Alabama Keeps Electing Him and the Judiciary Keeps Removing Him

[Seawytch]

Gonna try for a third, Roy? Alabamians don't seem to care that he repeatedly violates judiciary ethics. Ethics smethics, right?

Alabama chief justice will face ethics trial in case over same-sex marriage ruling

A state judicial panel on Monday refused to dismiss an ethics complaint against Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, saying that Moore will go to trial in September on accusations that he urged 68 probate judges to defy the federal courts on same-sex marriage.
​

The Alabama Court of the Judiciary, a state panel that disciplines judges, refused dueling requests to either dismiss the complaint against Moore outright or remove him from office. Chief Judge Michael Joiner said the case would go to trial Sept. 28. The panel of nine judges will hear the case and decide whether Moore violated judicial ethics and, if so, what punishment he will face. [...]

Moore — who was ousted from office by the court in 2003 for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building — could be removed as chief justice for a second time.

Poor Alabama...

Scandals Embroil Alabama Governor, Speaker and Chief Justice

 

[martybegan]

Gonna try for a third, Roy? Alabamians don't seem to care that he repeatedly violates judiciary ethics. Ethics smethics, right?

Alabama chief justice will face ethics trial in case over same-sex marriage ruling

A state judicial panel on Monday refused to dismiss an ethics complaint against Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, saying that Moore will go to trial in September on accusations that he urged 68 probate judges to defy the federal courts on same-sex marriage.
​

The Alabama Court of the Judiciary, a state panel that disciplines judges, refused dueling requests to either dismiss the complaint against Moore outright or remove him from office. Chief Judge Michael Joiner said the case would go to trial Sept. 28. The panel of nine judges will hear the case and decide whether Moore violated judicial ethics and, if so, what punishment he will face. [...]

Moore — who was ousted from office by the court in 2003 for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building — could be removed as chief justice for a second time.

Poor Alabama...

Scandals Embroil Alabama Governor, Speaker and Chief Justice

Progressives: "The will of the people only counts when its the same as our will"

If he violated the law by say granting SSM licenses when they were prohibited, you would be singing his praises.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Gonna try for a third, Roy? Alabamians don't seem to care that he repeatedly violates judiciary ethics. Ethics smethics, right?

Alabama chief justice will face ethics trial in case over same-sex marriage ruling

A state judicial panel on Monday refused to dismiss an ethics complaint against Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, saying that Moore will go to trial in September on accusations that he urged 68 probate judges to defy the federal courts on same-sex marriage.
​

The Alabama Court of the Judiciary, a state panel that disciplines judges, refused dueling requests to either dismiss the complaint against Moore outright or remove him from office. Chief Judge Michael Joiner said the case would go to trial Sept. 28. The panel of nine judges will hear the case and decide whether Moore violated judicial ethics and, if so, what punishment he will face. [...]

Moore — who was ousted from office by the court in 2003 for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building — could be removed as chief justice for a second time.

Poor Alabama...

Scandals Embroil Alabama Governor, Speaker and Chief Justice

Progressives: "The will of the people only counts when its the same as our will"

If he violated the law by say granting SSM licenses when they were prohibited, you would be singing his praises.

Yep, like the clerk on Colorado that did it, the clerk was a gaystapo hero

 

[Seawytch]

Gonna try for a third, Roy? Alabamians don't seem to care that he repeatedly violates judiciary ethics. Ethics smethics, right?

Alabama chief justice will face ethics trial in case over same-sex marriage ruling

A state judicial panel on Monday refused to dismiss an ethics complaint against Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, saying that Moore will go to trial in September on accusations that he urged 68 probate judges to defy the federal courts on same-sex marriage.
​

The Alabama Court of the Judiciary, a state panel that disciplines judges, refused dueling requests to either dismiss the complaint against Moore outright or remove him from office. Chief Judge Michael Joiner said the case would go to trial Sept. 28. The panel of nine judges will hear the case and decide whether Moore violated judicial ethics and, if so, what punishment he will face. [...]

Moore — who was ousted from office by the court in 2003 for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building — could be removed as chief justice for a second time.

Poor Alabama...

Scandals Embroil Alabama Governor, Speaker and Chief Justice

Progressives: "The will of the people only counts when its the same as our will"

If he violated the law by say granting SSM licenses when they were prohibited, you would be singing his praises.

Yup, we would. But we wouldn't bitch when the law caught up with him. We praised Gavin Newsom, but when his unlawful actions were deemed such, we just fought harder...and won.

 

[Katzndogz]

Damn those free people. They still think they have the right to vote.

 

[Seawytch]

Damn those free people. They still think they have the right to vote.

Oh, I think Alabama should keep electing folks like Moore and Bentley. They're perfect candidates for them.

 

[martybegan]

Gonna try for a third, Roy? Alabamians don't seem to care that he repeatedly violates judiciary ethics. Ethics smethics, right?

Alabama chief justice will face ethics trial in case over same-sex marriage ruling

A state judicial panel on Monday refused to dismiss an ethics complaint against Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, saying that Moore will go to trial in September on accusations that he urged 68 probate judges to defy the federal courts on same-sex marriage.
​

The Alabama Court of the Judiciary, a state panel that disciplines judges, refused dueling requests to either dismiss the complaint against Moore outright or remove him from office. Chief Judge Michael Joiner said the case would go to trial Sept. 28. The panel of nine judges will hear the case and decide whether Moore violated judicial ethics and, if so, what punishment he will face. [...]

Moore — who was ousted from office by the court in 2003 for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building — could be removed as chief justice for a second time.

Poor Alabama...

Scandals Embroil Alabama Governor, Speaker and Chief Justice

Progressives: "The will of the people only counts when its the same as our will"

If he violated the law by say granting SSM licenses when they were prohibited, you would be singing his praises.

Yup, we would. But we wouldn't bitch when the law caught up with him. We praised Gavin Newsom, but when his unlawful actions were deemed such, we just fought harder...and won.

Actually there was plenty of bitching when the law caught up to him.

You are not a fan of the law, you are a fan of laws you like, just like you are not for freedom, you are only for freedoms you like.

 

[Seawytch]

Gonna try for a third, Roy? Alabamians don't seem to care that he repeatedly violates judiciary ethics. Ethics smethics, right?

Alabama chief justice will face ethics trial in case over same-sex marriage ruling

A state judicial panel on Monday refused to dismiss an ethics complaint against Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, saying that Moore will go to trial in September on accusations that he urged 68 probate judges to defy the federal courts on same-sex marriage.
​

The Alabama Court of the Judiciary, a state panel that disciplines judges, refused dueling requests to either dismiss the complaint against Moore outright or remove him from office. Chief Judge Michael Joiner said the case would go to trial Sept. 28. The panel of nine judges will hear the case and decide whether Moore violated judicial ethics and, if so, what punishment he will face. [...]

Moore — who was ousted from office by the court in 2003 for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building — could be removed as chief justice for a second time.

Poor Alabama...

Scandals Embroil Alabama Governor, Speaker and Chief Justice

Progressives: "The will of the people only counts when its the same as our will"

If he violated the law by say granting SSM licenses when they were prohibited, you would be singing his praises.

Yup, we would. But we wouldn't bitch when the law caught up with him. We praised Gavin Newsom, but when his unlawful actions were deemed such, we just fought harder...and won.

Actually there was plenty of bitching when the law caught up to him.

You are not a fan of the law, you are a fan of laws you like, just like you are not for freedom, you are only for freedoms you like.

He didn't defy the law did he? As soon as it was said "stop", he stopped. Roy didn't...which is why he's being removed AGAIN.

Now, not once have I said that the voters of Alabama should not be allowed to vote for him did I? The fact that Alabama does keep electing a guy that has to be removed is hysterical. They should keep doing it...you know, 'cause Alabama wasn't enough of a laughingstock already.

 

[martybegan]

Gonna try for a third, Roy? Alabamians don't seem to care that he repeatedly violates judiciary ethics. Ethics smethics, right?

Alabama chief justice will face ethics trial in case over same-sex marriage ruling

A state judicial panel on Monday refused to dismiss an ethics complaint against Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, saying that Moore will go to trial in September on accusations that he urged 68 probate judges to defy the federal courts on same-sex marriage.
​

The Alabama Court of the Judiciary, a state panel that disciplines judges, refused dueling requests to either dismiss the complaint against Moore outright or remove him from office. Chief Judge Michael Joiner said the case would go to trial Sept. 28. The panel of nine judges will hear the case and decide whether Moore violated judicial ethics and, if so, what punishment he will face. [...]

Moore — who was ousted from office by the court in 2003 for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building — could be removed as chief justice for a second time.

Poor Alabama...

Scandals Embroil Alabama Governor, Speaker and Chief Justice

Progressives: "The will of the people only counts when its the same as our will"

If he violated the law by say granting SSM licenses when they were prohibited, you would be singing his praises.

Yup, we would. But we wouldn't bitch when the law caught up with him. We praised Gavin Newsom, but when his unlawful actions were deemed such, we just fought harder...and won.

Actually there was plenty of bitching when the law caught up to him.

You are not a fan of the law, you are a fan of laws you like, just like you are not for freedom, you are only for freedoms you like.

He didn't defy the law did he? As soon as it was said "stop", he stopped. Roy didn't...which is why he's being removed AGAIN.

Now, not once have I said that the voters of Alabama should not be allowed to vote for him did I? The fact that Alabama does keep electing a guy that has to be removed is hysterical. They should keep doing it...you know, 'cause Alabama wasn't enough of a laughingstock already.

What you disdain as a laughingstock I see as sticking to ones principles.

And your uppity superiority complex over your fellow Americans is telling. Keep thinking that way, you snobbish prick.

 

[RodISHI]

I love Alabama and judge Roy is a plus for their state.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Libertarians foolishly believe our country is a democracy when in fact it is a Republic, which means the courts have the final say on laws.

 

[Dragonlady]

Actually there was plenty of bitching when the law caught up to him.

You are not a fan of the law, you are a fan of laws you like, just like you are not for freedom, you are only for freedoms you like.

"You are not for freedom, you are only for freedoms you like". No that would be people who are for freedom, but oppose the rights of gay to marry. You are in favor of freedom for straight Christian white folks, but others, not so much.

I don't see that gays having the right to marry has any effect on my freedoms. None at all. I'm not gay, I've got no dog in this hunt, so for me, gay marriage has no effect on me whatsoever. Giving gays the right to marry didn't diminish any of my freedoms, and it sure made our gay friends happy, so it's a win/win.

The Christian right wants to codify its skewed version of "family values" into the law of the land, in violation of the Constitution, which separates church and state. Your founders wisely said that no candidate for office need pass a religious test, but in Republicans' eyes, that candidate must be Christian.

The religious right wants the right to persecute and discriminate against gays, based on their "religious beliefs", but that's not how freedom works. You have the right to believe these people are sinners, but you don't have the right to discriminate against them because of your beliefs. Your freedom of religion does not give you the right to impose your beliefs on others, including those you believe to be sinners. Because if you don't serve sinners, you have no customers. We're all sinners.

I have a thing about adultery. And the Bible is very clear about adultery. It's one of the Big 10, which I note had no reference to homosexuality. It's destructive to families, and there really is no excuse for it. The Bible is also clear that marriage is for life, and that even if your marriage is set aside, you should not remarry. God considers second and subsequent marriages as adultery. I have no patience for lying cheaters. If I were a baker, I'd be tempted to smash cake in the face of the 40 year old business man trading in his loyal wife for "trophy wife" and I'd refuse these assholes service on religious grounds. However, I am reminded that when you marry a man who lies and cheats on his wife, what you have is a husband who lies and cheats on his wife. So I'll let God and karma sort this out.

Donald Trump wants to "make America great again", which implies that American has lost its greatness as more diverse groups have achieved greater equality and freedoms. This seems to be very threatening to one segment of the American population in particular. Trump wants to deny people the right of religious freedom guaranteed in the Constitution. He wants to ban people based on their religion and beliefs. He wants to limit the right of the press and the people to freedom of speech, in violation of the Constitution. In my view, he wants to destroy the freedoms that made the United States a great nation in the first place.

 

[martybegan]

Libertarians foolishly believe our country is a democracy when in fact it is a Republic, which means the courts have the final say on laws.

I'm a strict constructional federalist, with libertarian (small l) leanings, so your statement is, as usual, not remotely related to what is being discussed.

And being a "republic" doesn't mean the courts override everything when it comes to government, particularly our constitutional form of government.

Why do progressives desire to be lorded over by their robe clad "betters", and show such utter disdain for the will of their fellow citizens when it goes against their own beliefs?

 

[martybegan]

Actually there was plenty of bitching when the law caught up to him.

You are not a fan of the law, you are a fan of laws you like, just like you are not for freedom, you are only for freedoms you like.

"You are not for freedom, you are only for freedoms you like". No that would be people who are for freedom, but oppose the rights of gay to marry. You are in favor of freedom for straight Christian white folks, but others, not so much.

I don't see that gays having the right to marry has any effect on my freedoms. None at all. I'm not gay, I've got no dog in this hunt, so for me, gay marriage has no effect on me whatsoever. Giving gays the right to marry didn't diminish any of my freedoms, and it sure made our gay friends happy, so it's a win/win.

The Christian right wants to codify its skewed version of "family values" into the law of the land, in violation of the Constitution, which separates church and state. Your founders wisely said that no candidate for office need pass a religious test, but in Republicans' eyes, that candidate must be Christian.

The religious right wants the right to persecute and discriminate against gays, based on their "religious beliefs", but that's not how freedom works. You have the right to believe these people are sinners, but you don't have the right to discriminate against them because of your beliefs. Your freedom of religion does not give you the right to impose your beliefs on others, including those you believe to be sinners. Because if you don't serve sinners, you have no customers. We're all sinners.

I have a thing about adultery. And the Bible is very clear about adultery. It's one of the Big 10, which I note had no reference to homosexuality. It's destructive to families, and there really is no excuse for it. The Bible is also clear that marriage is for life, and that even if your marriage is set aside, you should not remarry. God considers second and subsequent marriages as adultery. I have no patience for lying cheaters. If I were a baker, I'd be tempted to smash cake in the face of the 40 year old business man trading in his loyal wife for "trophy wife" and I'd refuse these assholes service on religious grounds. However, I am reminded that when you marry a man who lies and cheats on his wife, what you have is a husband who lies and cheats on his wife. So I'll let God and karma sort this out.

Donald Trump wants to "make America great again", which implies that American has lost its greatness as more diverse groups have achieved greater equality and freedoms. This seems to be very threatening to one segment of the American population in particular. Trump wants to deny people the right of religious freedom guaranteed in the Constitution. He wants to ban people based on their religion and beliefs. He wants to limit the right of the press and the people to freedom of speech, in violation of the Constitution. In my view, he wants to destroy the freedoms that made the United States a great nation in the first place.

I actually support gay marriage, but only via changes in each State via legislative action to change the marriage contract. They only thing the feds should have done is force individual States to recognize any legal marriage contract from any other State, same as before.

The "ends justify the means" method of judicial interpretation gave you a decision you liked this time, but in the past it gave us permitted government discrimination in Plessey, which took decades to overturn, and was based on the same flummery that gave us Oberkfell and Roe V wade.

The Christian Right gave up trying to codify their "values" into law a decade ago (at least most of them). They saw the writing on the wall. It is the progressive left that has taken up the challenge of forcing people to act and think the way they want them to via governmental action. Most Christian conservatives at this point want to just be left alone.

What most people like me want is for Religious beliefs to at least be considered as a mitigating factor when it comes to PA based discrimination cases, not that religion will trump any claim. Necessary services, and point of sale services should be given out regardless. My issue is with contracted non-essential services being considered a PA, and religious freedoms not even being given a consideration in the determination of the issue. That, and the laughable idea that not wanting to bake one cake in one situation has to result in a $135k fine, the attempted ruination of the people in question, and a government action over what is basically a battle of hurt feelings.

And I don't like Trump one bit. My support went from Walker, to Jindal, to Cruz, and ended there. But lets be fair about one thing, Trump isn't talking about banning religion, he was talking about banning immigration from Muslim Countries with terrorism issues, and he was talking about increased surveillance in Muslim communicates with terrorism links. The rest is exaggeration by a Democratic Friendly press.

And right now the biggest push to limit speech is coming from progressives. I don't see conservative college students interrupting and blocking progressive speakers on campuses, but there are a slew of lefty types doing exactly that.

Please remember you are not dealing with a Christian Conservative here, you are dealing with a strict constructional federalist, with (small "l") libertarian leanings, so leave typical "Jesus Freak" counters out of it.

 

[Silhouette]

Gonna try for a third, Roy? Alabamians don't seem to care that he repeatedly violates judiciary ethics. Ethics smethics, right?

Alabama chief justice will face ethics trial in case over same-sex marriage ruling

A state judicial panel on Monday refused to dismiss an ethics complaint against Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, saying that Moore will go to trial in September on accusations that he urged 68 probate judges to defy the federal courts on same-sex marriage.
​

The Alabama Court of the Judiciary, a state panel that disciplines judges, refused dueling requests to either dismiss the complaint against Moore outright or remove him from office. Chief Judge Michael Joiner said the case would go to trial Sept. 28. The panel of nine judges will hear the case and decide whether Moore violated judicial ethics and, if so, what punishment he will face. [...]

Moore — who was ousted from office by the court in 2003 for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building — could be removed as chief justice for a second time.

Poor Alabama...

Scandals Embroil Alabama Governor, Speaker and Chief Justice

Moore has an excellent defense. Alabama did not ratify gay marriage and Obergefell was illegal for about a dozen reasons. Moore could ask for a retrial on Obergefell just on the Capteron v Massey Coal (USSC 2009) defense. That Ruling said that no judge may exhibit any bias and still sit on a case. NO judge or juror. Period. It violates the broad understanding of justice in our country. Two Justices, Ginsburg and Kagan were, as federal embodiments of the last stop in justice, openly performing gay weddings as the question "should the fed preside over states on the question of gay marriage" was pending before their court.

Ginsburg even gave at least one interview I know of, far in advance of the Decision, where she said words to the effect of "gay marriage is an idea whose time has come"!! In case that doesn't appear rattling to many reading here because you're so used to corruption you don't even know how to spot it anymore, how would you feel if you were going to court contesting custody for a child, and you are a woman, and a male judge sitting on your case had given an interview the week before in your local newspaper saying "fathers should have sole custody of the children from now on after a divorce"?

Yeah, what Ginsburg and Kagan did was THAT bad.

Judge Moore, you are welcome to use any and all of the legal arguments I've made should they be of any assistance at all. Fight on brother. Fight on for yourself. Fight on for the State of Alabama. And fight on for all the other states who had this illegal Ruling shoved down their throats by a flagrantly-biased Judiciary.

I'm going to put Alabama on my list of places to visit on vacation now. I've even got a friend who lives there. Gonna go check it out and spend some vacation money. Christians and other people boycotting Target Stores etc. will be doing the same, no doubt.

 

[Silhouette]

Alabama Keeps Electing Him and the Judiciary Keeps Removing Him
Well then the elected judges of Alabama ought to listen to the people who employ them. Alabama has spoken and Judge Moore is THEIR CHOICE. I realize that judicial fascism is in vogue right now, especially where the cult of LGBT is concerned. But fascist judges can be removed. I urge this kangaroo court to remember who it was who put Moore in Office, FULLY AWARE OF WHAT HE STOOD FOR ON GAY MARRIAGE.

 

[g5000]

Alabama Keeps Electing Him and the Judiciary Keeps Removing Him
Well then the elected judges of Alabama ought to listen to the people who employ them. Alabama has spoken and Judge Moore is THEIR CHOICE.

And if THEIR CHOICE is to elect a pro-slavery judge?

"Those damned activist judges won't let me own this n*gger!"

 

[Silhouette]

Alabama Keeps Electing Him and the Judiciary Keeps Removing Him
Well then the elected judges of Alabama ought to listen to the people who employ them. Alabama has spoken and Judge Moore is THEIR CHOICE.

And if THEIR CHOICE is to elect a pro-slavery judge?

"Those damned activist judges won't let me own this n*gger!"

Except we have laws that were enacted by Congress that prohibit discrimination against race. We don't have laws enacted by Congress that prohibit discrimination based on deviant sex behaviors. Christians (and others) can refuse to participate in promoting them "as normal". States decide what normal behavior is. The fed doesn't (See Hively v Ivy Tech 2016)..

The Supreme Court may fancy itself a an hoc branch of the Legislature when it comes to adding nonexistent terms to the Constitution. But riddle me this folks, since it's still illegal for polyamorists (polygamists: a sexual attraction/orientation to more than one mate) to marry in the 50 states, then marriage is still considered a privilege not accessible to all. But Obergefell's Opinion (pages 7-8) states that it's illegal to deny marriage to people based on sexual orientation. So, they said in essence "marriage is still a privilege denied to some, but we're going to dictate to the states who those "some" are and who they aren't". Which of course is unconstitutional and an abuse of federal authority.

Moore is correct. I hope he digs his heels in hard and marches this one all the way Up. Alabama and 49 other states are counting on him to deliver their power back to them from 5 Justices in DC. Just 5 people in DC, stepping outside their realm of legal constraints, just told 300 million people in 50 states "Fuck you. We run the place now. We decide who's in and who's not when it comes to marriage". (in violation of the broad Finding in US v Windsor 2013)

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Good for Moore. Hope he continues.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Libertarians foolishly believe our country is a democracy when in fact it is a Republic, which means the courts have the final say on laws.

I'm a strict constructional federalist, with libertarian (small l) leanings, so your statement is, as usual, not remotely related to what is being discussed.

And being a "republic" doesn't mean the courts override everything when it comes to government, particularly our constitutional form of government.

Why do progressives desire to be lorded over by their robe clad "betters", and show such utter disdain for the will of their fellow citizens when it goes against their own beliefs?

You can squirrel all you want, my libertarian buddy, but you don't get to keep your nuts.

You are no more constructional federalist than you are patriot.

Our republican form of government gives the federal judiciary original jurisdiction in all matters constitutional, which includes the laws.