex. If Probate Judge Davis continues to refuse (as now a named defendant in the case), then he will be in contempt of court and subject to sanction by the Federal District Court as well as possibly being personally required to pay court costs, lawyer’s fees, and damages to any couple (different-sex and same-sex) denied a license based on sex.

Option #3:
Reiterate that Alabama’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional but recognize that under Alabama Revised Statutes (30-1-9) that Probate Judges issuance of Civil Marriage Licenses is optional. Issue an injunction that says that Probate Judge Davis can continue to not offer Civil Marriage Licenses to anyone (different-sex and same-sex) in accordance with Alabama Code, but that if he does resume operations and issues licenses in a discriminatory manner, then he will be in contempt of court and subject to sanction by the Federal District Court as well as possibly personally being required to pay court costs, lawyer’s fees, and damages to any couple (different-sex and same-sex) denied a license based on sex.​

Personally I kind of like Option #3 as it buts the ball squarely in the hands of Probate Judge Davis. He can continue not to issue Civil Marriage Licenses, but in doing so he will be rejecting what 95-97% of the licenses that would be issued (more inconvenience to different-sex couples) so as not to issue license to 3-5% of those requesting licenses. I wonder how long that action would last before the people would go to the legislature asking that the law be changed from “may” issue to “shall” issue removing the option from Probate Judges having optional duties.



*********************************************************

#1 -->> https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=...-14-cv-00208-53-alabama-opinion-and-order.pdf
#2 -->> 1:14-cv-00208 #65 Order Clarifying Judgment
#3 -->> https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1658559-strawser-order-2-10-15.html
#4 -->> Code Of Alabama
#5 -->> Alabama Supreme Court punts on request for 'clarification' of Roy Moore's marriage order | AL.com


>>>>
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

No, her Constitutional interpretation is non-binding... another district court in the state could interpret the Constitution very differently and it would be just as valid (and non-binding).

Not true. Because her order was not stayed or overturned by a higher court, it becomes binding until later reversed.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

That's just funny. If there were more people like me, who want the Constitution enforced, there would not have been black & white drinking fountains. It's the people like you, on the left, who just care about the ends, and screw the Constitution, that enable governments to take our liberties.

Weren't you the guy who wanted judges to change their rulings based on the will of the people?
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

I prefer to think of myself as a US citizen first, and actually don't really think that much about being a citizen of the state I live in. It may have to do with many things. For one, I haven't lived in the same state since I became an adult for longer than 4 years, and even then I knew it would be "temporary" since it was due to being stationed there, either me or my husband. And I never really cared which state I ended up in once I got out, so long as I got to check out the specific area we would be moving to beforehand. It started prior to my joining the military though. This could be because my parents are from different states and their families from different parts of the country (mother from North, father from South). My mother and her family seemed to be much more positive influences on my feelings and how I was raised though. Being raised in the South, there were plenty of my peers that would say things like "the South will rise again". I was actually born in a different state than the one I consider my home state because my parents were in the Army at the time.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think there is any issue with having pride in the state you are from or trying to defend it. I do however feel that the main argument people use concerning states' rights is that the federal government is attempting to create a tyranny over the states, to "steal" their power. The problem here is that in most cases, the states are actually trying to prevent individuals from doing something or treating them unequally using laws and justifying this as "the majority of this state wants this". A tyranny of the majority is such whether it is a majority of the country or a majority within the state. The most important thing the Constitution was meant to protect was individual freedoms, and despite many beliefs, the founding fathers were not in agreement in whether states or the federal government should have more power. There was a lot of division in this.

Some good points here. Thanks for posting.

I moved some early on due to my dad's job. But once I got to third grade, we stayed in the same state until I was out of college, when I moved to California and have been here ever since.

I agree on your points re what most people do when they discuss states' rights.

I always find it interesting - even though I do it myself - that we don't have a problem with the courts when they agree with us, only when they don't. (I personally think Citizens' United was a bad decision. However, I'm not threatening to overthrow the federal govt because of it).
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Not true. Because her order was not stayed or overturned by a higher court, it becomes binding until later reversed.


I think what Taylor is alluding to is that District Court rulings are binding, but only within their Jurisdiction. There are multiple Federal District Courts in Alabama and Judge Granade's ruling is only truly binding in her own district.


>>>>
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Not true. Because her order was not stayed or overturned by a higher court, it becomes binding until later reversed.
Something you keep insisting, but just isn't true. Another judge even within her same district is not bound by the ruling and could come up with a very different interpretation of the law. The state law has not been "overturned" as you claim, it is very much still in effect (and being enforced in many parts of the state). District court rulings don't "overturn" state laws, these cases affect only those who are a party to the case, and therefore only those who are party to the case are bound by the decision (and prohibited from enforcing what is still the law in Alabama). Hence the reason for the hearing today. Once this judge is forced to issue licenses, in all likelihood the rest will follow suit (though they could hold out and force others to spend time and money bringing additional court actions).

An appeals court decision, though still not technically binding on the state courts, would nonetheless have the same effect because all district courts *would* be bound by the decision and therefore would all be expected to rule exactly the same. For now, we have a state with three districts, and a judge that has made a ruling in one of those districts.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Weren't you the guy who wanted judges to change their rulings based on the will of the people?

Judges should be making rulings according to the Constitution, and not stepping into territory where they have no authority.

Let's, briefly, summarize the left's strategy on this, shall we? Good...

They want some big government power grab or iron fisted leftist dictate to become law. They have no where near the support to get the Constitution amended for this. Then, they have a State wide vote, still not enough support, and lose. Ah, well who cares about what the people want, anyway?

Okay, so not enough support there. But they have a back door (no pun intended) that they have been working on for years. Find a court where they've accumulated enough leftist Judges that will ignore the Constitution and follow the leftist agenda instead. People without integrity (a highly desirable characteristic to succeed as a leftist).

And poof! Like magic, a handful, or even just one Judge has eviscerated both the Constitution and the will of the people in one fell swoop.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

I think what Taylor is alluding to is that District Court rulings are binding, but only within their Jurisdiction. There are multiple Federal District Courts in Alabama and Judge Granade's ruling is only truly binding in her own district.


>>>>
The judge only has authority over her district, and only those who are a party to the case are bound by the decision. It is not uncommon for judges within the same district to consider the same legal issue and arrive at different conclusions. The opinions of other judges are considered persuasive, but not binding.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Which is caused by unsafe sexual practices, not homosexuality or same sex relationships.
Not caused by unsafe sexual practices, either.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

equal rights isn't destroying anybody lives or life work so you can rest easy now, that fantasy isnt happening

It is exactly that. I am so sick of authoritarians justifying the destruction of people's lives, homes, and businesses under the mantra of "equal rights", it's only a damn cake, and it's not even close to what blacks struggled with in the 1950's and 60s. Someone challenged you to tell us all how the 14th amendment made it possible for gays to force private businessmen to make gay wedding cakes. Try doing that, instead of spouting your bumper sticker politics.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

1.)It is exactly that.
2.) I am so sick of authoritarians justifying the destruction of people's lives, homes, and businesses under the mantra of "equal rights", it's only a damn cake, and it's not even close to what blacks struggled with in the 1950's and 60s.
3.) Someone challenged you to tell us all how the 14th amendment made it possible for gays to force private businessmen to make gay wedding cakes. Try doing that, instead of spouting your bumper sticker politics.

1.) false it protects lives and life work, that fact wont change
2.) good thing thats not happening
3.) ive never been challenged to do that but to answer your question the 14th doesn't do that, it a failed mentally retarded strawman to claim it does.
the only one spouting bumper sticker politics is you, this is proven by the fact that some of it is just lies and the rest are failed strawmen or empty catch phrases that dont mean anything lol

lets us know when you have a real argument you can back up with facts, thanks
as always if you disagree simply post any facts that support you
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

1.) false it protects lives and life work, that fact wont change
2.) good thing thats not happening
3.) ive never been challenged to do that but to answer your question the 14th doesn't do that, it a failed mentally retarded strawman to claim it does.
the only one spouting bumper sticker politics is you, this is proven by the fact that some of it is just lies and the rest are failed strawmen or empty catch phrases that dont mean anything lol

lets us know when you have a real argument you can back up with facts, thanks
as always if you disagree simply post any facts that support you

Now I remember why I have you on ignore, but you post so much BS in between the sane people I have to look.
 
Back
Top Bottom