Sherman123
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 7,774
- Reaction score
- 3,791
- Location
- Northeast US
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses
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.
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.
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: