I guess they dont remember...or havent revisited lately...what an embarrassment their other Southern brethren were during integration in the 60s?
Ah well. As they say, those that forget history are condemned to repeat it.
They'll go down in history as ignorant, intolerant bigots too.
Here is SCOTUSBlog on the topic: Criticizing Justices, state court bars same-sex marriages : SCOTUSblog
Now what caught my eye is this:
Now, reading the Alabama state constitution, I find this: SECTION 140 :: Alabama Constitution :: Alabama Law :: US Law :: JustiaJudge Shaw’s dissent did not take a position on the constitutionality of the state ban on same-sex marriage, arguing that it was premature for the state supreme court to decide that issue when no lower state court had first ruled on it.
The bloding is mine, and if I understand appellate jurisdiction right, that means they can only rule on cases seen by lower courts. SO if no lower courts have heard this new appeal, then wouldn't the Alabama Supreme Court not have jurisdiction(note, this is a question, not a statement, I am far from an expert, just some one bored and not tired enough to sleep yet so killing time)?Except in cases otherwise directed in this Constitution, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction only, which shall be coextensive with the state, under such restrictions and regulations, not repugnant to this Constitution, as may from time to time be prescribed by law, except where jurisdiction over appeals is vested in some inferior court, and made final therein; provided, that the supreme court shall have power to issue writs of injunction, habeas corpus, quo warranto, and such other remedial and original writs as may be necessary to give it a general superintendence and control of inferior jurisdictions.
Further from the SCOTUSBlog article:
What I take from that is oh boy, what a ****ing mess. So any state judge could, probably, appeal directly to SCOTUS, but no SSM couple could appeal since none are actually named in the state internal crap. They have the power to file suit against any judge, but it would be moot long before the suit was ever heard. So again, what a ****ing mess. And while I do not have a lot of patients with what the Alabama Supreme Court is doing, this would have all been avoided if SCOTUS or the 11th Circuit had granted a stay until the upcoming case before SCOTUS. When you know a definitive ruling is going to be probably coming in just a few months, sometimes it just is best to let things wait. This does not excuse the Alabama Supreme Court, nor really their AG, Luther Strange(that name makes me laugh), but they are not the only ones who could have done better.In ordering an immediate stop to the issuance of any marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the state court stressed that it was extending that order to all sixty-eight probate judges, some of whom have been issuing such licenses in the wake of the Mobile federal judge’s ruling, and, especially, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s refusal to put that ruling on hold.
For judges who had not been named directly in the legal challenge, the state court gave them five days from Tuesday to answer the challenge and argue why they should not have to obey the statewide order against such licensing. For a judge who is directly covered by the federal court ruling, the state court gave him until Thursday to notify it whether that ruling extended beyond the four couples’ licenses that he was ordered to issue.
Because the state court’s ruling is an interpretation of the federal Constitution, it would appear to be subject to direct appeal to the Supreme Court, if any state judge would seek to take the case there.
It is not clear, though, that any same-sex couple would have a right to appeal it; they were not parties in the case before the state tribunal. Such couples, however, presumably could bring a new lawsuit against any state probate judge who, acting on the basis of the order, refused a license.
Edit: oh yeah, the Alabama Supreme Court Order: http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-con...ing-3-3-15.pdf
Searcy v Strange: http://www.scribd.com/doc/253551998/1-14-cv-00208-54
Strawser v Strange: http://www.scribd.com/doc/253889209/...00424-29-Order
The state and all it's agents are in violation of the ruling. There is no such thing as not being under the jurisdiction of the courts or the Constitution.
At some point the ugly deadence that has taken down our culture must be reversed.
It is becoming a matter of survival.