Alabama chief judge defies federal court (again)

[gunnarthor]

Obviously, this is everywhere but Alabama chief justice instructed the probate judges of Alabama (who technically report to him) to only rely on Alabama law and constitution and to not issue same sex couples marriage licenses.  This is in response to a Federal Court ruling that Alabama's ban on same sex marriage is unconstitutional.  Moore was kicked off the bench a decade or so ago for refusing to follow a federal court ruling to get rid of the 10 commandments at the courthouse.  

 

So he's kind of a dick.  

 

On the plus side, same sex marriage is ok in 37 states now and the USSC isn't issuing a stay so it's pretty well assumed that they will allow same sex marriage everywhere within the year.

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

Wow. Just wow. The guy swears to uphold the Constitution and then tells his probate judges to disregard it when he doesn't like a Federal ruling.

 

That guy can't get kicked out of the courtroom quickly enough. Shameful.

[Bark's Lounge]

It's Alabama, what can you expect? I have been there, it's like going back in a time machine 35+ years. The weather is nice for the most part... everything else - not so much.

[glunn]

It's Alabama, what can you expect? I have been there, it's like going back in a time machine 35+ years. The weather is nice for the most part... everything else - not so much.

Actually, the weather is not that great.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Judges have been legislating for years.  Of course, the hypocrisy here is what bothers me more than anything else.  The same people complaining about how judges do this are the same ones saying that it's great he's taking a stand.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Judges have been legislating for years.  Of course, the hypocrisy here is what bothers me more than anything else.  The same people complaining about how judges do this are the same ones saying that it's great he's taking a stand.

But there's a considerable difference between legislating and ignoring a superior court's ruling. Judges legislate by disregarding laws on the books all the time... but to directly oppose a Federal court is pretty rare as far as I know.

[gunnarthor]

But there's a considerable difference between legislating and ignoring a superior court's ruling. Judges legislate by disregarding laws on the books all the time... but to directly oppose a Federal court is pretty rare as far as I know.

Yeah, frankly, this is why it's so fascinating.  I expect that the ethics panel removes him from his post again.

[diehardtwinsfan]

But there's a considerable difference between legislating and ignoring a superior court's ruling. Judges legislate by disregarding laws on the books all the time... but to directly oppose a Federal court is pretty rare as far as I know.

Ignoring a superior court, ignoring the constitution, ignoring congressional law, or just making it up as you go.  As far as I'm concerned, it's all impeachable. 

 

Yes, I think Moore needs to go... along with every justice of the supreme court and a good number of federal and state judges.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Ignoring a superior court, ignoring the constitution, ignoring congressional law, or just making it up as you go.  As far as I'm concerned, it's all impeachable. 

 

Yes, I think Moore needs to go... along with every justice of the supreme court and a good number of federal and state judges.

Marrying a lawyer has tempered my view on judges a lot. What seems like insanity to us is often rational interpretation of the laws on the books. It's not a judge's job to do what's right, it's their job to interpret laws that are often written by blithering idiots.

 

That doesn't mean that we need to agree with everything they do but it does mean we simply don't understand all the intricacies of the situation much of the time.

[gunnarthor]

Marrying a lawyer has tempered my view on judges a lot. What seems like insanity to us is often rational interpretation of the laws on the books. It's not a judge's job to do what's right, it's their job to interpret laws that are often written by blithering idiots.

 

That doesn't mean that we need to agree with everything they do but it does mean we simply don't understand all the intricacies of the situation much of the time.

No, I'm a lawyer.  Judges are a significant part of our broken justice system.  Very few are really "neutral."  Nearly all side with the government and most come from that background.  And lower court judges often make stupid, arbitrary decisions knowing that the hurt party probably can't afford to appeal. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

No, I'm a lawyer.  Judges are a significant part of our broken justice system.  Very few are really "neutral."  Nearly all side with the government and most come from that background.  And lower court judges often make stupid, arbitrary decisions knowing that the hurt party probably can't afford to appeal. 

Yeah, okay, that's fair. My wife clerked for a pretty awesome judge (who actually married us) so my view of judges is probably a bit pie in the sky.

 

But I firmly believe that the average judge is smarter than the average legislator. At least the judge had to pass some kind of test to reach the position.

 

The average legislator is... Well, it's ****ing Congress.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Yeah, okay, that's fair. My wife clerked for a pretty awesome judge (who actually married us) so my view of judges is probably a bit pie in the sky.

 

But I firmly believe that the average judge is smarter than the average legislator. At least the judge had to pass some kind of test to reach the position.

 

The average legislator is... Well, it's ****ing Congress.

You may be right about their intelligence, but that doesn't mean that the actions are right. that's my issue. They have a clearly defined role in the constitution (as does Congress and the President for that matter), none follow it.

