- Joined
- Jan 31, 2015
- Messages
- 5,435
- Reaction score
- 1,675
- Location
- PA
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
This issue gets sticky in that the Supremacy Clause only applies to the 17 enumerated powers. The federal government is pretending it has the authority to regulate marriage, which they do not. So the Alabama may refuse to obey the federal ruling arguing that the states hold the power to make all rulings outside the specified realm of the federal government. Like it or not that is how our system was set up. Much of the power the federal government wields is not theirs and they only h ave it because We the People failed to tell them no.
The difference between that case and this one is that the legal interpretation in the Supreme Court ruling is binding on every court in the country, and a Federal district court ruling doesn't even bind courts in the same district.
Let's not put the cart before the horse. A right first has to exist before it may be infringed. If we are not born with such a right, where is it given to us by the government?
That is how the law works, sorry if you don't like it. The judge herself has explained this in her clarifying order. I've been over this twice already in this thread.
Aaaaaaannd...the Kooky Moore-on triples down.
"Chief Justice Roy Moore said on "Fox News Sunday," that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage, he wouldn't be "bound" by the ruling."
Alabama Chief Justice: SCOTUS Can't Change God's Law On Marriage
He also said when a word’s not in the Constitution [marriage] the Supreme Court can't rule on it - because they can't define words that aren't there.
Yikes.
Judge Roy is irrelevant, I don't know why you keep bringing him up. Perhaps because you can't address what's actually being talked about.ridiculous...
Judge Roy is not adjoined in any litigation before the Supreme court or any federal court on this matter. His authority is cases before the Alabama Supreme Court.
The state of Alabama went to the Supreme Court for the stay and it was denied.
the State of Alabama is the applicant...not Judge Roy. He has no legal standing in this matter. None.
I could care less what Judge Roy says or doesn't say.Incorrect. What you have conveniently failed to acknowledged is that the Federal court ruled Alabama's ban on SSM unconstitutional. You also choose not to acknowledge that the Supreme court did not accept Alabama's request to stay that ruling.
You wish to argue that Judge Roy's ruling instead of acknowledging Federal judges ruling to one[ or all] probate judges in Alabama has no effect on the initial federal court ruling or the Supreme court's denial of stay are still valid and standing orders.
It is ridiculous to continue to argue Judge Roy's reasoning when Probate Judges are abandoning Judge Roy's invalid ruling and complying with the federal court judges and the Supreme court judges.
You sue people, not laws.No it isn't how the law works at all. The state of Alabama, the ban itself in the state of Alabama was being constitutionally challenged, not that single judge.
Not allowing someone to exercise their right to free speech is what is meant by "violating" - I don't know bow to put it in simpler terms than that. Now, where do you think people give other people the right to free speech?Who said anything about unborn people? I'm talking about in this country, what is considered violating someone's right to free speech?
Judge Roy is irrelevant, I don't know why you keep bringing him up. Perhaps because you can't address what's actually being talked about.
You sue people, not laws.
Not allowing someone to exercise their right to free speech is what is meant by "violating" - I don't know bow to put it in simpler terms than that. Now, where do you think people give other people the right to free speech?
There's your opinion on how things should work, and then there's how things really work in the real world. The judges clarifying order, and the events that took place last week, all illustrate how your opinion is wrong. You can continue to ignore the fact that Judge Davis was not required to do anything until he was personally enjoined by the court, but you're only doing yourself a disservice in clinging to beliefs that have been shown to be false.The law was challenged in court. That is how constitutional challenges to laws work and it is understood that if a specific states law is struck down, it applies for everyone who deals with that law, not just the person named in the suit.
From Judge Granade, in rejecting a request to hold Davis in contempt of court for failure to abide by her opinion:The law was challenged in court. That is how constitutional challenges to laws work and it is understood that if a specific states law is struck down, it applies for everyone who deals with that law, not just the person named in the suit.
It may mean that the don't have freedom of speech, it doesn't mean that they don't have a *right* to freedom of speech. The government is not only not protecting that right, it is infringing upon it.Again, what constitutes not allowing someone to speak freely? Imprisonment? Fines, maybe? For saying something someone else doesn't like?
So wouldn't that mean that people in other countries who are imprisoned or fined for saying things against the government or that violates some law for what can or cannot be said violates those people's freedom of speech as we see it? Wouldn't that then mean that they do not have a right to freedom of speech because their country punishes them for saying certain things?
Judge Roy is irrelevant, I don't know why you keep bringing him up. Perhaps because you can't address what's actually being talked about.
From Judge Granade, in rejecting a request to hold Davis in contempt of court for failure to abide by her opinion:
(Doc. 65, p. 3 quoting Brenner v. Scott, 2015 WL 44260 at *1 (N.D. Fla. Jan 1, 2015)). Probate Judge Don Davis is not a party in this case[1] and the Order of January 23, 2015, did not directly order Davis to do anything. Judge Davis's obligation to follow the Constitution does not arise from this court's Order. The Clarification Order noted that actions against Judge Davis or others who fail to follow the Constitution could be initiated by persons who are harmed by their failure to follow the law. However, no such action is before the Court at this time.
Cari Searcy and Kimberly McKeand married in 2008 in California, but have lived in Mobile, Ala. for over a decade, the Associated Press reports. They are also seeking for Searcy to have legal parental rights for their 8-year-old son, Khaya, who was born biologically to McKeand in 2005 but is being raised by both women.
Searcy has previously sought to adopt Khaya, but was denied because the state doesn’t recognize their marriage.
Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley and Attorney General Luther Strange are named as defendants in the suit.
Man -- they're gonna go knuts when SCOTUS rules in June.
Same sex marriage will be legal nationwide -- very, very soon. Prepare connies. It's coming.
Don't be silly.
Most of them are going to pretend it was their idea all along.
See Conservatives and how they now take credit for the Civil Rights Act for a prime example.
Guess who is coming to the rescue of Judge Moore and the anti-gay bigots?
Yup.
"KKK issues “call to arms” over Alabama same-sex marriage ruling
The hate group melts down after a federal court rules an amendment banning same-sex marriage unconstitutional
...
"We as White Christians intend to see that no outside agitators bully or intimidate the White Christian majority in the State of Alabama...We salute those like the chief justice for standing against the Immoral, Ungodly and activist Federal Judges.”
KKK issues “call to arms” over Alabama same-sex marriage ruling - Salon.com
If "it was enacted" passes rational basis, then rational basis isn't a test in the first place.
States are defining marriage as between a man and a woman. This is clearly a distinction of gender.
Just say "activist judges." It says what you want to say in fewer words. It's the exact same handwave everyone else is trying to make, and it is bogus. They aren't doing it "because they don't like them." They are doing it because their best judgment says the laws are a violation of the 14th amendment.
The constitution is the supreme law of the land. It doesn't matter how many people vote for a law. If it violates the constitution, it violates the constitution.
The issue is whether or not your moral disapproval is basis alone for denying someone else a choice.
The answer is no.
Same-sex marriage bans do not pass the rational basis test. "It was enacted" isn't good enough.
another deflection,
what is needed is back up for your proven wrong claims, we are asking for ONE fact that supports your proven wrong claims, can this be done or not?
if so please do it in your next post . . or admit that it cant be done and you misspoke . . .anything else is just another failure of your false claims
thank you
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?