The South's Last, Desperate Stand

[mdk]

Is Alabama on a collision course with the U.S. Supreme Court?

Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow (January 7, 2015)
After five lawyers on the Supreme Court decided last summer that homosexuals have a constitutional right to marry, Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore dispatched an administrative order to state probate judges instructing them not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples....
udge Moore has now sent them a reminder. "He has clarified again that the probate judges must comply with the Alabama law," he explains. "And that is: they are not authorized to issue licenses to same-sex couples for marriage."
Now, U.S. attorneys in Alabama have issued a statement saying the issue was decided by the Supreme Court and Judge Moore's instruction raises "grave concerns." Staver says they are welcome to their opinion – but that's all it is: their opinion....
"You know, at some point in time we have to draw the line," says Staver. "When are we going to stop playing the game of charades and pretend that five people on the Supreme Court can just simply invent whatever they want to? It's not their Constitution, it's the people's Constitution – and their job is to interpret it, not to rewrite it."
Staver suggests doing away with the notion that a majority of court justices can make up law as they go "no matter how disconnected it is from the Constitution."...

Note that Judge Moore is not defying the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell. He is simply and quite correctly saying it does not apply to the state of Alabama. Alabama's natural marriage amendment remains in force because the Court has never ruled on Alabama's constitutional prohibition.
Let's not forget that the Supreme Court issues "opinions" not "rulings." And since we live in America, they are certainly entitled to their own opinions. But it is the Supreme Court, not the Supreme Branch. A Supreme Court ruling cannot possibly be "the law of the land," as the Human Rights Campaign pretends. This is because Article I, Section 1 says quite explicitly that "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States." "All" means "all," as in every last little bit....
How much "legislative power" does the Supreme Court have? Zero. None. Nada. Zilch. It is constitutionally impossible for the Supreme Court to make law. Thus not a single one of its rulings can possibly be "the law of the land." It doesn't have that kind of authority.
Thus Judge Moore "ordered and directed" that probate judges "have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment or the Alabama Marriage Protection Act," and correctly added: "Nothing in the United States Constitution alters or overrides this duty."...

...
You can read the Constitution from front to back, left to right, right to left, backwards, upside down and in Sanskrit and you will find nary a mention of the word "marriage" at all. This means, according to the Tenth Amendment, it's a matter for the states to decide. And consistent with the Constitution, the people of Alabama have decided. Overwhelmingly.
The only one in this sorry mess so far who is actually upholding the Constitution is Justice Roy Moore. He is following the Constitution of the United States, which does not authorize the central government to meddle in marriage, and he is upholding the plain meaning of the Alabama state constitution, which it is his sworn duty to do.
This is not civil disobedience. It is constitutional obedience. Of the highest and most noble order.
It's not Judge Moore who is defying the law of the land. He's upholding it and defending it. No, the ones defying the law of the land would be any Alabama probate judges who defy Judge Moore's legally authorized order. Let's find out who the people are who have a genuine respect for the rule of law. ... Judge Moore only one following Constitution

**********

So people could just as easily form-complain about those probate judges to the Alabama state judicial commission for those judges refusing to follow their oath of office. No new law was created and added to the constitution. Nowhere in the 14th does it say "gender, race, country of origin, religion....and just some deviant sex behavior practitioners but not others..."

I wonder whose opinion is more legally relevant? Bryan Fischer of The American Family Association or the opinion of The Supreme Court? Tough call but I am going to have to go with the SCOTUS this one.

For the record, Bryan Fischer doesn't believe the First Amendment applies to Jews and Muslims.

 

[Skylar]

Is Alabama on a collision course with the U.S. Supreme Court?

Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow (January 7, 2015)
After five lawyers on the Supreme Court decided last summer that homosexuals have a constitutional right to marry, Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore dispatched an administrative order to state probate judges instructing them not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples....
udge Moore has now sent them a reminder. "He has clarified again that the probate judges must comply with the Alabama law," he explains. "And that is: they are not authorized to issue licenses to same-sex couples for marriage."
Now, U.S. attorneys in Alabama have issued a statement saying the issue was decided by the Supreme Court and Judge Moore's instruction raises "grave concerns." Staver says they are welcome to their opinion – but that's all it is: their opinion....
"You know, at some point in time we have to draw the line," says Staver. "When are we going to stop playing the game of charades and pretend that five people on the Supreme Court can just simply invent whatever they want to? It's not their Constitution, it's the people's Constitution – and their job is to interpret it, not to rewrite it."
Staver suggests doing away with the notion that a majority of court justices can make up law as they go "no matter how disconnected it is from the Constitution."...

Note that Judge Moore is not defying the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell. He is simply and quite correctly saying it does not apply to the state of Alabama. Alabama's natural marriage amendment remains in force because the Court has never ruled on Alabama's constitutional prohibition.
Let's not forget that the Supreme Court issues "opinions" not "rulings." And since we live in America, they are certainly entitled to their own opinions. But it is the Supreme Court, not the Supreme Branch. A Supreme Court ruling cannot possibly be "the law of the land," as the Human Rights Campaign pretends. This is because Article I, Section 1 says quite explicitly that "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States." "All" means "all," as in every last little bit....
How much "legislative power" does the Supreme Court have? Zero. None. Nada. Zilch. It is constitutionally impossible for the Supreme Court to make law. Thus not a single one of its rulings can possibly be "the law of the land." It doesn't have that kind of authority.
Thus Judge Moore "ordered and directed" that probate judges "have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment or the Alabama Marriage Protection Act," and correctly added: "Nothing in the United States Constitution alters or overrides this duty."...

...
You can read the Constitution from front to back, left to right, right to left, backwards, upside down and in Sanskrit and you will find nary a mention of the word "marriage" at all. This means, according to the Tenth Amendment, it's a matter for the states to decide. And consistent with the Constitution, the people of Alabama have decided. Overwhelmingly.
The only one in this sorry mess so far who is actually upholding the Constitution is Justice Roy Moore. He is following the Constitution of the United States, which does not authorize the central government to meddle in marriage, and he is upholding the plain meaning of the Alabama state constitution, which it is his sworn duty to do.
This is not civil disobedience. It is constitutional obedience. Of the highest and most noble order.
It's not Judge Moore who is defying the law of the land. He's upholding it and defending it. No, the ones defying the law of the land would be any Alabama probate judges who defy Judge Moore's legally authorized order. Let's find out who the people are who have a genuine respect for the rule of law. ... Judge Moore only one following Constitution

**********

So people could just as easily form-complain about those probate judges to the Alabama state judicial commission for those judges refusing to follow their oath of office. No new law was created and added to the constitution. Nowhere in the 14th does it say "gender, race, country of origin, religion....and just some deviant sex behavior practitioners but not others..."

I wonder whose opinion is more legally relevant? Bryan Fischer of The American Family Association or the opinion of The Supreme Court? Tough call but I am going to have to go with the SCOTUS this one.

For the record, Bryan Fischer doesn't believe the First Amendment applies to Jews and Muslims.

Holy shit. He really doesn't. I thought you were exaggerating. He has argued, with a straight face, that the 1st amendments freedom of religion only applies to Christians.

 

[mdk]

Is Alabama on a collision course with the U.S. Supreme Court?

Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow (January 7, 2015)
After five lawyers on the Supreme Court decided last summer that homosexuals have a constitutional right to marry, Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore dispatched an administrative order to state probate judges instructing them not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples....
udge Moore has now sent them a reminder. "He has clarified again that the probate judges must comply with the Alabama law," he explains. "And that is: they are not authorized to issue licenses to same-sex couples for marriage."
Now, U.S. attorneys in Alabama have issued a statement saying the issue was decided by the Supreme Court and Judge Moore's instruction raises "grave concerns." Staver says they are welcome to their opinion – but that's all it is: their opinion....
"You know, at some point in time we have to draw the line," says Staver. "When are we going to stop playing the game of charades and pretend that five people on the Supreme Court can just simply invent whatever they want to? It's not their Constitution, it's the people's Constitution – and their job is to interpret it, not to rewrite it."
Staver suggests doing away with the notion that a majority of court justices can make up law as they go "no matter how disconnected it is from the Constitution."...

Note that Judge Moore is not defying the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell. He is simply and quite correctly saying it does not apply to the state of Alabama. Alabama's natural marriage amendment remains in force because the Court has never ruled on Alabama's constitutional prohibition.
Let's not forget that the Supreme Court issues "opinions" not "rulings." And since we live in America, they are certainly entitled to their own opinions. But it is the Supreme Court, not the Supreme Branch. A Supreme Court ruling cannot possibly be "the law of the land," as the Human Rights Campaign pretends. This is because Article I, Section 1 says quite explicitly that "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States." "All" means "all," as in every last little bit....
How much "legislative power" does the Supreme Court have? Zero. None. Nada. Zilch. It is constitutionally impossible for the Supreme Court to make law. Thus not a single one of its rulings can possibly be "the law of the land." It doesn't have that kind of authority.
Thus Judge Moore "ordered and directed" that probate judges "have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment or the Alabama Marriage Protection Act," and correctly added: "Nothing in the United States Constitution alters or overrides this duty."...

...
You can read the Constitution from front to back, left to right, right to left, backwards, upside down and in Sanskrit and you will find nary a mention of the word "marriage" at all. This means, according to the Tenth Amendment, it's a matter for the states to decide. And consistent with the Constitution, the people of Alabama have decided. Overwhelmingly.
The only one in this sorry mess so far who is actually upholding the Constitution is Justice Roy Moore. He is following the Constitution of the United States, which does not authorize the central government to meddle in marriage, and he is upholding the plain meaning of the Alabama state constitution, which it is his sworn duty to do.
This is not civil disobedience. It is constitutional obedience. Of the highest and most noble order.
It's not Judge Moore who is defying the law of the land. He's upholding it and defending it. No, the ones defying the law of the land would be any Alabama probate judges who defy Judge Moore's legally authorized order. Let's find out who the people are who have a genuine respect for the rule of law. ... Judge Moore only one following Constitution

**********

So people could just as easily form-complain about those probate judges to the Alabama state judicial commission for those judges refusing to follow their oath of office. No new law was created and added to the constitution. Nowhere in the 14th does it say "gender, race, country of origin, religion....and just some deviant sex behavior practitioners but not others..."

I wonder whose opinion is more legally relevant? Bryan Fischer of The American Family Association or the opinion of The Supreme Court? Tough call but I am going to have to go with the SCOTUS this one.

For the record, Bryan Fischer doesn't believe the First Amendment applies to Jews and Muslims.

Holy shit. He really doesn't. I thought you were exaggerating. He has argued, with a straight face, that the 1st amendments freedom of religion only applies to Christians.

Bryan Fischer is that last person I would go rushing to when it comes to discussing the Constitution. The man is a Dominionist of the highest order.

 

[Skylar]

Is Alabama on a collision course with the U.S. Supreme Court?

Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow (January 7, 2015)
After five lawyers on the Supreme Court decided last summer that homosexuals have a constitutional right to marry, Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore dispatched an administrative order to state probate judges instructing them not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples....
udge Moore has now sent them a reminder. "He has clarified again that the probate judges must comply with the Alabama law," he explains. "And that is: they are not authorized to issue licenses to same-sex couples for marriage."
Now, U.S. attorneys in Alabama have issued a statement saying the issue was decided by the Supreme Court and Judge Moore's instruction raises "grave concerns." Staver says they are welcome to their opinion – but that's all it is: their opinion....
"You know, at some point in time we have to draw the line," says Staver. "When are we going to stop playing the game of charades and pretend that five people on the Supreme Court can just simply invent whatever they want to? It's not their Constitution, it's the people's Constitution – and their job is to interpret it, not to rewrite it."
Staver suggests doing away with the notion that a majority of court justices can make up law as they go "no matter how disconnected it is from the Constitution."...

Note that Judge Moore is not defying the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell. He is simply and quite correctly saying it does not apply to the state of Alabama. Alabama's natural marriage amendment remains in force because the Court has never ruled on Alabama's constitutional prohibition.
Let's not forget that the Supreme Court issues "opinions" not "rulings." And since we live in America, they are certainly entitled to their own opinions. But it is the Supreme Court, not the Supreme Branch. A Supreme Court ruling cannot possibly be "the law of the land," as the Human Rights Campaign pretends. This is because Article I, Section 1 says quite explicitly that "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States." "All" means "all," as in every last little bit....
How much "legislative power" does the Supreme Court have? Zero. None. Nada. Zilch. It is constitutionally impossible for the Supreme Court to make law. Thus not a single one of its rulings can possibly be "the law of the land." It doesn't have that kind of authority.
Thus Judge Moore "ordered and directed" that probate judges "have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment or the Alabama Marriage Protection Act," and correctly added: "Nothing in the United States Constitution alters or overrides this duty."...

...
You can read the Constitution from front to back, left to right, right to left, backwards, upside down and in Sanskrit and you will find nary a mention of the word "marriage" at all. This means, according to the Tenth Amendment, it's a matter for the states to decide. And consistent with the Constitution, the people of Alabama have decided. Overwhelmingly.
The only one in this sorry mess so far who is actually upholding the Constitution is Justice Roy Moore. He is following the Constitution of the United States, which does not authorize the central government to meddle in marriage, and he is upholding the plain meaning of the Alabama state constitution, which it is his sworn duty to do.
This is not civil disobedience. It is constitutional obedience. Of the highest and most noble order.
It's not Judge Moore who is defying the law of the land. He's upholding it and defending it. No, the ones defying the law of the land would be any Alabama probate judges who defy Judge Moore's legally authorized order. Let's find out who the people are who have a genuine respect for the rule of law. ... Judge Moore only one following Constitution

**********

So people could just as easily form-complain about those probate judges to the Alabama state judicial commission for those judges refusing to follow their oath of office. No new law was created and added to the constitution. Nowhere in the 14th does it say "gender, race, country of origin, religion....and just some deviant sex behavior practitioners but not others..."

I wonder whose opinion is more legally relevant? Bryan Fischer of The American Family Association or the opinion of The Supreme Court? Tough call but I am going to have to go with the SCOTUS this one.

For the record, Bryan Fischer doesn't believe the First Amendment applies to Jews and Muslims.

Holy shit. He really doesn't. I thought you were exaggerating. He has argued, with a straight face, that the 1st amendments freedom of religion only applies to Christians.

Bryan Fischer is that last person I would go rushing to when it comes to discussing the Constitution. The man is a Dominionist of the highest order.

Well given that Sil has argued that Christian faith trumps American law, Fischer sounds right up her alley.

 

[Silhouette]

Well given that Sil has argued that Christian faith trumps American law, Fischer sounds right up her alley.

You mean "American Law" like the 1st Amendment's protections of not having to discard your faith for another you don't want? Like Kim Davis refusing to worship at the altar of just some deviant sex behaviors but not others? An erroneous new "class" which has just recently stripped children of their contractual enjoyments and necessity in marriage to "a lifetime without hope of both a mother and father"?

 

[Skylar]

Well given that Sil has argued that Christian faith trumps American law, Fischer sounds right up her alley.

You mean "American Law" like the 1st Amendment's protections of not having to discard your faith for another you don't want?

Kim Davis didn't have the authority to use a government office to force her religion on to unwilling people. She's free to practice as she wishes. She's not free to compel others to follow her religion using government authority.

Which she did to both her fellow clerks as well as the citizens of the county she lived in. There's a reason why her appeal failed epically all the way to the Supreme Court.

Though you do provide a lovely example of how you think Christianity trumps American law. No wonder you were citing Fischer as a primary source. Dominion Christianity seems to be your bag.

 

[Silhouette]

Holy shit. He really doesn't. I thought you were exaggerating. He has argued, with a straight face, that the 1st amendments freedom of religion only applies to Christians.

No...but is LGBT an organized faith? (Knowing your next strawman will be to cite violent Sharia Law of Islamics) Does refusing to advance the gay agenda cause physical harm to someone? If it causes psychological harm, is that harm mitigated by the fact that to reject gay marriage means that less harm will come to children who are going to suffer the redaction of the marriage contract to remove all hope from them of ever having a mother or father for life? Which is legally dominant when it comes to weighing diametrically opposed "psychological harms"? Adults who can vote and have power and can change things? Or the children who are protected only by infant necessities and contract law in this legal debate?

My money is on the kids.

 

[Skylar]

Holy shit. He really doesn't. I thought you were exaggerating. He has argued, with a straight face, that the 1st amendments freedom of religion only applies to Christians.

No...but is LGBT an organized faith?

Nope.

 

[mdk]

Holy shit. He really doesn't. I thought you were exaggerating. He has argued, with a straight face, that the 1st amendments freedom of religion only applies to Christians.

No...but is LGBT an organized faith? (Knowing your next strawman will be to cite violent Sharia Law of Islamics) Does refusing to advance the gay agenda cause physical harm to someone? If it causes psychological harm, is that harm mitigated by the fact that to reject gay marriage means that less harm will come to children who are going to suffer the redaction of the marriage contract to remove all hope from them of ever having a mother or father for life? Which is legally dominant when it comes to weighing diametrically opposed "psychological harms"? Adults who can vote and have power and can change things? Or the children who are protected only by infant necessities and contract law in this legal debate?

My money is on the kids.

I would be a pauper if I placed a bet every time you made a prediction.

 

[Skylar]

Holy shit. He really doesn't. I thought you were exaggerating. He has argued, with a straight face, that the 1st amendments freedom of religion only applies to Christians.

No...but is LGBT an organized faith? (Knowing your next strawman will be to cite violent Sharia Law of Islamics) Does refusing to advance the gay agenda cause physical harm to someone? If it causes psychological harm, is that harm mitigated by the fact that to reject gay marriage means that less harm will come to children who are going to suffer the redaction of the marriage contract to remove all hope from them of ever having a mother or father for life? Which is legally dominant when it comes to weighing diametrically opposed "psychological harms"? Adults who can vote and have power and can change things? Or the children who are protected only by infant necessities and contract law in this legal debate?

My money is on the kids.

I would be a pauper if I placed a bet every time you made a prediction.

Laughing......Sil. Putting the 'Desperate' in 'Desperate Last Stand' since 2013.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I would be a pauper if I placed a bet every time you made a prediction.

Not if you bet against her and found someone else to bet with her, then you would have your money and theirs.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

I wonder whose opinion is more legally relevant? Bryan Fischer of The American Family Association or the opinion of The Supreme Court? Tough call but I am going to have to go with the SCOTUS this one.

For the record, Bryan Fischer doesn't believe the First Amendment applies to Jews and Muslims.

The real contest is between Justice Moore's call for clarity vs the SCOTUS' Obergefell Opinion. How will SCOTUS clarify Obergefell for Alabama's laws? They will have to use very specific language and argument to delineate how just some deviant sex behaviors (but not others) using the 14th's Amendment of blind-equality ( ) can force Christians in Moore's state to facilitate their behavior depriving kids of their contractual rights to both a mother and father for life, or face going to jail.

And I for one can't wait to read that clarification in writing. I hope the Justices responsible for the mistrial of Obergefell are good at playing the game "Twister"...

