Alabama Keeps Electing Him and the Judiciary Keeps Removing Him

[Vastator]

We love em' down here. He's got an open invitation to dinner at my family's home any day of the week.

 

[Silhouette]

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

Unless they abuse that authority granting marriage privilege to just some sexual orientations, but not others. Obergefell in its essence found that it is illegal for states to discriminate against the privilege of marriage based on someone's sexual orientation (See Opinion, pages 7-8). Yet some sexual orientations are still barred from being married. Which of course violates the spirit of the law (14th Amendment) they cited to come to their conclusion. Either the Court steps up beforehand in anticipation of this challenge to Obergefell, and Orders states that now ANY sexual orientation may marry, including polygamists and people attracted to their blood family members, etc., or it faces an indefensible challenged to Obergefell.

So their Decision was arbitrary and discriminatory and really was a power grab from the states saying "just we 5 will tell you who will and who will not marry within your state". Which is a violation of the broad finding of US v Windsor 2013. Their decision therefore, was an illegal decision. It will be overturned on the polygamy angle alone. Though many other angles to overturn it would suffice.

Kennedy and Breyer will have to be held to the fire on the points I just made. The women in the court will not be swayed by logical arguments though. They had their minds made up already. A fact that Ginsburg let slip months in advance of Obergefell...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil does not understand the law. She certainly misstates what Obergefell means. Her insinuations about the law and marriage are loony. End of subject.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

I'm even more uncomfortable with the idea of people not having equal rights in some states, than I am with the idea that this is a state's decision. These are basic fundamental rights, which have no bearing on people who aren't gay. If your objection to gay marriage is based on the idea that gay's shouldn't get marriage, or that it's wrong, it's a religious argument, and religious prejudices and biases should never be codified.

If you don't want to do business with any class of people, don't open a public business. It's that simple. And just for the record, Jesus was really clear that we should welcome everyone - even those who don't worship and think like we do. It's in the parable of the Good Samaritan, his admonition to the crowd getting ready to stone an adulterer, and in his washing the feet of the poor. Everyone is to be treated with love, compassion, decency. Anyone who is refusing service to gays, is not following the teachings of Jesus.

 

[bodecea]

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!"

And it would be their choice to vote in an anti-2nd Amendment judge?

 

[bodecea]

Good for Moore. Hope he continues.

Oh...I do too...nothing better than having the Stupid on parade.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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

Kinda like the Clintons eh?
So what bullshit law did he violate

 

[Seawytch]

Good for Moore. Hope he continues.

Me too! I hope he continues to make Alabama a laughingstock as well!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Good for Moore. Hope he continues.

Me too! I hope he continues to make Alabama a laughingstock as well!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just the weirdos are laughing.

 

[Seawytch]

Good for Moore. Hope he continues.

Me too! I hope he continues to make Alabama a laughingstock as well!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just the weirdos are laughing.

Sure, go with that.

Gov. Robert Bentley's divorce drama goes national


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Silhouette]

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

Unless they abuse that authority granting marriage privilege to just some sexual orientations, but not others. Obergefell in its essence found that it is illegal for states to discriminate against the privilege of marriage based on someone's sexual orientation (See Opinion, pages 7-8). Yet some sexual orientations are still barred from being married. Which of course violates the spirit of the law (14th Amendment) they cited to come to their conclusion. Either the Court steps up beforehand in anticipation of this challenge to Obergefell, and Orders states that now ANY sexual orientation may marry, including polygamists and people attracted to their blood family members, etc., or it faces an indefensible challenged to Obergefell.

So their Decision was arbitrary and discriminatory and really was a power grab from the states saying "just we 5 will tell you who will and who will not marry within your state". Which is a violation of the broad finding of US v Windsor 2013. Their decision therefore, was an illegal decision. It will be overturned on the polygamy angle alone. Though many other angles to overturn it would suffice.

Kennedy and Breyer will have to be held to the fire on the points I just made. The women in the court will not be swayed by logical arguments though. They had their minds made up already. A fact that Ginsburg let slip months in advance of Obergefell...

Sil does not understand the law. She certainly misstates what Obergefell means. Her insinuations about the law and marriage are loony. End of subject.

Translation, "I'm worried Sil has good points, so I'm going to ad hominem instead of rebut, and declare victory in this debate without merit for my doing so".
..And... "we're not going to discuss Sil's points anymore! Everyone got that?!"
It's OK Jake, I know you're worried about the swiss cheese case of Obergefell chock-a-block full of holes.

When they made discrimination against sexual orientation illegal in Obergefell, they should've mentioned to the public that that includes ALL sexual orientations that states object to, not just some..

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Sil: . . . Obergefell in its essence found that it is illegal for states to discriminate against the privilege of marriage based on someone's sexual orientation (See Opinion, pages 7-8).

Jake: Sil does not understand the Obergefell.

She certainly misstates what Obergefell means. Her insinuations about the law and marriage are loony. End of subject.

 

[Avatar4321]

The people have the right to veto the decisions of the judiciary.

 

[Seawytch]

The people have the right to veto the decisions of the judiciary.

Sure, the people of Alabama could elect him a third time. Why stop being stupid now after all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk