View Full Version : Alabama justice off bench for defying feds on gay marriage
jimnyc
09-30-2016, 01:32 PM
Alabama justice off bench for defying feds on gay marriage
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore was removed from the bench Friday for defying the U.S. Supreme Court on gay marriage, more than a decade after he got in trouble for refusing federal orders to move a Ten Commandments monument.
By suspending Moore for the rest of his term, the nine-member Alabama Court of the Judiciary has effectively removed him from office for the second time.
The outspoken Christian conservative was ousted from office in 2013 for his stand in defense of the 2 ˝ ton monument he had installed in the state judicial building, but voters later re-elected him.
The judiciary court ruled that Moore defied law already clearly settled by the high court's Obergefell vs. Hodges ruling when he told Alabama's probate judges six months later that they were still bound by a 2015 state court order to deny marriage licenses to gays and lesbians.
"Beyond question, at the time he issued the January 6, 2016 order, Chief Justice Roy Moore knew about Obergefell and its clear holding that the United States Constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to marry," the court wrote in the unanimous decision.
Rest here - https://www.yahoo.com/news/alabama-justice-off-bench-defying-feds-gay-marriage-155131237.html
Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-30-2016, 04:06 PM
Alabama justice off bench for defying feds on gay marriage
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore was removed from the bench Friday for defying the U.S. Supreme Court on gay marriage, more than a decade after he got in trouble for refusing federal orders to move a Ten Commandments monument.
By suspending Moore for the rest of his term, the nine-member Alabama Court of the Judiciary has effectively removed him from office for the second time.
The outspoken Christian conservative was ousted from office in 2013 for his stand in defense of the 2 ˝ ton monument he had installed in the state judicial building, but voters later re-elected him.
The judiciary court ruled that Moore defied law already clearly settled by the high court's Obergefell vs. Hodges ruling when he told Alabama's probate judges six months later that they were still bound by a 2015 state court order to deny marriage licenses to gays and lesbians.
"Beyond question, at the time he issued the January 6, 2016 order, Chief Justice Roy Moore knew about Obergefell and its clear holding that the United States Constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to marry," the court wrote in the unanimous decision.
Rest here - https://www.yahoo.com/news/alabama-justice-off-bench-defying-feds-gay-marriage-155131237.html
Thats the Feds, declaring-- "By God, when we grant special exalted status--we damn well mean it"!!--TYR
bullypulpit
10-01-2016, 06:36 AM
Don't like gay marriage...? Don't get gay married.
More to the point, the only interest the state has in the institution of marriage lies in the contractual agreement it establishes between two consenting adults. Objections by the state to same-gender marriage based on religious doctrine violate the First Amendment of the Constitution which states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, orprohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Abbey Marie
10-01-2016, 09:01 AM
Don't like gay marriage...? Don't get gay married.
More to the point, the only interest the state has in the institution of marriage lies in the contractual agreement it establishes between two consenting adults. Objections by the state to same-gender marriage based on religious doctrine violate the First Amendment of the Constitution which states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, orprohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Your argument that the only interest the "state" has in marriage is a contractual one, will come in handy when people start marrying barn animals and children.
fj1200
10-02-2016, 02:28 PM
Alabama justice off bench for defying feds on gay marriage
... Moore defied law already clearly settled...
Rest here - https://www.yahoo.com/news/alabama-justice-off-bench-defying-feds-gay-marriage-155131237.html
I think more technically he defied settled law. :dunno:
Abbey Marie
10-02-2016, 07:50 PM
I think more technically he defied settled law. :dunno:
Slavery and no blacks or some voting were once settled too.
fj1200
10-03-2016, 09:21 AM
Slavery and no blacks or some voting were once settled too.
Umm, OK. On what basis can he ignore the current settled law then? Besides slavery and Jim Crow denied rights and privileges to individuals, kinda what Moore is trying to accomplish.
Abbey Marie
10-03-2016, 11:25 AM
Umm, OK. On what basis can he ignore the current settled law then? Besides slavery and Jim Crow denied rights and privileges to individuals, kinda what Moore is trying to accomplish.
Thats a separate question now. Most judges can find a way. See: Roe v Wade.
fj1200
10-03-2016, 12:21 PM
Thats a separate question now. Most judges can find a way. See: Roe v Wade.
:confused: Most state-court judges can find a way to circumvent Federal settled law?
Abbey Marie
10-03-2016, 07:52 PM
:confused: Most state-court judges can find a way to circumvent Federal settled law?
Yes.
Perianne
10-03-2016, 07:57 PM
Yes.
Abbey, I'm not trying to be a smarty-butt...