 

[mdk]

I wonder whose opinion is more legally relevant? Bryan Fischer of The American Family Association or the opinion of The Supreme Court? Tough call but I am going to have to go with the SCOTUS this one.

For the record, Bryan Fischer doesn't believe the First Amendment applies to Jews and Muslims.

The real contest is between Justice Moore's call for clarity vs the SCOTUS' Obergefell Opinion. How will SCOTUS clarify Obergefell for Alabama's laws? They will have to use very specific language and argument to delineate how just some deviant sex behaviors (but not others) can force Christians in Moore's state to facilitate their behavior, or face going to jail.

And I for one can't wait to read that clarification in writing. I hope the Justices responsible for the mistrial of Obergefell are good at playing the game "Twister"...

Hold your breath for a clarification. In the meantime, gay marriage is legal in Alabama and the vast majority of probate judges have ignored his bullshit.

 

[Silhouette]

Hold your breath for a clarification. In the meantime, gay marriage is legal in Alabama and the vast majority of probate judges have ignored his bullshit.

If a legal action that is not clear is ending up throwing Christians in jail...there's going to be clarification. No need at all to hold one's breath..

 

[mdk]

Hold your breath for a clarification. In the meantime, gay marriage is legal in Alabama and the vast majority of probate judges have ignored his bullshit.

If a legal action that is not clear is ending up throwing Christians in jail...there's going to be clarification. No need at all to hold one's breath..

No, the ruling was quite clear. There is only a small handful of dipshits that don't seem to realize that fact. You and Justice Moore are a prime example.

 

[Silhouette]

No, the ruling was quite clear. There is only a small handful of dipshits that don't seem to realize that fact. You and Justice Moore are a prime example.

It's not clear how just some deviant sex behaviors can result in Christians being put in jail for refusing to promote those deviant sex behaviors into the core of society (marriage: depriving God's children of either a mother or father for life), against core mandates of their faith that describe how doing exactly that will land them in the Pit of Fire for eternity.

That will have to be clarified: how a secular law overriding a Christian's passive resistance can force that Christian into the fires of hell.

 

[mdk]

No, the ruling was quite clear. There is only a small handful of dipshits that don't seem to realize that fact. You and Justice Moore are a prime example.

It's not clear how just some deviant sex behaviors can result in Christians being put in jail for refusing to promote those deviant sex behaviors into the core of society (marriage: depriving God's children of either a mother or father for life), against core mandates of their faith that describe how doing exactly that will land them in the Pit of Fire for eternity.

That will have to be clarified: how a secular law overriding a Christian's passive resistance can force that Christian into the fires of hell.

Sounds like a winning legal argument.

 

[Silhouette]

Sounds like a winning legal argument.

Let me ask you this..do you have any objections to SCOTUS clarifying Obergefell for Justice Moore and the state of Alabama re: the Kim Davis issue and same or similar problems?

 

[mdk]

Sounds like a winning legal argument.

Let me ask you this..do you have any objections to SCOTUS clarifying Obergefell for Justice Moore and the state of Alabama re: the Kim Davis issue and same or similar problems?

There is nothing to clarify. Gay marriage is legal in Alabama and Moore's edict was flatly ignored by most of the probate judges in the state.

The SCOTUS already clarified their position in regards to Kim Davis when they denied hearing her appeal. She lost b/c she didn't have a legal leg to stand on. It's why you consistently lose in the courthouse as well.

 

[Skylar]

I wonder whose opinion is more legally relevant? Bryan Fischer of The American Family Association or the opinion of The Supreme Court? Tough call but I am going to have to go with the SCOTUS this one.

For the record, Bryan Fischer doesn't believe the First Amendment applies to Jews and Muslims.

The real contest is between Justice Moore's call for clarity vs the SCOTUS' Obergefell Opinion.

Nope. The USSC's ruling is clear as a bell. Moore just doesn't want to follow the Supreme Court. Even the overwhelming majority of Alabama probate judges told Moore to go fuck himself.