• 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

He's latching onto the difference between an order and a decision and resting his entire argument on it.

And failing.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Really then why has the # of probate judges refusing to comply with the federal court ruling gone down from 54 to 44 in a *single day*? Why aren't they waiting until Friday at least?

Because they know they're in contempt and will be sued personally if they do not
They're not in contempt because they were not party to the case (please read that slowly so it sinks in). Not that it hasn't been tried, but the complaint was quickly dismissed by the very same judge who wrote the order for the very same reason I've given you.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

No, it's hard for those on the left to come up with a scholarly, well thought out response, as far as I can see. But you sure are providing tons of imformation about your character.

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

Oh, please, educate me! Educate us all. Yes, explain how the civil war was fought and the 14th amendment passed to give the federal government the power to force States to recognize gay marriage. LOL! Oh, boy this is just great stuff.

No, I think if the history of the United States hasn't succeeded in educating you as to the realities of the world, I'm unlikely to be able to do so. Hang on to your quaint, albeit antiquated notions. They are mildly amusing. Sort of like the idea of blacksmiths and shepherds.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Do you really think this scumbag moore will not do the same after SCOTUS rules definitely that SSM is a constitutional right? Since he issued this threat after SCOTUS refused to stay the federal court ruling (which does make it binding), i'm guessing he will really dig his own grave in june. Although if there's any justice, he will be ousted long before then.

Justice for a bigot? In Alabama? They don't give them justice, they elect them to public office.
 
Yeah, well... also true of over half the states in the country as well as Federal district courts, circuit courts, and even the Supreme Court. So... you're not really one to talk about a "dearth of the educated."

Federal court judges aren't elected either, so although i think it *should* be mandatory that they at least obtain a law degree and pass the bar exam, they do not have to pander to bigoted voters

All current supreme court judges do meet these standards, and unlike alabama probate judges, there is no chance anyone who does not would be confirmed. This has not happened since the early 1940s in fact.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Do you really think this scumbag moore will not do the same after SCOTUS rules definitely that SSM is a constitutional right? Since he issued this threat after SCOTUS refused to stay the federal court ruling (which does make it binding), i'm guessing he will really dig his own grave in june. Although if there's any justice, he will be ousted long before then.
LOL, it never ceases to amaze... Had the Supreme Court done anything to make the case binding, we wouldn't need to wait until next summer for a decision, would we?
 
Federal court judges aren't elected either, so although i think it *should* be mandatory that they at least obtain a law degree and pass the bar exam, they do not have to pander to bigoted voters

All current supreme court judges do meet these standards, and unlike alabama probate judges, there is no chance anyone who does not would be confirmed. This has not happened since the early 1940s in fact.
I wouldn't be surprised if a non-lawyer were confirmed on the Supreme Court sometime in the future, there certainly are a good number of people who support the idea and make their voices heard when it comes time to nominate.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

They're not in contempt because they were not party to the case (please read that slowly so it sinks in). Not that it hasn't been tried, but the complaint was quickly dismissed by the very same judge who wrote the order for the very same reason I've given you.

The ones who were not held in contempt so far saw to it to cease marriage licenses altogether, not just deny gay couples. That's because, technically, they are (finally) not violating equal protection

All of the others can be arrested, disbarred, impeached, sued etc. This particular judge on friday will be just the first to be given an ultimatum

What's especially stupid about their position and grandstanding (and by extension, the voters) is that these couples can just drive down to another probate office to marry:

"Ms. Ridley and Ms. Roysden, the couple who had been turned away in Florence in the morning, indeed made it to Birmingham later in the day."
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

LOL, it never ceases to amaze... Had the Supreme Court done anything to make the case binding, we wouldn't need to wait until next summer for a decision, would we?

We shouldn't have to wait, but it is binding on alabama, just as the 6th circuit's ruling will be overturned and be binding on the entire nation, despite "Snyder" is the defendant

The very same judge who issued this ruling will in the coming weeks be personally overseeing compliance. Then you will see just how binding it is
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

No, I think if the history of the United States hasn't succeeded in educating you as to the realities of the world, I'm unlikely to be able to do so. Hang on to your quaint, albeit antiquated notions. They are mildly amusing. Sort of like the idea of blacksmiths and shepherds.

