Judge Roy Moore defies feds: 'Law is very clear'

[Skylar]

No, I am making a distinction with a HUGE difference. In an actual democracy, the Civil Rights Act would have been refused in numerous states because the population of those states disagreed. And the majority rules, even if it is by the slimmest of margins.

In our system, the rights of the minority cannot be abridged or removed by a simple majority.

That is certainly a distinction and a difference.

it is a distinction and a difference, just not one between republic and democracy .

And our rights were originally pushed not by the people that set up the Constitution but by those opposed to it.

Are you referring to the Bill of Rights?

yes

Then I think you're framing the question incorrectly. The issue between those who wanted a Bill of RIghts and those who didn't wasn't if the rights existed. But if the rights needed to be enumerated. Both sides recognized that the rights existed. Those who pushed for a Bill of Rights felt they needed to be explicitly written down. Those who opposed it worried that enumeration would lead some to believe that ONLY those rights existed. The 9th amendment was something of a compromise on the issue.

And thank god they wrote it. As the concern that enumeration would lead some to believe that ONLY enumerated rights existed was utterly valid. To this day, in this very thread, you've seen folks make that very mistake. Insisting that since 'marriage isn't in the constitution' that marriage isn't a right.

your quoting the rhetoric of some of the federalists right.....but they were being deceptive

see my recently posted picture of Governeur Morris

They were being deceptive according to who?

 

[paperview]

"The 14th dealt with race not gender issues, as the need later for the womens suffrage amendment proves..."

No, it didn't.

SCOTUS even used the 14th Amendment in Bush v Gore.

Ha!

 

[dcraelin]

no Democracy = Republic ..... we r set up on a "representative" system...which makes us an impure Republic.
rule of law ultimately means nothing if not based on the will of the majority

One good thing that will come out of this episode is more contempt of the clowns that make up our federal judicial system. They should not rule on emotion but on the law. And with an eye beyond one issue alone.

And the federal judge ruled logically. She ruled that equal protection under the law means exactly that.

no, she ruled on the basis of emotion, and justified her vote with some sophistic BS. The 14th dealt with race not gender issues, as the need later for the womens suffrage amendment proves...

Her conclusion is essentially the same as 43 other federal courts to rule on the topic. Were they all 'emotional' too?

And the 14th isn't limited to racial issues. Its limited to what it says. And what is says is this:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

If a State does any of that, they're in violation of the 14th amendment. And the USSC has already recognized that the 14th applies to issues beyond race. So what the federal judge did was apply precedent.

'

The federal judges are acting like herd animals.....one following the other.....yes based on emotion....without much thought or logic....the one district including Ohio I think actually had a judge put some work into it....and came up with the right answer...let the political process work.

Federal judges do follow precedent, as they should. Stare decisis is one of the cornerstones of our legal system. Can I take it from your post that you don't think it should be? Or am I misinterpreting your position?

If we're applying precedent, then the court clearly recognized the 14th amendment's protections apply to gays in Romer v. Evans. And the Windsor decision laid out in extravagant detail all the harms caused gays and their children by the denial of same sex marriage. The courts take on state same sex marriage bans in Windsor was beyond mistaking.

Which might explain why 44 of 46 federal court rulings on the matter went against gay marriage bans. Including the ruling in Alabama.

most of these cases are claiming to find precedent in the Windsor case, which stated that marriage has always been a states rights issue.....they are twisting the ruling as a result of an emotional reaction. ...on the same day the SC issued Windsor they issued the California case which...a prime oportunity to legalize gay marriage....they didnt....it is illogical for the lower courts to find precedent when there obviously wasnt any there. ...in fact the Ohio judge does find ruling precedent in a case which denies right to gay marriage.....Let the ruling stand should be applied to the long standing practice of marriage...that is its correct application. Not using it as a twisted excuse to rule based on your idea of fairness, based on an emotional appeal.

 

[dcraelin]

it is a distinction and a difference, just not one between republic and democracy .

And our rights were originally pushed not by the people that set up the Constitution but by those opposed to it.

Are you referring to the Bill of Rights?

yes

Then I think you're framing the question incorrectly. The issue between those who wanted a Bill of RIghts and those who didn't wasn't if the rights existed. But if the rights needed to be enumerated. Both sides recognized that the rights existed. Those who pushed for a Bill of Rights felt they needed to be explicitly written down. Those who opposed it worried that enumeration would lead some to believe that ONLY those rights existed. The 9th amendment was something of a compromise on the issue.

And thank god they wrote it. As the concern that enumeration would lead some to believe that ONLY enumerated rights existed was utterly valid. To this day, in this very thread, you've seen folks make that very mistake. Insisting that since 'marriage isn't in the constitution' that marriage isn't a right.

your quoting the rhetoric of some of the federalists right.....but they were being deceptive

see my recently posted picture of Governeur Morris

They were being deceptive according to who?

according to history,...I gave yo one example....but you are stuck in your emotion based opinion.

 

[Silhouette]

most of these cases are claiming to find precedent in the Windsor case, which stated that marriage has always been a states rights issue.....they are twisting the ruling as a result of an emotional reaction. ...on the same day the SC issued Windsor they issued the California case which...a prime oportunity to legalize gay marriage....they didnt....it is illogical for the lower courts to find precedent when there obviously wasnt any there. ...in fact the Ohio judge does find ruling precedent in a case which denies right to gay marriage.....Let the ruling stand should be applied to the long standing practice of marriage...that is its correct application. Not using it as a twisted excuse to rule based on your idea of fairness, based on an emotional appeal.

A state's right to regulate marriage to incentivize the best formative environment for kids (mother/father) is not some "emotional appeal", pal. That is the core of our democracy and its right to protect children via regulation of the majority. This isn't about race and you and all the Justices on the Supreme Court damn well know it isn't. It's about what states feel is right in the formative environment for kids; the very definition of the structure of the word "marriage" itself.

If the fed defines it for the states, they'd better darn well do a good job the first time and not leave out polygamists or any other bastardization. Equality demands they be thorough.

Windsor affirmed no less than 56 times in 26 pages that states have the ultimate say on gay marriage. Then they vacated the Prop 8 issue on procedural matters. THEY MADE NO DETERMINATION ON PROP 8 ON THE MERITS. The determination they DID make on Prop 8 was in Windsor, it's twin Hearing where they said, again, 56 times that states are the unquestioned authorities on this matter. It was in fact this very hinge point that they used to dismiss the part of DOMA that they did.

 

[paperview]

most of these cases are claiming to find precedent in the Windsor case, which stated that marriage has always been a states rights issue.....they are twisting the ruling as a result of an emotional reaction. ....

No, the way Windsor was written gave the lower courts the guidance.

Scalia even predicted it in his dissent:

“The majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition.”

He was right..

Scalia also went on for 26 snarling pages and even showed just how people who embraced equality could arm themselves with the SCOTUS ruling to expand gay rights.

 

[Skylar]

And the federal judge ruled logically. She ruled that equal protection under the law means exactly that.

no, she ruled on the basis of emotion, and justified her vote with some sophistic BS. The 14th dealt with race not gender issues, as the need later for the womens suffrage amendment proves...

Her conclusion is essentially the same as 43 other federal courts to rule on the topic. Were they all 'emotional' too?

And the 14th isn't limited to racial issues. Its limited to what it says. And what is says is this:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

If a State does any of that, they're in violation of the 14th amendment. And the USSC has already recognized that the 14th applies to issues beyond race. So what the federal judge did was apply precedent.

'

The federal judges are acting like herd animals.....one following the other.....yes based on emotion....without much thought or logic....the one district including Ohio I think actually had a judge put some work into it....and came up with the right answer...let the political process work.

Federal judges do follow precedent, as they should. Stare decisis is one of the cornerstones of our legal system. Can I take it from your post that you don't think it should be? Or am I misinterpreting your position?

If we're applying precedent, then the court clearly recognized the 14th amendment's protections apply to gays in Romer v. Evans. And the Windsor decision laid out in extravagant detail all the harms caused gays and their children by the denial of same sex marriage. The courts take on state same sex marriage bans in Windsor was beyond mistaking.

Which might explain why 44 of 46 federal court rulings on the matter went against gay marriage bans. Including the ruling in Alabama.

most of these cases are claiming to find precedent in the Windsor case, which stated that marriage has always been a states rights issue.....they are twisting the ruling as a result of an emotional reaction

The Windsor ruling never uses the term 'states rights'. The Windsor case was about the applicability of federal law, specifically DOMA. And it explicitly said that state marriage laws were subject to constitutional guarantees. Every federal court ruling overturning such bans did so on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees.

What's 'emotional' about that?

And the Romer v. Evans ruling recognized that the 14th amendment's equal protection clause applied to gays in the protection of their rights. So what would be 'emotional' about recognizing the equal protection clause applied to gays in the protection of the rights related to marriage? Especially when marriage bans fail the three fold requirement that such laws must 1) serve a legitimate state interest 2) serve an valid legislative end 3) have a very good reason.

. ...on the same day the SC issued Windsor they issued the California case which...a prime oportunity to legalize gay marriage....they didnt....it is illogical for the lower courts to find precedent when there obviously wasnt any there

The issue the court ruled on was standing in the California case. The court never ruled on the merits of the case, for or against.

As for 'logic', the court has refused to overturn any of the rulings overturning gay marriage bans in 25 different states. Instead, the court preserved ever such ruling by denying cert. If they believed that overturning such bans was a violation of States rights, then logically they would have taken up the case. Yet they never did. The only case the USSC failed to preserve on the issue was the ONE case where gay marriage bans were affirmed.

That's the case being heard in April.

Logically, the Alabama federal court could conclude that the court found no constitutional conflicts in the overturning of gay marriage bans by the federal courts. Especially given the Windsor ruling's take on state same sex marriage bans was beyond mistaking.

 

[Skylar]

most of these cases are claiming to find precedent in the Windsor case, which stated that marriage has always been a states rights issue.....they are twisting the ruling as a result of an emotional reaction. ....

No, the way Windsor was written gave the lower courts the guidance.

Scalia even predicted it in his dissent:

“The majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition.”

He was right..

Scalia also went on for 26 snarling pages and even showed just how people who embraced equality could arm themselves with the SCOTUS ruling to expand gay rights.

Oh, Scalia insisted that the Windsor court's take on state gay marriage bans were 'beyond mistaking'. And that the court using the rationale of Windsor to overturn state same marriage bans was 'inevitable'.

The lower courts did exactly that. How is that 'emotional'? Scalia himself recognized the wording of Windsor could and inevitably would be applied to state same sex marriage bans.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Incorrect.

A democracy and a republic are two different things altogether.

Indeed, ours is a Constitutional Republic, where the rule of law is paramount and its democratic component representative, not direct.

no Democracy = Republic ..... we r set up on a "representative" system...which makes us an impure Republic.
rule of law ultimately means nothing if not based on the will of the majority

One good thing that will come out of this episode is more contempt of the clowns that make up our federal judicial system. They should not rule on emotion but on the law. And with an eye beyond one issue alone.

And the federal judge ruled logically. She ruled that equal protection under the law means exactly that.

no, she ruled on the basis of emotion, and justified her vote with some sophistic BS. The 14th dealt with race not gender issues, as the need later for the womens suffrage amendment proves...

Her conclusion is essentially the same as 43 other federal courts to rule on the topic. Were they all 'emotional' too?

And the 14th isn't limited to racial issues. Its limited to what it says. And what is says is this:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

If a State does any of that, they're in violation of the 14th amendment. And the USSC has already recognized that the 14th applies to issues beyond race. So what the federal judge did was apply precedent.

'

The federal judges are acting like herd animals.....one following the other.....yes based on emotion....without much thought or logic....the one district including Ohio I think actually had a judge put some work into it....and came up with the right answer...let the political process work.

no life liberty or property is being denied without due process of law.
so why did we require another amendment for womens suffrage?

Because the Court, rightly or wrongly, rejected the 14th Amendment argument in 1872.

 

[Skylar]

no Democracy = Republic ..... we r set up on a "representative" system...which makes us an impure Republic.
rule of law ultimately means nothing if not based on the will of the majority

One good thing that will come out of this episode is more contempt of the clowns that make up our federal judicial system. They should not rule on emotion but on the law. And with an eye beyond one issue alone.

And the federal judge ruled logically. She ruled that equal protection under the law means exactly that.

no, she ruled on the basis of emotion, and justified her vote with some sophistic BS. The 14th dealt with race not gender issues, as the need later for the womens suffrage amendment proves...

Her conclusion is essentially the same as 43 other federal courts to rule on the topic. Were they all 'emotional' too?

And the 14th isn't limited to racial issues. Its limited to what it says. And what is says is this:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

If a State does any of that, they're in violation of the 14th amendment. And the USSC has already recognized that the 14th applies to issues beyond race. So what the federal judge did was apply precedent.

'

The federal judges are acting like herd animals.....one following the other.....yes based on emotion....without much thought or logic....the one district including Ohio I think actually had a judge put some work into it....and came up with the right answer...let the political process work.

no life liberty or property is being denied without due process of law.
so why did we require another amendment for womens suffrage?

Because the Court, rightly or wrongly, rejected the 14th Amendment argument in 1872.

But then began to selectively incorporated it on the 'equal protection clause' from about 1900 on.

 

[Syriusly]

And the federal judge ruled logically. She ruled that equal protection under the law means exactly that.

Yep. Not "go ahead and marry anyone you want". Equal means equal. A black man can marry anyone a white man can because the state can't discriminate against his race. It isn't the same as a black man marrying a black man though, that's where the word 'equal' gets abused by activists..

It isn't the same thing- but it is the same issue.
Alabama law until 2000 made it illegal for a person of one race to marry a person of another race.
Alabama law currently makes it illegal for a person of one gender to marry a person of the same gender

Sexual preference is not race- but neither distinction- or discrimination- serves any legitimate State interest- and that is what this judge- and about a dozen other judges have also found.

 

[Syriusly]

SLYHUNTER SAID:

“Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.”

The voters have no authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights; citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – this is why we're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

we are a Democracy which means the same damn thing as Republic....see my pictures most of which deal with this subject

Incorrect.

A democracy and a republic are two different things altogether.

Indeed, ours is a Constitutional Republic, where the rule of law is paramount and its democratic component representative, not direct.

no Democracy = Republic ..... we r set up on a "representative" system...which makes us an impure Republic.
rule of law ultimately means nothing if not based on the will of the majority

One good thing that will come out of this episode is more contempt of the clowns that make up our federal judicial system. They should not rule on emotion but on the law. And with an eye beyond one issue alone.

And the federal judge ruled logically. She ruled that equal protection under the law means exactly that.

no, she ruled on the basis of emotion, and justified her vote with some sophistic BS. The 14th dealt with race not gender issues, as the need later for the womens suffrage amendment proves...

And you base that claim entirely upon your emotion- you have no evidence to support that claim. The 14th Amendment doesn't mention race at all.

Note the language in the relevant first part

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Dana7360]

Marriage isn't a person.

Strawman. No one ever said marriage is a person.

So what else have you got?

You just defeated your argument then. The gays definitely were pretending marriage was a person and needed to be protected Constitutionally like a race. I've said all along it was bunk.

No- that is just your bizarre strawman.

Americans have a right to marriage- even the gay Americans you despise.

LOL. You guys are amazing. Only several years ago every major political candidate supported traditional marriage. Same with states, even California. Now you malicious assholes are trying to label everyone that supports traditional marriage as despising gays. You're deranged.

Why else would someone be against same sex marriage? It does not effect anyone else in any way.

And "just a few years ago"? It was "just a few years ago" that gays lost their jobs of someone found out they were gay, and they were often beaten up just for being gay.

Some were killed for just being gay.

 

[Syriusly]

Incorrect.

A democracy and a republic are two different things altogether.

Indeed, ours is a Constitutional Republic, where the rule of law is paramount and its democratic component representative, not direct.

no Democracy = Republic ..... we r set up on a "representative" system...which makes us an impure Republic.
rule of law ultimately means nothing if not based on the will of the majority

One good thing that will come out of this episode is more contempt of the clowns that make up our federal judicial system. They should not rule on emotion but on the law. And with an eye beyond one issue alone.

And the federal judge ruled logically. She ruled that equal protection under the law means exactly that.

no, she ruled on the basis of emotion, and justified her vote with some sophistic BS. The 14th dealt with race not gender issues, as the need later for the womens suffrage amendment proves...

Her conclusion is essentially the same as 43 other federal courts to rule on the topic. Were they all 'emotional' too?

And the 14th isn't limited to racial issues. Its limited to what it says. And what is says is this:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

If a State does any of that, they're in violation of the 14th amendment. And the USSC has already recognized that the 14th applies to issues beyond race. So what the federal judge did was apply precedent.

'

The federal judges are acting like herd animals.....one following the other.....yes based on emotion....without much thought or logic..

Their rulings demonstrate far more thought and logic than you have demonstrated here.

I havent' read them all, but I have read 3- Wisconsin, California and one other- and each one takes the time to analyze the law, and explain his or her rational as to why the laws are unconstitutional.

Which is far, far more than you have done.

 

[Silhouette]

It isn't the same thing- but it is the same issue.
Alabama law until 2000 made it illegal for a person of one race to marry a person of another race.
Alabama law currently makes it illegal for a person of one gender to marry a person of the same gender

Sexual preference is not race- but neither distinction- or discrimination- serves any legitimate State interest- and that is what this judge- and about a dozen other judges have also found.

The legitimate interest it serves is that children do not do well in homes where their gender is missing as a parent. Marriage is incentivized by the separate states to create the best environment for the most important people in marriage: children.

It's less damaging for a child to grow up in a home with a single parent still trying to date the opposite gender (the child's) because that child still sees through his mother's eyes that "my gender still matters to her". If that same child is raised in a lesbian home, the implicit daily message to him is "you NEVER will matter". This damage sticks with the child as they grow into adulthood:

Page 8 (the left side on the green background) http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.

Page 10 (The bold largest heading above the material that followed it)

Young people without a role model of the same gender in their lives

The Daily Mail article from the Prince's Trust study... Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..

Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"Law is very clear."

Hahahaha! That's a great one!

 

[Zoom-boing]

And the federal judge ruled logically. She ruled that equal protection under the law means exactly that.

Yep. Not "go ahead and marry anyone you want". Equal means equal. A black man can marry anyone a white man can because the state can't discriminate against his race. It isn't the same as a black man marrying a black man though, that's where the word 'equal' gets abused by activists..

It isn't the same thing- but it is the same issue.
Alabama law until 2000 made it illegal for a person of one race to marry a person of another race.
Alabama law currently makes it illegal for a person of one gender to marry a person of the same gender

Sexual preference is not race- but neither distinction- or discrimination- serves any legitimate State interest- and that is what this judge- and about a dozen other judges have also found.

By that logic two brothers should be able to marry each other. Or two sisters. Or mother/daughter; father/son, etc. Just not any two opposite sex related persons. Is that right?

 

[Dana7360]

You just defeated your argument then. The gays definitely were pretending marriage was a person and needed to be protected Constitutionally like a race. I've said all along it was bunk.

No- that is just your bizarre strawman.

Americans have a right to marriage- even the gay Americans you despise.

LOL. You guys are amazing. Only several years ago every major political candidate supported traditional marriage. Same with states, even California. Now you malicious assholes are trying to label everyone that supports traditional marriage as despising gays. You're deranged.

Why else would someone be against same sex marriage? It does not effect anyone else in any way.

And "just a few years ago"? It was "just a few years ago" that gays lost their jobs of someone found out they were gay, and they were often beaten up just for being gay.

Oh shut the fuck up. We are talking about marriage, not hanging queers by their balls. So all those Democrats were intolerant homophobes to you huh? I, like the majority of Americans, think we have the right to define marriages. The male/female union has always been the foundation, we reserve the right to recognize genders for what they are and prefer to not pretend genders are irrelevant.

Sorry, I don't shut up just because you have issues.

And if you would like to remove the +/- 1,400 benefits that straight married couples enjoy from federal state and local gov'ts, there would be no lack of equal protection under the law. Try doing that.

Otherwise, get used to same sex marriages. It shouldn't be difficult. They don't change your marriage at all.

It's not just money.

It's being able to see a loved one in a hospital. It's about children and having to spend thousands of dollars on lawyers to protect children and property that straights don't have to spend. It's about inheritance and having to get a lawyer to make sure that their spouse is able to inherit from them or their kids get to stay with their spouse after one has died.

There are so many benefits that we straights take for granted but are denied to gay people. It's disgusting to see that so many people in our nation are still filled with such hate that they can't see what's happening in front of their faces.

 

[Skylar]

And the federal judge ruled logically. She ruled that equal protection under the law means exactly that.

Yep. Not "go ahead and marry anyone you want". Equal means equal. A black man can marry anyone a white man can because the state can't discriminate against his race. It isn't the same as a black man marrying a black man though, that's where the word 'equal' gets abused by activists..

It isn't the same thing- but it is the same issue.
Alabama law until 2000 made it illegal for a person of one race to marry a person of another race.
Alabama law currently makes it illegal for a person of one gender to marry a person of the same gender

Sexual preference is not race- but neither distinction- or discrimination- serves any legitimate State interest- and that is what this judge- and about a dozen other judges have also found.

By that logic two brothers should be able to marry each other. Or two sisters. Or mother/daughter; father/son, etc. Just not any two opposite sex related persons. Is that right?

By what logic?

 

[Dana7360]

Where in the law is it clear that States can ignore federal court orders?

Roy Moore ignored federal court orders before and it cost him his job. Maybe it will happen again soon.

The federal courts have refused to issue a stay or to reverse their decision. This means the ruling stands, at least until June when the SCOTUS rules on the issue.

Does anyone think Roy Moore will be able to defy a federal court judge for 4 months?

This isn't the first time he has defied court orders.

This time he shouldn't just lose his job. He should lose his freedom. He should be prosecuted and put in prison for his crime.

It's a crime to defy a court order.