Can you give examples? I can think maybe of judges allowing sanctuary cities. It that the type of thing you are talking about?
gabosaurus
10-03-2016, 08:30 PM
If you don't do your job correctly, you get fired. Religion is for churches. Judges need to obey the law or step down.
Elessar
10-03-2016, 09:46 PM
@Abbey (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=11), I'm not trying to be a smarty-butt...
Can you give examples? I can think maybe of judges allowing sanctuary cities. It that the type of thing you are talking about?
Sanctuary cities are in violation of Federal Immigration Laws. Plain and simple.
That is in violation of our Constitution and the order that you should not legislate from the Bench.
fj1200
10-04-2016, 10:46 AM
Yes.
That's a rather short answer for such a complex question.
Sanctuary cities are in violation of Federal Immigration Laws. Plain and simple.
That is in violation of our Constitution and the order that you should not legislate from the Bench.
Not exactly:
SummaryControversy has arisen over the existence of so-called “sanctuary cities.” The term “sanctuarycity” is not defined by federal law, but it is often used to refer to those localities which, as a resultof a state or local act, ordinance, policy, or fiscal constraints, place limits on their assistance tofederal immigration authorities seeking to apprehend and remove unauthorized aliens. Supportersof such policies argue that many cities have higher priorities, and that local efforts to deter thepresence of unauthorized aliens would undermine community relations, disrupt municipalservices, interfere with local law enforcement, or violate humanitarian principles. Opponentsargue that sanctuary policies encourage illegal immigration and undermine federal enforcementefforts. Pursuant to § 434 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity ReconciliationAct of 1996 (PRWORA, P.L. 104-193) and § 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform andImmigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA, P.L. 104-208), states and localities may not limittheir governmental entities or officers from maintaining records regarding a person’s immigrationstatus, or bar the exchange of such information with any federal, state, or local entity. Reportedly,some jurisdictions with sanctuary policies take a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach, where officialsare barred from inquiring about a person’s immigration status in certain circumstances. Thoughthis method does not directly conflict with federal requirements that states and localities permitthe free exchange of information regarding persons’ immigration status, it results in specifiedagencies or officers lacking information that they could potentially share with federalimmigration authorities. In the 110th Congress, several bills were introduced that attempted tolimit formal or informal sanctuary policies and induce greater sharing of immigration informationby state and local authorities. Bills have also been introduced in the 111th Congress to restrict orexpand states and localities’ information-sharing requirements.
...
Although IIRIRA § 642 prohibits states and localities from barring the transfer or maintenance ofinformation regarding immigration status, it does not require entities to collect such informationin the first place. Reportedly, some states and localities seeking to limit assistance to federalimmigration authorities have barred agencies or officers from inquiring about persons’immigration status, a practice sometimes described as a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach.22Though this method does not directly conflict with federal requirements that states and localitiespermit the free exchange of information regarding persons’ immigration status, it results inspecified agencies or officers lacking any information about persons’ immigration status that theycould share with federal authorities.23
...
http://www.ilw.com/immigrationdaily/news/2011,0106-crs.pdf
Oddly enough, it seems to be a states rights issue which conservatives generally support. :dunno:
Abbey Marie
10-04-2016, 11:51 AM
That's a rather short answer for such a complex question.
...
Any more is billable at my hourly rate of $250.
:cheers2:
fj1200
10-04-2016, 01:45 PM
Any more is billable at my hourly rate of $250.
:cheers2:
:rolleyes: Such a bold one-word answer I would presume could be answered without such an investment. Besides, I can do my own research to some possibilities and dismiss them as unworkable much more cheaply. :)
Abbey Marie
10-04-2016, 02:26 PM
:rolleyes: Such a bold one-word answer I would presume could be answered without such an investment. Besides, I can do my own research to some possibilities and dismiss them as unworkable much more cheaply. :)
The one word answer is free.
fj1200
10-04-2016, 04:10 PM
The one word answer is free.
Yes, I was thinking of that when I was posting. I'm sure at least some of the "free" information available on my interwebinator machine is put out by those with a higher billable rate. Either way I still need to parse the good from the bad. ;)
Perianne
10-04-2016, 04:17 PM
Yes, I was thinking of that when I was posting. I'm sure at least some of the "free" information available on my interwebinator machine is put out by those with a higher billable rate. Either way I still need to parse the good from the bad. ;)
If you want, I can tell you what you need to know. And it will be for free.
gabosaurus
10-04-2016, 08:01 PM
Talk of immigration laws is off topic. As Jim has told me several times, off topic conversation is verboten here. :cool:
Judges are appointed (or elected) to enforce the law. They can't decide which laws they want to enforce. If this guy wants to pontificate on gay marriage, he needs to step down and become an activist.
Elessar
10-04-2016, 08:21 PM
That's a rather short answer for such a complex question.
Not exactly:
http://www.ilw.com/immigrationdaily/news/2011,0106-crs.pdf
Oddly enough, it seems to be a states rights issue which conservatives generally support. :dunno:
Quandry. State's Rights is fine. But when it over-rides Federal Law, which is superior,
then there is a problem.
Perianne
10-04-2016, 08:45 PM
Talk of immigration laws is off topic. As Jim has told me several times, off topic conversation is verboten here. :cool:
But Jim loves me. Otherwise, I would have been banned a long time ago. :)
gabosaurus
10-04-2016, 11:29 PM
But Jim loves me. Otherwise, I would have been banned a long time ago. :)
Jim love boobies. And those who have them. :boobies:
crin63
10-05-2016, 12:05 AM
Judge Roy Moore is an American hero. He was elected by the people of his state to preside over the laws of their state. He was elected to his current position after being removed previously. His fellow statesmen knew his beliefs and character prior to re-electing him, therefore it makes me think he is doing exactly what they want from him.
fj1200
10-05-2016, 08:17 AM
If you want, I can tell you what you need to know. And it will be for free.
I already know what I need to know from you/about you.
Quandry. State's Rights is fine. But when it over-rides Federal Law, which is superior,
then there is a problem.
You haven't shown where there is violation of Federal law.
Judge Roy Moore is an American hero. He was elected by the people of his state to preside over the laws of their state. He was elected to his current position after being removed previously. His fellow statesmen knew his beliefs and character prior to re-electing him, therefore it makes me think he is doing exactly what they want from him.
He was removed, twice, from his position for defying the Federal, which is superior.
Elessar
10-05-2016, 09:24 AM
You haven't shown where there is violation of Federal law.
It is as plain as the nose on your face.
Harboring illegal immigrants, many of whom have criminal records, and refusing
to turn them over to federal authorities.
crin63
10-05-2016, 10:37 AM
He was removed, twice, from his position for defying the Federal, which is superior.
Like I said, he is a true American hero and worthy of admiration.
fj1200
10-05-2016, 01:17 PM
It is as plain as the nose on your face.
Harboring illegal immigrants, many of whom have criminal records, and refusing
to turn them over to federal authorities.
Which Federal law was that? I offered a link on the subject which seemed helpful.
Like I said, he is a true American hero and worthy of admiration.
Following the Constitution is worthy of admiration to me considering he's a judge. He should have resigned his position in protest.
bullypulpit
11-22-2016, 06:49 PM
Alabama justice off bench for defying feds on gay marriage
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore was removed from the bench Friday for defying the U.S. Supreme Court on gay marriage, more than a decade after he got in trouble for refusing federal orders to move a Ten Commandments monument.
By suspending Moore for the rest of his term, the nine-member Alabama Court of the Judiciary has effectively removed him from office for the second time.
The outspoken Christian conservative was ousted from office in 2013 for his stand in defense of the 2 ˝ ton monument he had installed in the state judicial building, but voters later re-elected him.
The judiciary court ruled that Moore defied law already clearly settled by the high court's Obergefell vs. Hodges ruling when he told Alabama's probate judges six months later that they were still bound by a 2015 state court order to deny marriage licenses to gays and lesbians.
"Beyond question, at the time he issued the January 6, 2016 order, Chief Justice Roy Moore knew about Obergefell and its clear holding that the United States Constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to marry," the court wrote in the unanimous decision.
Rest here - https://www.yahoo.com/news/alabama-justice-off-bench-defying-feds-gay-marriage-155131237.html
What...? You talk like this is a problem.
jimnyc
11-22-2016, 06:51 PM
What...? You talk like this is a problem.
It is.
Gunny
11-22-2016, 07:05 PM
Don't like gay marriage...? Don't get gay married.
More to the point, the only interest the state has in the institution of marriage lies in the contractual agreement it establishes between two consenting adults. Objections by the state to same-gender marriage based on religious doctrine violate the First Amendment of the Constitution which states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, orprohibiting the free exercise thereof..."Seems to me it prohibits the free exercise thereof by anyone who doesn't want fags in their religion.
Judge Roy Moore is an American hero. He was elected by the people of his state to preside over the laws of their state. He was elected to his current position after being removed previously. His fellow statesmen knew his beliefs and character prior to re-electing him, therefore it makes me think he is doing exactly what they want from him.
Then he needs to be elected to another office, his job specifications are as follows: preside over cases and rule on them according to federal guidelines.......nothing less, nothing more.
Like I said, he is a true American hero and worthy of admiration.
He is nothing more than a wiilful disobedient who properly should be removed permanently. This issue is over, is he still fighting the civil war too?
It is.
How so? You like activist judges now?
jimnyc
11-22-2016, 07:10 PM
Give him the highest civilian medal possible. :)
jimnyc
11-22-2016, 07:12 PM
How so? You like activist judges now?
Nope, can't stand queerism, and the activist crap that got a lot of it there. Shouldn't have been there in the first place. Kinda similar to your stances over the years before you converted to liberalism.
Gunny
11-22-2016, 07:14 PM
Give him the highest civilian medal possible. :)
I wouldn't want one now. Obama has cheapened the award. I wouldn't tarnish my Navy/Marine Corps awards by putting the cheap piece of crap in the same room.
I wouldn't want one now. Obama has cheapened the award. I wouldn't tarnish my Navy/Marine Corps awards by putting the cheap piece of crap in the same room.
How has he cheapened it? Links please
jimnyc
11-22-2016, 07:23 PM
How has he cheapened it? Links please
He's a piece of shit like Moochelle, so naturally anything they touch gets naturally shit on a little.
Nope, can't stand queerism, and the activist crap that got a lot of it there. Shouldn't have been there in the first place. Kinda similar to your stances over the years before you converted to liberalism.
You mean before you converted to "no government interference in private, personal life decisions ".......fixed it for ya.
He's a piece of shit like Moochelle, so naturally anything they touch gets naturally shit on a little.
Careful your hood is peaking out.
jimnyc
11-22-2016, 07:29 PM
You mean before you converted to "no government interference in private, personal life decisions ".......fixed it for ya.
No one was interfering in their private and personal lives from the get go.
Careful your hood is peaking out.
No, my truth is speaking out. He is an arrogant piece of shit, and one of the worst presidents we have ever had. She likes taxpayer money, mooch money. I have no hood. But their choice of friendships may lead some to believe they have some hood.
jimnyc
11-22-2016, 07:31 PM
Careful your hood is peaking out.
I had to reread that, I thought you meant something else. I take my incorrect response back then.
So you're saying I don't like them because I'm being racist? WHY does it always come to racism with some? He can't be a piece of shit unless he's white? Fuck that. They don't get passes on me just because they're black, nor does that make me a racist.
jimnyc
11-22-2016, 07:32 PM
And I quickly read it wrong because I believe the word you were looking for was "peeking"?
Gunny
11-22-2016, 07:34 PM
How has he cheapened it? Links please
Links to what? You miss the last 8 years of his disgracing the Presidency? You DID take the wrong pill, huh?
And I quickly read it wrong because I believe the word you were looking for was "peeking"?
Maybe i'm "peaking" currently.
Links to what? You miss the last 8 years of his disgracing the Presidency? You DID take the wrong pill, huh?
His almost 60% approval flies in direct opposition to what you are saying.
jimnyc
11-22-2016, 07:37 PM
His almost 60% approval flies in direct opposition to what you are saying.
Sure, and they poll the same folks to get those shitty numbers that they did to get the presidential numbers! LOL Who are they getting them from, 'ol Nate Silver at 538? :lol:
No one was interfering in their private and personal lives from the get go.
No, my truth is speaking out. He is an arrogant piece of shit, and one of the worst presidents we have ever had. She likes taxpayer money, mooch money. I have no hood. But their choice of friendships may lead some to believe they have some hood.
I believe many like you were never going to give a fair shake based solely on color.
I fail to see his arrogance when compared to Donny.
Black Diamond
11-22-2016, 07:39 PM
I believe many like you were never going to give a fair shake based solely on color.
I fail to see his arrogance when compared to Donny.
Donald Trump, Jr is not President elect.
jimnyc
11-22-2016, 07:41 PM
I believe many like you were never going to give a fair shake based solely on color.
I fail to see his arrogance when compared to Donny.
Pulling the race card simply won't work. That's someone crying uncle the moment they try that crap. I was the FIRST to come out in support of him here at DP when he won the election. His shit policies, and failure to be transparent right out of the gate was what pissed me off, and then it was almost all downhill from there. His color made no difference - other than when we had racial issues around the country, and he FAILED as a "leader" at those times.
Sure, and they poll the same folks to get those shitty numbers that they did to get the presidential numbers! LOL Who are they getting them from, 'ol Nate Silver at 538? :lol:
Interesting, so when Antonio Brown has 1 bad game i shoukd say he sucks?
They "bigly" misread how many ignorant hillbilly fucks would come out because Donny said he don't like no "Mex'cans"
Pulling the race card simply won't work. That's someone crying uncle the moment they try that crap. I was the FIRST to come out in support of him here at DP when he won the election. His shit policies, and failure to be transparent right out of the gate was what pissed me off, and then it was almost all downhill from there. His color made no difference - other than when we had racial issues around the country, and he FAILED as a "leader" at those times.
Sorry, i don't buy that. Why should his color ever make any difference?
Gunny
11-22-2016, 07:46 PM
His almost 60% approval flies in direct opposition to what you are saying.
Yeah. Believe whatever poll you want. It worked so well for Hillary. Obama has the leadership ability of a Private on T-3 in boot camp (T-3 is still doing paperwork). Spell your name right 2 out of 3 times you get to join. I wouldn't follow that f*ckup down a fire escape if the building was in flames.
Your civilian ass know what FUBAR means? Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition. That's exactly what he's done to this country.
Yeah. Believe whatever poll you want. It worked so well for Hillary. Obama has the leadership ability of a Private on T-3 in boot camp (T-3 is still doing paperwork). Spell your name right 2 out of 3 times you get to join. I wouldn't follow that f*ckup down a fire escape if the building was in flames.
Your civilian ass know what FUBAR means? Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition. That's exactly what he's done to this country.
I can show you economic numbers that prove you wrong.
KarlMarx
11-22-2016, 08:26 PM
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, orprohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Glad you brought that up.
1. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". In other words, there can be no state church. The Founding Fathers were well aware of what that implied. When Henry VIII established the Church of England, not only were his subjects required by law to become members of that church (under pain of death), they also had to pay tribute (i.e. taxes) to support the Church of England. That is why we have Thanksgiving, the pilgrims wanted to worship God according to the dictates of their consciences, not according to the King's decree.
2. "Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"... In other words "religious expression is legal in both public and private"... this is in direct contradiction with what the Left wants. And oh by the way, doesn't this make discrimination against people who exercise their faith illegal? Yes, it does seem that way.
So, when it comes to gay marriage. If someone objects, should we clap him in irons? It doesn't seem that way to me.
Glad you brought that up.
1. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". In other words, there can be no state church. The Founding Fathers were well aware of what that implied. When Henry VIII established the Church of England, not only were his subjects required by law to become members of that church (under pain of death), they also had to pay tribute (i.e. taxes) to support the Church of England. That is why we have Thanksgiving, the pilgrims wanted to worship God according to the dictates of their consciences, not according to the King's decree.
2. "Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"... In other words "religious expression is legal in both public and private"... this is in direct contradiction with what the Left wants. And oh by the way, doesn't this make discrimination against people who exercise their faith illegal? Yes, it does seem that way.
So, when it comes to gay marriage. If someone objects, should we clap him in irons? It doesn't seem that way to me.
It's not his job to bring his personal views into play while on the bench.
fj1200
11-26-2016, 04:01 PM
Seems to me it prohibits the free exercise thereof by anyone who doesn't want fags in their religion.
Not at all.
Glad you brought that up.
1. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". In other words, there can be no state church. The Founding Fathers were well aware of what that implied. When Henry VIII established the Church of England, not only were his subjects required by law to become members of that church (under pain of death), they also had to pay tribute (i.e. taxes) to support the Church of England. That is why we have Thanksgiving, the pilgrims wanted to worship God according to the dictates of their consciences, not according to the King's decree.
2. "Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"... In other words "religious expression is legal in both public and private"... this is in direct contradiction with what the Left wants. And oh by the way, doesn't this make discrimination against people who exercise their faith illegal? Yes, it does seem that way.
So, when it comes to gay marriage. If someone objects, should we clap him in irons? It doesn't seem that way to me.
That's a different argument than gay marriage.
jimnyc
11-26-2016, 04:22 PM
I believe many like you were never going to give a fair shake based solely on color.
I fail to see his arrogance when compared to Donny.
Sorry, i don't buy that. Why should his color ever make any difference?
Ask yourself that, YOU brought it into the conversation, not me. That's how liberals work, bringing in shit that's not true, and then accusing others.
jimnyc
11-26-2016, 04:23 PM
Interesting, so when Antonio Brown has 1 bad game i shoukd say he sucks?
They "bigly" misread how many ignorant hillbilly fucks would come out because Donny said he don't like no "Mex'cans"
I can see where football and politics are the same. :rolleyes:
And he said he had an issue with ILLEGALS - but you never were one for caring about the facts.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.