• 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

Not yet, but after the Bible is out the quaran will still be here and growing like a cancer. Get used to it, your great grandchildren will be dealing with it.

Not if we stay a secular society
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

What I want is for people to stop saying "it doesn't affect you".

why? does us saying something affect you?

I'd like to stop people abusing apostrophes, personally.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Why do you think it's non binding?

Edit: And the SC this morning or yesterday declined to stay the Federal District Court's order pending appeal. Which puts any judges who fail to perform SS marriages in contempt. It also probably indicates how the court is going to go on it's upcoming SS marriage case.
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.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Oh yeah.....I'm not homophobic as liberals like to label those who live believing in the Bible. It's just the belief that a marriage is between a Man and Woman as stated in the Bible.

Then move to Bibleland, not the United States of America, we don't want to be ruled by a religious text, Christian or otherwise.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Also, you fall in a common fallacy I see alot on this message board. Just because something happens to be the law of the land doesnt make that right, and it doesn't close the topic for discussion.


Perhaps. But the fact that you're wrong pretty much does close off the topic
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

And I find it REALLY tedious when people bitch about "discrimination" where none exists.

well, if none exists, sure, point it out.

When it comes to marriage, there are still states where discrimination exists. As well as in a lot of other areas.

Oh, what, if you don't consider it discrimination, it's not?

As Jesse in "Breaking Bad" would say - "get over yourself, Bitch"
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

I don't want judges involved at all.


DAMN those founding fathers who set up the judiciary wing of government!

actually, I'm cool with them
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Then they will stop saying so, and that will put an end to your game. Do you want justice or do you just want it your way?

And so much for the argument "we don't need public accommodation laws because businesses that are bigoted will be known and people won't shop there anymore"....

Pretty much puts an end to YOUR game
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

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.

Roy Moore is advancing a pseudo form of legal departmentalism that has been a discredited and dead theory for at least a half century if not much longer. The notion that the Alabama state courts are just as competent to interpret the Constitution (the point Moore rests his position on) has been a dead letter since Brown v. Board. This was a federal question which a Federal court clearly had subject matter jurisdiction over, that district court made a ruling on which is absolutely binding, all appellate attempts by the state were exhausted without the order being overturned. The only question left is whether or not the district court by virtue of binding the 'attorney general' left an opening for Moore to assert his authority over the probate judges and deny the issuance of licenses. He will almost certainly lose this fight--federal courts do not take challenges to their authority lightly.

Edit: The contempt would come after this Thursdays hearing if a writ of mandamus is issued and no stay is granted pending a hearing. In any other state this wouldn't be necessary but Moore has exerted enormous pressure on his judges to commit to a policy of intransigence and a firmer 'out' is needed to hurry this along.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

nice to see that you know how to project....poorly.
I'm all for civil unions, dude/dudette, civil unions have nothing to do with religion. They can give all the bells and whistles that a marriage offers.
so please, take your hate filled heart and shove it........

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

The governor doesn't control Federal Court contempt charges.
Nobody has claimed otherwise.


An amended complaint has already been filed and a hearing is scheduled concerning Judge Don Davis refusal to issue licenses for Thursday at 1:00PM. The outcome of that hearing will either be a dismissal or injunction against Davis (probably in the form of a writ of mandamus). Then if Judge Davis doesn't comply he'd be subject to Federal contempt charges.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1658559-strawser-order-2-10-15.html

>>>>
Yes, I mentioned this above. Probate judges are not currently required to issue licenses to same-sex couples (in fact, the opposite) but that could change starting Thursday.

Judges have to be named individually as defendents and an order made. But... there's still the possibility that the law will differ across the state because Justice Granade's decision is non-binding.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

I wouldn't call Texans "southerners."

Nothing wrong with southerners, just that Texans are their own thing. We don't have the history or the culture of the deep south.

Right, Texas has it's own ****ed up racist culture to deal with.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Yeah, to hell with what the people want. Who needs elections?

You really want basic rights to be subject to the will of the voters? What in the hell do you think the Bill of Rights was all about? Do yourself a favor and take a basic course on constitutional law.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Nobody has claimed otherwise.



Yes, I mentioned this above. Probate judges are not currently required to issue licenses to same-sex couples (in fact, the opposite) but that could change starting Thursday.

Judges have to be named individually as defendents and an order made. But... there's still the possibility that the law will differ across the state because Justice Granade's decision is non-binding.

On what basis do you think a US District Court's ruling on a federal question, that has been exhausted through the appellate process, is not binding?
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Uhh, no. The ruling is binding for the entire state.

You are arguing here with people who don't have a frickin' clue about things like supremacy clauses. Good luck with that. Explaining how Federal court rulings on civil rights take precedence over anything a state does is like teaching card tricks to a Beagle.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

On what basis do you think a US District Court's ruling on a federal question, that has been exhausted through the appellate process, is not binding?

I'm anxiously awaiting the answer to this one. It should be a doozy.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Nobody has claimed otherwise.



Yes, I mentioned this above. Probate judges are not currently required to issue licenses to same-sex couples (in fact, the opposite) but that could change starting Thursday.

Judges have to be named individually as defendents and an order made. But... there's still the possibility that the law will differ across the state because Justice Granade's decision is non-binding.


Actually no. In the original order the Constitutiona amendment was invalidated, therefore there is no basis for selective issuing of licenses. (https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=...-14-cv-00208-53-alabama-opinion-and-order.pdf)

Then in the clarifying order issued just a couple of days later Judge Granade reiterates from Judge Hinkle's ruling: "And a clerk who chooses not to follow the ruling should take note: the governing statutes and rules of procedure allow individuals to intervene as plaintiffs in pending actions, allow certification of plaintiff and defendant classes, allow issuance of successive preliminary injunctions, and allow successful plaintiffs to recover costs and attorney's fees." (1:14-cv-00208 #65 Order Clarifying Judgment)

Judge Granade has already granted the motion to amend the original proceeding to add three new same-sex couples to the complaint and add Probate Judge Don Davis in his official capacity as a defendant. (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1658559-strawser-order-2-10-15.html) So not only will a writ of mandamus require him to issue the licenses (hearing Thursday, expect a ruling Friday on the emergency action) he could be required to pay costs and attorneys fees for those needing to bring the action.


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

On what basis do you think a US District Court's ruling on a federal question, that has been exhausted through the appellate process, is not binding?


Technically speaking the appellate process hasn't been exhausted.

Both the 11th Circuit and the SCOTUS declined a stay, but the appellate process (i.e. a ruling on the merits of the case) is actually being held in abeyance at the 11th Circuit pending a ruling by the SCOTUS on the case from the 6th Circuit.


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

Moderator's Warning:
Getting a little hot in here. Please chill out and refrain from making personal comments, baiting and flaming. The topic is not each other or other posters.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Roy Moore is advancing a pseudo form of legal departmentalism that has been a discredited and dead theory for at least a half century if not much longer. The notion that the Alabama state courts are just as competent to interpret the Constitution (the point Moore rests his position on) has been a dead letter since Brown v. Board.
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.


This was a federal question which a Federal court clearly had subject matter jurisdiction over, that district court made a ruling on which is absolutely binding, all appellate attempts by the state were exhausted without the order being overturned.
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.

only question left is whether or not the district court by virtue of binding the 'attorney general' left an opening for Moore to assert his authority over the probate judges and deny the issuance of licenses. He will almost certainly lose this fight--federal courts do not take challenges to their authority lightly.
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.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Technically speaking the appellate process hasn't been exhausted.

Both the 11th Circuit and the SCOTUS declined a stay, but the appellate process (i.e. a ruling on the merits of the case) is actually being held in abeyance at the 11th Circuit pending a ruling by the SCOTUS on the case from the 6th Circuit.


>>>>

You haven't answered my question. Secondly by the 'appellate process' I clearly meant the possible avenues for stopping the enforcement of the ruling. Those avenues have been exhausted. Refusing to stay the decision specifically thwarts the state from 'waiting' until the Supreme Court makes its ruling this spring.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

It's the same RR extremist who got ****canned after putting the "10 commandments" statue in the courthouse way back in 2001. Despite that, alabama voters elected him to the *same position* in 2013, and he will be ****canned yet again for this.
How has he not been disbarred? That's what I want to know.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

I'm anxiously awaiting the answer to this one. It should be a doozy.
Already answered, and hardly a "doozy" - it's just a simple fact that district court decisions are not binding on state courts.
 
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

Actually no. In the original order the Constitutiona amendment was invalidated, therefore there is no basis for selective issuing of licenses. (https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=...-14-cv-00208-53-alabama-opinion-and-order.pdf)

Then in the clarifying order issued just a couple of days later Judge Granade reiterates from Judge Hinkle's ruling: "And a clerk who chooses not to follow the ruling should take note: the governing statutes and rules of procedure allow individuals to intervene as plaintiffs in pending actions, allow certification of plaintiff and defendant classes, allow issuance of successive preliminary injunctions, and allow successful plaintiffs to recover costs and attorney's fees." (1:14-cv-00208 #65 Order Clarifying Judgment)

Judge Granade has already granted the motion to amend the original proceeding to add three new same-sex couples to the complaint and add Probate Judge Don Davis in his official capacity as a defendant. (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1658559-strawser-order-2-10-15.html) So not only will a writ of mandamus require him to issue the licenses (hearing Thursday, expect a ruling Friday on the emergency action) he could be required to pay costs and attorneys fees for those needing to bring the action.


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

On what basis do you think a US District Court's ruling on a federal question, that has been exhausted through the appellate process, is not binding?
The case hasn't been "exhausted through the appellate process" - I don't think you understand what's going on.
 
Back
Top Bottom