I get the feeling that you have not really read my posts and have no idea what I'm saying, because you are arguing to things that I haven't even touched on. Civil War, Race, segregation, etc... nothing to do with the points I have made.

So, lighten up, Francis. You are letting your emotions get the better of you. Save it for someone else.
 
I wouldn't be surprised if a non-lawyer were confirmed on the Supreme Court sometime in the future, there certainly are a good number of people who support the idea and make their voices heard when it comes time to nominate.

Yeah but i just laugh at the theatrics. It sounds like that harvard MBA senator decrying obama's statement that everyone should have access to a college education. What gets supported/opposed in politics is entirely separate from what actually happens.

Anyone without a law degree up for nomination to SCOTUS would get lampooned by the media. It's an unnecessary risk for any president to make, when there are thousands of other choices
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

We shouldn't have to wait, but it is binding on alabama, just as the 6th circuit's ruling will be overturned and be binding on the entire nation.

The very same judge who issued this ruling will in the coming weeks be personally overseeing compliance. Then you will see just how binding it is
She can issue orders to officials in her district and force them to comply , and other judges can use her decision as persuasive precedent in the other two districts, and also force officials to comply, but the ruling itself is non-binding. The only federal ruling that will be binding on state courts is that which comes from the Supreme Court this summer.
 
Anyone without a law degree up for nomination to SCOTUS would get lampooned by the media. It's an unnecessary risk for any president to make, when there are thousands of other choices
If it were to happen, it would have to be someone very well respected and popular. I, too, would prefer a brilliant legal mind, but could see someone else being confirmed if the public were behind it.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

LOL, it never ceases to amaze... Had the Supreme Court done anything to make the case binding, we wouldn't need to wait until next summer for a decision, would we?

The case is binding. Why do you think it isn't?
 
If it were to happen, it would have to be someone very well respected and popular. I, too, would prefer a brilliant legal mind, but could see someone else being confirmed if the public were behind it.

Yeah, when we descend into "Idiocracy" full blown and the "president of amerika" shows up to the senate, with rawk music blasting and senators in their 20s throwing things and yelling "you're a dick! Nebraska represent!" Then i could see justice schwarzanneger or justice ex-alabama probate judge who defied federal court order

Fact is most of the public is unaware when there's even a nomination being made, unless the media makes a stink over it, which would only happen if the nominee is *woefully unqualified* i.e. no legal training
 
Last edited:
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

The case is binding. Why do you think it isn't?
I've answered this at least a dozen times in this thread. District court decisions are not binding on state courts. This is just a statement of fact. And before you go there... No, that doesn't mean state officials can ignore a court orders directed at them.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

I've answered this at least a dozen times in this thread. District court decisions are not binding on state courts. This is just a statement of fact. And before you go there... No, that doesn't mean state officials can ignore a court orders directed at them.

So what's the point that you're trying to make? The fact that the federal ruling won't affect state rulings is irrelevant to the discussion isn't it?
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

I've answered this at least a dozen times in this thread. District court decisions are not binding on state courts. This is just a statement of fact. And before you go there... No, that doesn't mean state officials can ignore a court orders directed at them.

A court decision that overturns a state law is binding to state courts because state courts are bound by state law.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

So what's the point that you're trying to make? The fact that the federal ruling won't affect state rulings is irrelevant to the discussion isn't it?
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.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

A court decision that overturns a state law is binding to state courts because state courts are bound by state law.
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).
 
Last edited:
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.


That's not totally true.

Probate Judge Don Davis added yesterday as a defendant -->> https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1658559-strawser-order-2-10-15.html

The subject of tomorrows hearing isn't whether to add him as a defendant or not, the purpose of the hearing tomorrow is to determine whether or not the Federal District Court Judge will issue an injunction against the Probate Judge requiring him to perform his duties. If such an injunction is issued (which IIRC is called a writ of mandamus) and the Probate Judge then continues to refuse to perform their duties, then they can be found in contempt of the District Court Judges order.



Mandamus | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute


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

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.

Aids is a public health concern.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

A "power grab" that the majority is perfectly content with allowing them to keep due to the fact that it protects our individual rights from both the state and federal government. There is no other way for the people to non-violently stop the government from infringing on rights or violating the US Constitution, especially if it is the people in government who are trying to infringe upon our rights.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom