Alabama Supreme Court Orders Judges to Stop Gay Marriages

The Supreme Court of Alabama ordered all the state's probate judges late Tuesday to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the latest salvo in a growing legal battle in Alabama over whether the decisions of federal justices trump those made by state judges.

--
​

The court said Alabama wasn't bound by what it called the "new definition" of marriage, though gay marriage has "gained ascendancy in certain quarters of the country, even if one of those quarters is the federal judiciary."

--
​

In its ruling, the state supreme court said all of Alabama's probate judges, including those listed as "Judge Does" in the legal filings, "are ordered to discontinue the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples." The probate judges have five days to respond to the order.

Click to expand...

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alabama-supreme-court-orders-judges-stop-gay-marriages-n316861

Things continue to heat up in Alabama. This decision was unexpected because it has the potential to place probate judges in a "damned if you, damned if you don't" position. Individual probate judges have five days to make a case as to why they should not be bound by the order, but at this point, it's hard to see this court being sympathetic.

Taylor said:

Things continue to heat up in Alabama. This decision was unexpected because it has the potential to place probate judges in a "damned if you, damned if you don't" position. Individual probate judges have five days to make a case as to why they should not be bound by the order, but at this point, it's hard to see this court being sympathetic.

Click to expand...

I love it

in the end all this does is HELP equal rights
BS like this exposes these bigots and thier illogical and dishonest ways and helps to achieve equality for us all

I hope they keep up the good fight because in the end the victory of equal rights will be that much sweeter and they will look that much more stupid . . . .if thats possible

I don't see the judges being in a damned if they do or damned if they don't situation. They are servants of their state supreme court. If anybody is at risk, it will be the Alabama Supreme Court Justices.

Who woulda thought? Many in Alabama positions of power still openly showing their bigotry! Its not like history doesn't repeat itself!

Declan said:

I don't see the judges being in a damned if they do or damned if they don't situation. They are servants of their state supreme court. If anybody is at risk, it will be the Alabama Supreme Court Justices.

Click to expand...

Depending on further action in the federal court, probate judges could be faced with conflicting orders.

Taylor said:

Alabama Supreme Court Orders Judges to Stop Gay Marriages - NBC News

Things continue to heat up in Alabama. This decision was unexpected because it has the potential to place probate judges in a "damned if you, damned if you don't" position. Individual probate judges have five days to make a case as to why they should not be bound by the order, but at this point, it's hard to see this court being sympathetic.

Click to expand...

Alabama is displaying for everyone to witness....just how completely wacko the anti-gay bigots have become. Wow....do they even know how completely ridiculous they are looking? Remember this is the same state that wants the Confederate flag to fly as well.

This new assertion that lower courts don't have to follow the rulings of higher courts is pretty funny.

Paschendale said:

This new assertion that lower courts don't have to follow the rulings of higher courts is pretty funny.

Click to expand...

wouldnt be surprised if some people lost jobs over this either

Paschendale said:

This new assertion that lower courts don't have to follow the rulings of higher courts is pretty funny.

Click to expand...

It's neither new nor relevant. Federal district court rulings have never been binding on state courts. States that apply federal law are only bound by Supreme Court precedent.

But again, not relevant. These probate judges are not acting in a judicial capacity, they are performing an administrative function (analogous to what might be performed by a county clerk in another state). Excerpt from the lone dissenting opinion:

Issuing marriage licenses is not a function of the court or of its judicial power--the court has no judicial power to issue a marriage license. Instead, it is something the legislature has instructed that probate judges "may" do...There is no exercise of a probate court's jurisdiction when a probate judge issues a marriage license because the source of the probate judge's authority to issue such a license does not stem from the jurisdiction of the court.

Click to expand...

ya I don't get this part

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — The Alabama Supreme Court is ordering the state's probate judges to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.

The all-Republican court sided with a pair of conservative organizations Tuesday in ruling that the U.S. Constitution doesn't alter the judges' duty to administer state law.


I kind of figured a judges duty is to make sure state laws are constitutional or to strike them down

blarg said:

ya I don't get this part

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — The Alabama Supreme Court is ordering the state's probate judges to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.

The all-Republican court sided with a pair of conservative organizations Tuesday in ruling that the U.S. Constitution doesn't alter the judges' duty to administer state law.


I kind of figured a judges duty is to make sure state laws are constitutional or to strike them down

Click to expand...

shhhhhhhhhh
pay no attention to the man beside the curtian

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.

Link dump!