[gunnarthor]

Yeah, okay, that's fair. My wife clerked for a pretty awesome judge (who actually married us) so my view of judges is probably a bit pie in the sky.

 

But I firmly believe that the average judge is smarter than the average legislator. At least the judge had to pass some kind of test to reach the position.

 

The average legislator is... Well, it's ****ing Congress.

Yeah, I'll grant you that.  Most judges I've met are very smart, very driven and know a lot about their field - immigration law, criminal law, bankruptcy law, whatever.  My problem is that very few are flexible enough to see the problems within the system.  Most judges, for instance, know that police officers will lie on the stand (it's called testilying), most judges know that minorities are profiled by these same cops.  Yet no judge does anything about it.  The judicial system essentially made it impossible for minorities to even point that out.  It was the judicial branch that severely weakened most 4th amendment protections, not the legislature or executive branches.  

[gunnarthor]

It was the judicial branch that severely weakened most 4th amendment protections, not the legislature or executive branches.  

My timing was excellent.  The MN Supreme Court essentially ruled today that no Minnesotan can refuse to take a breathalyzer test.  If you refuse, you can be arrested for refusing to take the test and they can then give you the test as a search-incident-to-a-arrest.  All without a warrant.  Alan Page dissented.

[diehardtwinsfan]

My timing was excellent.  The MN Supreme Court essentially ruled today that no Minnesotan can refuse to take a breathalyzer test.  If you refuse, you can be arrested for refusing to take the test and they can then give you the test as a search-incident-to-a-arrest.  All without a warrant.  Alan Page dissented.

I'd be fine with this if it's a probable cause situation, but these random stops/road blocks they do these days are completely unconstitutional. Anyone stopped in that situation has every right to say no.

[gunnarthor]

This is the story that keeps on giving.  I'm a lawyer, I've marched in several pride parades and it's pretty clear that same sex marriage is winning.  But late last night, the AL Supreme Court said the federal district courts decision to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples didn't apply.  This is a horrible decision, of course, but there is some real car-wreck entertainment to this, as well.  It's nearly unprecedented for a state court to make this kind of claim.  From a legal entertainment this is the equivalent of that minor league manager's epic base throwing tantrum a few years back that went viral. You can't quite believe it's happening and you can't quite look away.  

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/04/in-defiant-ruling-alabama-supreme-court-stops-same-sex-marriage-in-state/

[diehardtwinsfan]

Seems to me that the compromise on the gay marriage thing is to allow Gays to marry but simultaneously protect the rights of religious organizations to say that there is no recrimination for choosing not to perform the weddings. I think that would assuage about 90% of the population minus the rather loud and obnoxious 5% on either side. Gays would be able to get married in the courts or in denominations that have no problem with this.

 

Regardless of which, this is where the states need to step up.

[TheLeviathan]

Seems to me that the compromise on the gay marriage thing is to allow Gays to marry but simultaneously protect the rights of religious organizations to say that there is no recrimination for choosing not to perform the weddings. I think that would assuage about 90% of the population minus the rather loud and obnoxious 5% on either side. Gays would be able to get married in the courts or in denominations that have no problem with this.

 

Regardless of which, this is where the states need to step up.

 

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure any church can deny a service in states where gay marriage is being recognized.  Is that not what's happening?

[diehardtwinsfan]

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure any church can deny a service in states where gay marriage is being recognized.  Is that not what's happening?

 

I assume so, but nothing stops a lawsuit or some idiot DA trying to make a statement.  I know for a fact that many Christians are concerned about this type of thing, and while it's likely not to happen, a simple guarantee would make it a ton more palatable for them.

[TheLeviathan]

I assume so, but nothing stops a lawsuit or some idiot DA trying to make a statement.  I know for a fact that many Christians are concerned about this type of thing, and while it's likely not to happen, a simple guarantee would make it a ton more palatable for them.

 

I feel ike the first amendment sort of covers it.

[biggentleben]

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure any church can deny a service in states where gay marriage is being recognized.  Is that not what's happening?

 

There have been some lawsuits, but usually they use that the church advertises things like wedding planning or music wedding services to sue for, not whether or not a church won't do the ceremony itself.

[TheLeviathan]

There have been some lawsuits, but usually they use that the church advertises things like wedding planning or music wedding services to sue for, not whether or not a church won't do the ceremony itself.

 

Yeah and while I'm a strong advocate for gay marriage, it is totally inappropriate to legally force churches to marry anyone for any reason.

 

But that issue is separate to allowing states to recognize married couples who are homosexual.

[biggentleben]

Yeah and while I'm a strong advocate for gay marriage, it is totally inappropriate to legally force churches to marry anyone for any reason.

 

But that issue is separate to allowing states to recognize married couples who are homosexual.

 

What I don't understand is why a couple would want to force a church to marry them, whether homo- or heterosexual.  I've married 3 couples, and two would have had issues finding a church to perform the ceremony, but rather than forcing the issue, they found someone they trusted with the ceremony to preside.  Why push the issue on someone so adamantly against it?  I'm a huge advocate, and while I've not been asked to preside over a same sex union (mostly because they're still not legal here), I would be honored to be asked.  That said, I'd never push the limits to ask to have a church I knew to be against gay marriage to be the space to host the wedding.

[TheLeviathan]

What I don't understand is why a couple would want to force a church to marry them, whether homo- or heterosexual.  I've married 3 couples, and two would have had issues finding a church to perform the ceremony, but rather than forcing the issue, they found someone they trusted with the ceremony to preside.  Why push the issue on someone so adamantly against it?  I'm a huge advocate, and while I've not been asked to preside over a same sex union (mostly because they're still not legal here), I would be honored to be asked.  That said, I'd never push the limits to ask to have a church I knew to be against gay marriage to be the space to host the wedding.

 

Couldn't agree more, it's highly disrespectful to someone's beliefs.  You don't have to agree with them, you can even not like them for their beliefs.  But to try and legally upend their belief system?

 

I really, really don't like that.  On top of, as you said, the whole idea of it being confusing to even attempt.

[Mike Sixel]

Ya, we should not be telling a church what it can/cannot do (within obvious safety limits).

 

But that has nothing to do with the LEGAL recognition of a marriage contract between two consenting adults........

[diehardtwinsfan]

I feel ike the first amendment sort of covers it.

I agree with you there, but since no one bothers listening to the constitution anymore, it certainly won't stop someone from trying to bankrupt a church or a DA making a statement. Like it or not, that is a very real concern that religious people have. Assuage that concern, and I think there'd be a lot less pushback from those circles.

[biggentleben]

I agree with you there, but since no one bothers listening to the constitution anymore, it certainly won't stop someone from trying to bankrupt a church or a DA making a statement. Like it or not, that is a very real concern that religious people have. Assuage that concern, and I think there'd be a lot less pushback from those circles.

 

Every time a church has been challenged for an unwillingness to allow their space to be used for a wedding against their beliefs (including many churches who will not marry previously divorced people, so not just gay weddings), it has failed.  The only way to really legally attack a church is through services that a number of churches now consider part of their income, which include wedding catering, wedding music, wedding video/photography, and wedding planning services, which do not HAVE to be performed in the church.  Denying someone those services has been successfully challenged, but it also only has about a 45% rate of ruling against the church in the cases I studied a couple years ago for a piece for seminary on the issue.  I had a Google Alerts set up for any similar cases that I never shut off (because the topic interests me), and if anything, the rate that a church loses such litigation is actually getting lower as more states are more tolerant and there are more avenues for people to find for wedding services rather than intentionally going after the churches.  

 

Basically, the "oh my gosh, my church could get sued" issue has easily definable ways to protect the church (basically, if any church "service" like I mentioned earlier is written into the church constitution, and that constitution has language stating the church has every right to refuse based on belief - which most churches have done already - the church is legally covered), but people often use that excuse as a reason not to support homosexual marriage in my experience.  It's rarely about what would happen to the church as much as it is a personal feeling against gay marriage that they don't want to come off as a bad person by stating that feeling, so they lean on something that really has been shown not to exist like their church facing a lawsuit.

 

PR issues that would come from such a lawsuit are another issue altogether, but that doesn't change the reality of what has come of legal court cases that have happened already, providing a pretty well-defined legal precedent. 

[TheLeviathan]

I agree with you there, but since no one bothers listening to the constitution anymore, it certainly won't stop someone from trying to bankrupt a church or a DA making a statement. Like it or not, that is a very real concern that religious people have. Assuage that concern, and I think there'd be a lot less pushback from those circles.

 

Honestly, I think that's just cover for not wanting gays to marry.  I think you could pronounce that until the cows come home and it won't change a lot of minds.

[Squirrel]

I agree with you there, but since no one bothers listening to the constitution anymore, it certainly won't stop someone from trying to bankrupt a church or a DA making a statement. Like it or not, that is a very real concern that religious people have. Assuage that concern, and I think there'd be a lot less pushback from those circles.

Maybe let it be known that if they stay out of politics they are safe from being 'forced' to perform services outside their 'beliefs.'  Foray into politics, and they'll be forced to perform services … and pay taxes.

[Paul Pleiss]

I've got a question: The AL Judge has told his judges to rely only on AL constitution. Do AL judges swear to uphold to US constitution, or just the AL one?

 

I'm not in anyway advocating for them to deny anyone the right to marry, but my questions is more a legal question that may lean in this judge's favor. What are AL judges required to do when there is a contradiction between AL constitution and US Constitution? Which has precedence? How far does states rights go? I have no legal training, and as such, no idea what the answers are.