• 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

Taylor said:
That's just wrong. Last I read, the vast majority of states have existing law that differs from the federal precedent. This continues to occur as recently as a couple of years ago.



District court rulings are not binding. Sorry. Higher courts did not consider whether or not to overturn the ruling, just whether or not to stay.


Moore has that right regardless of what happens. Had the governor not refused to enforce Moore's order to not issuelicenses to same sex couples, probate judges would have been in a "damned if you do, rammed if you don't" position that could only be resolved by the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

It isn't wrong. It's verbatim from his mouth "Indeed, state courts have authority equal to that of federal trial and appellate courts to interpret the Constitution." I'm not sure what you are trying to refer to but when a Federal court ruling on a federal question is issued it trumps state law so long as the ruling is issued within the jurisdiction of the court and is applicable. State courts do not have 'equal authority' to interpret the Constitution to federal courts.

District court orders are absolutely binding on the states when directed against officials for violations of the Constitution, which this was. There is no credible argument that an order from a district court judge on a federal question isn't binding. Moore knows this and his only redoubt has been that the probate judges aren't really under the authority of the 'state' i.e. the executive and he has the sole authority to instruct them and that therefore no order is being violated.

He is going to lose.
 
Last edited:
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Taylor said:
This is a district court case. There is more than one district in the state. Justices in other districts need not comply with this ruling as it is non-binding.
Click to expand...


What you previously said was "Probate judges are not currently required to issue licenses to same-sex couples (in fact, the opposite) but that could change starting Thursday."

Judge Davis IS in the same District and as of today is a named defendant in the case for refusing to issue licenses. Hearing is Thursday, I'd expect a ruling on Friday.


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

Taylor said:
This is a district court case. There is more than one district in the state. Justices in other districts need not comply with this ruling as it is non-binding.
Click to expand...

When a district court issues an order to state officials under the basis of a Constitutional violation they must obey. They aren't giving a parallel interpretation to consider they've been given a direct order.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

In any event this will all be over soon and SSM will likely be the law of the land before summer. We can finally put the issue behind us.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

WorldWatcher said:
What you previously said was "Probate judges are not currently required to issue licenses to same-sex couples (in fact, the opposite) but that could change starting Thursday."

Judge Davis IS in the same District and as of today is a named defendant in the case for refusing to issue licenses. Hearing is Thursday, I'd expect a ruling on Friday.


>>>>
Click to expand...
?? If you're pointing out an area of disagreement that I haven't already addressed, I don't follow. Yes, all of the above is true.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Sherman123 said:
When a district court issues an order to state officials under the basis of a Constitutional violation they must obey. They aren't giving a parallel interpretation to consider they've been given a direct order.
Click to expand...
Yes, an order is different than non-binding precedent.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Sherman123 said:
It isn't wrong. It's verbatim from his mouth "Indeed, state courts have authority equal to that of federal trial and appellate courts to interpret the Constitution." I'm not sure what you are trying to refer to but when a Federal court ruling on a federal question is issued it trumps state law so long as the ruling is issued within the jurisdiction of the court and is applicable. State courts do not have 'equal authority' to interpret the Constitution to federal courts.
Click to expand...
Sorry, you're either making this up, or are relying on sources that don't understand how the law works. Neither district or circuit court of appeals rulings are binding on state courts.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Peter Grimm said:
Have you read any American history?

We're the UNITED STATES, emphasis on STATES. The way things are now, we ought to change the name of our country to the American Federal Republic.

What the hell does a state do anymore? I'll tell you, what we have become is NOT what the original founders had in mind.
Click to expand...

Yes, we are the United States, but the emphasis is no longer on the states, a fact that was taken care of well over a century ago in this conflict known to us as the Civil War. That is the main thing the Civil War was about, placing the federal powers above the states' when it comes to particularly individual rights of the people of those states. It is when we became "the United States" as a country, not "the united states" as a group of state. It is why we say the United States "is" rather than "are".
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Peter Grimm said:
Wouldn't it?

If the federal government hadn't stepped in, would Alabama still be segregated today? I seriously doubt it. Just because progress sometimes occurs more slowly in some places compared to others, doesn't give Uncle Sam the right to force-feed that progress upon an unwilling public.

You have to let things run their course, let people determine their own destiny.
Click to expand...

Considering the fact that Alabama just recently removed, as in within the last 2 years, segregation mandates from its state constitution, despite the laws not being able to be enforced for over 50 years now, I'd say it isn't too hard to imagine that Alabama might still be segregated today without the SCOTUS decision. The vote wasn't even unanimous and it was done by the legislature, because the people have yet to vote to do so.

Alabama Is Still Removing Segregationist Language from Its Constitution - The Wire

I can't actually find out if the mandate was actually removed.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

roguenuke said:
Considering the fact that Alabama just recently removed, as in within the last 2 years, segregation mandates from its state constitution, despite the laws not being able to be enforced for over 50 years now, I'd say it isn't too hard to imagine that Alabama might still be segregated today without the SCOTUS decision. The vote wasn't even unanimous and it was done by the legislature, because the people have yet to vote to do so.

Alabama Is Still Removing Segregationist Language from Its Constitution - The Wire

I can't actually find out if the mandate was actually removed.
Click to expand...