Here is SCOTUSBlog on the topic: Criticizing Justices, state court bars same-sex marriages : SCOTUSblog

Now what caught my eye is this:

Judge 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.

Click to expand...

Now, reading the Alabama state constitution, I find this: SECTION 140 :: Alabama Constitution :: Alabama Law :: US Law :: Justia

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.

Click to expand...

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)?

Further from the SCOTUSBlog article:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Edit: oh yeah, the Alabama Supreme Court Order: http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Alabama-marriage-state-SCt-ruling-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/253889209/1-14-cv-00424-29-Order

Redress said:

What I take from that is oh boy, what a ****ing mess. So any state judge could, probably, appeal directly to SCOTUS,

Click to expand...

I wonder if they'd grant a stay this time around?

Redress said:

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.

Click to expand...

Actually, I believe this can happen fairly quickly - at least in the district over which Judge Granade presides (there are three in the state). They basically request to be "added" to the already decided case. Judge Davis was added as a defendant after it quickly became apparent that the original decision didn't actually do anything. This is something that takes days, not weeks or months. Still a mess, however, since every single judge has to be sued in this manner. Because Judge Granade has no jurisdiction in the other two districts, I believe a separate suit and decision/injunction would be required to get the ball rolling, so probably a longer slog in much of the state.

Redress said:

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)?

Click to expand...

Heh, as there is no other court to appeal to on this issue, I suppose one could argue that if the ASC says they have jurisdiction, then they have jurisdiction whether the law says so or not.

Lursa said:

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.

Click to expand...

many bigots are desperate now just like then

Taylor said:

It's neither new nor relevant. Federal district court rulings have never been binding on state courts. States that apply federal law are only bound by Supreme Court precedent.

But again, not relevant. These probate judges are not acting in a judicial capacity, they are performing an administrative function (analogous to what might be performed by a county clerk in another state). Excerpt from the lone dissenting opinion:

Click to expand...

A probate judge is not a special American that the jurisdiction of the US Constitution does not apply. It is irrelevant the title of the person the state establishes as over-seer of marriages...that is irrelevant to the court.

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.

hobgoblin said:

At some point the ugly deadence that has taken down our culture must be reversed.

It is becoming a matter of survival.

Click to expand...

havent you been paying attention?

I got good news for you, equal rights is winning, bigotry is losing and we are surviving!

hobgoblin said:

At some point the ugly deadence that has taken down our culture must be reversed.

It is becoming a matter of survival.

Click to expand...

like what?

hobgoblin said:

At some point the ugly deadence that has taken down our culture must be reversed.

It is becoming a matter of survival.

Click to expand...

That is nonsensical...what ever "decadence" has taken down our culture has been allowed by the people. The people have decided that the believed "decadence' was far less destructive to our culture than the people that wish to discriminate base on that belief.

Discrimination and hatred are far more decadent and destructive to our culture.

Taylor said:

Depending on further action in the federal court, probate judges could be faced with conflicting orders.

Click to expand...

There are a lot of procedural oddities to these cases. Normally, appeals are sent back down to the original courts to become effective regardless of the rulings and the rulings have to be incorporated into the jurisdiction's jurisprudence but in these gay marriage cases they are not following the traditional procedures and judges are issuing decrees from on high and saying to hell with court procedures and demanding that compliance be immediate.

we should immediate cease the flow of all federal $'s to alabama.

these bozos are just wasting the use and time of SCOTUS.

1750Texan said:

A probate judge is not a special American that the jurisdiction of the US Constitution does not apply. It is irrelevant the title of the person the state establishes as over-seer of marriages...that is irrelevant to the court.

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.

Click to expand...

The Constitution didn't issue a ruling, a district court justice did, with jurisdiction over one federal district.

Taylor said:

The Constitution didn't issue a ruling, a district court justice did, with jurisdiction over one federal district.

Click to expand...

You seem not to be aware that courts[all courts] derive their Hierarchy from the US Constitution...that's ok, we are not on the same Constitutional understanding.


U.S. Constitution › Article III
Article III
Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;

--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;
--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;
--to controversies between two or more states;
--between a state and citizens of another state;
--between citizens of different states;
--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

The contention at a federal judge can not make a ruling on a case not settled yet is ridiculous.

State laws are always inferior to federal court rulings. Even Obama knows this. Even Obama stayed his immigration EO implementation when issued by a federal judge.

Alabama has already be denied stays in the Circuit courts and the SC. Arguing that a state probate judge has hierarchy over federal judges is asinine.