And yet he never responds to this stuff.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Wiggen said:
Alabama - still the force for progress now that it was during the 1960's. Some things never change.
Click to expand...

nope still many bigots in the area unfortunately
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

it's just me said:
What I disagree with is your definition of public accommodation laws, which protect YOUR discrimination.
Click to expand...

actually by design and definition they protect all of us :shrug:
deuce provided no illegal discrimination
 
Last edited:
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

it's just me said:
This has been explained over and over again, but Ill try it one more time: anybody can go into a bakery and buy any cake on display, and a craftsman does not have to accept a custom order from anybody. Not getting your way is not "discrimination", it's called freedom.
Click to expand...

good thing nobody is talking about that made up scenario than
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

it's just me said:
Well, guess what? Public businesses are owned by Latinos, females, and Swedes.
Click to expand...

correct and they can't choose to break the law, violate peoples rights and illegal discriminate either without consequences. . . .

nobody gets special rules we all play by the same or we dont get to play
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

it's just me said:
It's a matter of who you want to discriminate against, which is what I have been saying all along. You think your position is superior, I say it's just more discrimination claiming to be anti-discriminatory. Hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

and your claim has been proven wrong as theres no honest logic that supports that absurd claim
 
Last edited:
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Taylor said:
There is no possibility of contempt because they were not parties to the case.

The decision is non binding because it is a district court case. It is not even binding within the same district much less the entire state. The only thing "binding" (for lack of a better word) is the order directed at the defendant, which is the Attorney General with no power over issuing marriage licenses.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. District courts have the power to decide matters of Federal law. That's their job. Higher courts hear appeals to those decisions. The district court's ruling is law until overturned. Further you do not have to be a party to an action to be held in contempt. It depends entirely on the wording of the order which reads in part:

Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS that the Alabama Attorney General is prohibited from enforcing the Alabama laws which prohibit same-sex marriage. This injunction binds the defendant and all his officers, agents, servants and
employees, and others in active concert or participation with any of them, who would seek to enforce the marriage laws of Alabama which prohibit same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...

The bolded part would seem to apply to any state officer.


Federal contempt powers, judicial contempt powers generally, are pretty broad:
Federal Contempt of Court by Joel Androphy.

The chief judge and his probate judges look to be treading on very thin ice.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Texmex said:
The Governor's jurisdiction ends at the state line. I would love to see someone file a federal complaint against these judges for violating their civil rights.
Click to expand...

:shrug: a district court is different than an appeals court.






But what I appreciate about the whole incident is the obviousness of the coercion and the enforcement of mass obedience.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Can't wait to see how this all goes down

those that violate rights I hope are removed, held in contempt, fined, and or jailed. Whatever the extent of the law is I hope punishments are issued in maximum force and length :D
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

court case already in route for judges deifying the law

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/u...-advocates-renew-legal-push-for-licenses.html

they better get thier **** together, complaints and others suits are also in the works . . . if they dont pull there head out of thier asses they may find themselves jobless, fined or possibly in jail

LMAO stupid bigots :laughat:
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Peter Grimm said:
Provide evidence that me walking naked in times square harms children.
Click to expand...

Many of us don't believe this does cause harm. However, there is a legitimate argument that bodily fluids that are normally contained by clothing can cause a public health concern. This public health concern at the very least is legitimate enough of a state interest to justify laws that require covering at least the genitalia. We may see a challenge to these laws in the future that goes differently, and I know at least I wouldn't care if they were struck down, particularly those that prevent women from exposing their breasts.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Peter Grimm said:
For the same reason I can't streak times square
Click to expand...

Wrong. It is not the same reason at all, in any way, shape or form. No legal argument could be made that way. Your personal opinion to the contrary matters zilch in court.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Peter Grimm said:
It's not gender discriminaton. Which gender is being discriminated against?
Click to expand...

Both in the application of the bans depending on which gender of person is requesting to get married.

Just as if there was a law that said that only men could be police officers and only women could be teachers but that the state would ensure the pay average is the same for each group to ensure that neither profession is getting more pay/benefits than the other. This would be gender discrimination against each gender eventhough both genders are restricted from doing something and both are allowed to do something. Application of the law is on an individual basis.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

AGENT J said:
yep seems like that might happen for a few judges . . . .

Most Alabama Counties Defy Feds by Blocking Gay Marriage - ABC News
Click to expand...

I was thinking about my own case of when I went to get married, and I would be pissed if this went on for more than a few days. Some people are limited on how much time they have to get married and such delays based solely on something like this, which is in violation of a federal order, deserve for those making these decisions to face some punishment and to have to be held accountable for anyone who is financially impacted solely on this decision which is made to violate rights. I hope there are some opposite sex couples who join the suit as well.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

it's just me said:
What the hell are you even talking about?
Click to expand...

If I have to explain it to you, you wouldn't understand.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Taylor said:
There is no possibility of contempt because they were not parties to the case.

The decision is non binding because it is a district court case. It is not even binding within the same district much less the entire state. The only thing "binding" (for lack of a better word) is the order directed at the defendant, which is the Attorney General with no power over issuing marriage licenses.
Click to expand...

No. The Supreme Court has repeatedly clarified this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom