Good point.
Dunno that there's a good answer then.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather those things be legally challenged on a case-by-case basis, than make a blanket policy that does not allow individual liberty.
But, that's just me. If I knew a business would not sell to people for petty reasons, I would not go there.
That's easy to say when you have options. If it's the only pharmacy in town or the only grocery store or only doctor or...you get the point. Sure, in a city you've got options. You don't in smaller towns. That's why these laws are needed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm straight, cis-male, western European, educated....all of the things normally assumed as having all the power in society. Except rich. I'm not rich. Ah, well...
So, from my own personal selfish point of view, if I get married it's going to be to a female. So does same-sex marriage bother me?
Why on Earth should it? How does it make my life worse if two other people want to get married? How could this possibly make my marriage worth less?
How can you not grasp it?! It's obvious they are corrupting the holiness of the very idea of the marriage! You know, that magical template of the one proper form of marriage that the <insert the one true god... no, not that one you believe, that's the false one, the other true one, the one who I worship!> keeps in His desk's upper right drawer. *sheesh*
The phrase 'I don't agree with same-sex marriage' is absurd on its face! You don't have to agree with it because no-one is forcing you to do it!
[/rant]
But... But...
Uh...
Think of the children! Right, think of the children!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Children? CHILDREN ARE EVIL MAN! Before they even know how to talk they're manipulative selfish little [REDACTED!]!!! Crying and screaming to get attention, think everything is theirs, and, and....
Wait a minute, how's that any different from modern adults now?
This is interesting. How about religious vestments? I can't get certain religious vestments without the proper authorization from some religions.
Or, how about kids meals. Sure, you can buy them...many times, but most of the times people give you the bad eye or make trouble with you if you try to do so and are obviously an adult who will eat it (there was an article on this recently about a lady getting grief over ordering kids meals. She did so because of lower calorie intake and she couldn't eat a full adult meal).
Restuarants have regulations about having to have shoes and shirts on...how about hobbits (okay, this is somewhat tongue in cheek...I admit)...
More seriously though, how about if there was a religion that you didn't wear shoes...what about the restaurant regulations and rights then?
At what point is it infringing on others freedoms when you force them to sell to anyone and anybody?
Even in the UK they can restrict who the restaurant actually lets in the restaurant...and many times in the really fancy and expensive ones it's more based about looks and dress than anything that's actually reasonable (IMO).
Isn't it hypocritical to force one person to sell to a group, but then allow others to NOT sale.
For example, I visited Key West, they have hotels there that if you are CIS you are NOT ALLOWED to go into, or get a room, or anything even.
I found it sort of ironic to tell the truth that there were signs and such in places I frequent.
Another place there had people basically in a nude restaurant (you go in, remove your clothes)...what about someone who is religious in that nature and refuses to remove their clothes?
I think there should be reasonable rules...but if you start saying one group can do this, but another can't do it because it's hatred...it's a very wobbly line you set up and a very dangerous street you set up.
It's probably better to either make it blanket in that you must sale to either group...or be allowed to make choices in it rather than try to dictate and make so many laws that eventually NO ONE knows whether they will be sued or not.
I had an idea once about starting a religion. It would adopt every single rule from other religions that demanded that other people bent over backwards for its practitioners, all in the name of religious, deeply held, ironclad faith, of course. So, either society would agree with, or deny, "religion entitles you to have others comply with your faith". I decided against it, because work, and because starting a new religion would not in principle sit well with me. Still, it is a little thought experiment I am a bit proud of (I am sure I wasn't first to figure this one out, of course).
Respect is a two way street. Religions should be judged on how respectful they are to people not of their faith.
I had an idea once about starting a religion. It would adopt every single rule from other religions that demanded that other people bent over backwards for its practitioners, all in the name of religious, deeply held, ironclad faith, of course. So, either society would agree with, or deny, "religion entitles you to have others comply with your faith". I decided against it, because work, and because starting a new religion would not in principle sit well with me. Still, it is a little thought experiment I am a bit proud of (I am sure I wasn't first to figure this one out, of course).
Respect is a two way street. Religions should be judged on how respectful they are to people not of their faith.
Well, I deeply respect those that are Scientologist and this is NOT meant to demean the religion at all. In fact, I respect that they have their religious convictions (if you are a scientologist), and think that their views are just as valid as many other religious views. I am merely restating an item that L. Ron Hubbard supposedly stated once upon a time. I mean NO offense at all towards the actual religion of scientology or L. Ron Hubbard.
That said, L. Ron Hubbard said that one of the easiest and best ways to make money is to create your own religion.
Just think, you could be rolling in the money right now! (that's not to say you aren't already independently wealthy, I don't know).
That's easy to say when you have options. If it's the only pharmacy in town or the only grocery store or only doctor or...you get the point. Sure, in a city you've got options. You don't in smaller towns. That's why these laws are needed.I'd rather those things be legally challenged on a case-by-case basis, than make a blanket policy that does not allow individual liberty.
But, that's just me. If I knew a business would not sell to people for petty reasons, I would not go there.
Does this happen in smaller towns? Doctors not treating people? Pharmacists not filling prescriptions?
|
Does this happen in smaller towns? Doctors not treating people? Pharmacists not filling prescriptions?That's easy to say when you have options. If it's the only pharmacy in town or the only grocery store or only doctor or...you get the point. Sure, in a city you've got options. You don't in smaller towns. That's why these laws are needed.I'd rather those things be legally challenged on a case-by-case basis, than make a blanket policy that does not allow individual liberty.
But, that's just me. If I knew a business would not sell to people for petty reasons, I would not go there.
Yes. There are a lot of problems as it stands with pharmacies refusing to fulfill prescriptions for the morning after pill and similar medications people disapprove of for religious reasons. Apparently, that's fine because it keeps the slutty sluts in their place, but, yes, before the law forced them not to, "no blacks" was hardly a rare circumstance, especially in the South.
More recently, a gun range has got into trouble for refusing to allow Muslim, read Arabic, people to shoot. Not really seeing the problem. Hell, watch In the Heat of the Night for a dramatic protrayal of how life used to be before the laws came in. Or read about how Ray Charles had to use a different entrance to theatres to his white band.
I had an idea once about starting a religion. It would adopt every single rule from other religions that demanded that other people bent over backwards for its practitioners, all in the name of religious, deeply held, ironclad faith, of course. So, either society would agree with, or deny, "religion entitles you to have others comply with your faith". I decided against it, because work, and because starting a new religion would not in principle sit well with me. Still, it is a little thought experiment I am a bit proud of (I am sure I wasn't first to figure this one out, of course).
Respect is a two way street. Religions should be judged on how respectful they are to people not of their faith.
Well, I deeply respect those that are Scientologist and this is NOT meant to demean the religion at all. In fact, I respect that they have their religious convictions (if you are a scientologist), and think that their views are just as valid as many other religious views. I am merely restating an item that L. Ron Hubbard supposedly stated once upon a time. I mean NO offense at all towards the actual religion of scientology or L. Ron Hubbard.
That said, L. Ron Hubbard said that one of the easiest and best ways to make money is to create your own religion.
Just think, you could be rolling in the money right now! (that's not to say you aren't already independently wealthy, I don't know).
If I would have to start a religion to be rolling in money, I still wouldn't. Religion is a problematic beast, and another one won't make the world better.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does this happen in smaller towns? Doctors not treating people? Pharmacists not filling prescriptions?That's easy to say when you have options. If it's the only pharmacy in town or the only grocery store or only doctor or...you get the point. Sure, in a city you've got options. You don't in smaller towns. That's why these laws are needed.I'd rather those things be legally challenged on a case-by-case basis, than make a blanket policy that does not allow individual liberty.
But, that's just me. If I knew a business would not sell to people for petty reasons, I would not go there.
It has happened. Until the Civil Rights Act it was common. Even if they did get treatment it wasn't the same quality as the white patients. It's happened in Texas with a business owner in a small town.
(...mostly because of the Milonov quote.)
It has happened. Until the Civil Rights Act it was common. Even if they did get treatment it wasn't the same quality as the white patients. It's happened in Texas with a business owner in a small town.Does this happen in smaller towns? Doctors not treating people? Pharmacists not filling prescriptions?That's easy to say when you have options. If it's the only pharmacy in town or the only grocery store or only doctor or...you get the point. Sure, in a city you've got options. You don't in smaller towns. That's why these laws are needed.I'd rather those things be legally challenged on a case-by-case basis, than make a blanket policy that does not allow individual liberty.
But, that's just me. If I knew a business would not sell to people for petty reasons, I would not go there.
I didn't mean in the history of ever, sorry. More like last 10-20 years. Is this still a concern? Why wouldn't their licenses to practice be subject to revocation?
Because, apparently, federal law doesn't matter.
Let's hope the ethics challenge succeeds on getting this guy out of office. Otherwise, this is going to create bigger problems.
I read something about Nebraska inadvertently recognizing gay marriage in unrelated legislation regarding 2nd amendment benefits and benefits of military spouses that were same sex. I hope this is grounds to repeal state gay marriage ban.
|
I read something about Nebraska inadvertently recognizing gay marriage in unrelated legislation regarding 2nd amendment benefits and benefits of military spouses that were same sex. I hope this is grounds to repeal state gay marriage ban.
The Nebraska Legislature specifically recognized the federal government's definition of spouse with regards to military spouses' exemption from residency requirements for concealed carry permits.
The state gay marriage ban is already under challenge in US District Court. My hope is that the Supreme Court takes care of it all.
The state gay marriage ban is already under challenge in US District Court. My hope is that the Supreme Court takes care of it all.
If that Alabama head judge gets his way, a Supreme Court victory won't matter; the states can just ignore it.
|
|
The state gay marriage ban is already under challenge in US District Court. My hope is that the Supreme Court takes care of it all.If that Alabama head judge gets his way, a Supreme Court victory won't matter; the states can just ignore it.
Roy Moore also fought the supreme Court over a massive Ten Commandments monument outside his courthouse. He lost. He kept fighting and was removed as a judge until reelected by Alabama several years later. I doubt he will be more successful this time.
Roy Moore also fought the supreme Court over a massive Ten Commandments monument outside his courthouse. He lost. He kept fighting and was removed as a judge until reelected by Alabama several years later. I doubt he will be more successful this time.The state gay marriage ban is already under challenge in US District Court. My hope is that the Supreme Court takes care of it all.If that Alabama head judge gets his way, a Supreme Court victory won't matter; the states can just ignore it.
You mean the sequence of events that came before several states successfully told the U.S. government to back down on the marijuana issue?
This time, he has a precedent he can try to abuse.
The Supreme Court isn't going to say "Go ahead and ignore us." That's just not going to happen. Not a precedent they're going to set.
The SC might (and has and will) decide in individual cases that federal law doesn't override state law or decline to rule in some cases because it isn't a federal matter, but it's never going to decide to allow states to ignore Supreme Court rulings at their whim.
They just won't give up that kind of power.
He's not asking for them to say that. He's trying to simply take the power to ignore any court ruling he doesn't like and is betting he can get away with it.
|
|
He's not asking for them to say that. He's trying to simply take the power to ignore any court ruling he doesn't like and is betting he can get away with it.The Supreme Court isn't going to say "Go ahead and ignore us." That's just not going to happen. Not a precedent they're going to set.
The SC might (and has and will) decide in individual cases that federal law doesn't override state law or decline to rule in some cases because it isn't a federal matter, but it's never going to decide to allow states to ignore Supreme Court rulings at their whim.
They just won't give up that kind of power.
As I said, he tried that before and lost his job over it. That's a precedent, too, and one more likely to be followed.
As I said, he tried that before and lost his job over it. That's a precedent, too, and one more likely to be followed.He's not asking for them to say that. He's trying to simply take the power to ignore any court ruling he doesn't like and is betting he can get away with it.The Supreme Court isn't going to say "Go ahead and ignore us." That's just not going to happen. Not a precedent they're going to set.
The SC might (and has and will) decide in individual cases that federal law doesn't override state law or decline to rule in some cases because it isn't a federal matter, but it's never going to decide to allow states to ignore Supreme Court rulings at their whim.
They just won't give up that kind of power.
Good point. He is potentially facing the same board over ethics charges on this.
He's not asking for them to say that. He's trying to simply take the power to ignore any court ruling he doesn't like and is betting he can get away with it.The Supreme Court isn't going to say "Go ahead and ignore us." That's just not going to happen. Not a precedent they're going to set.
The SC might (and has and will) decide in individual cases that federal law doesn't override state law or decline to rule in some cases because it isn't a federal matter, but it's never going to decide to allow states to ignore Supreme Court rulings at their whim.
They just won't give up that kind of power.
He can try to ignore it, but if any of the judges he's advised to do so actually try, they'll face law suits and lose. Someone will sue. There is absolutely no way the Court won't take the case if it ever gets that far.
Exactly how it plays out if he persists in defiance, I can't predict, but it doesn't end in any states that want to just ignoring Supreme Court decisions. At some point someone says "F*** this" and sends the federal in.
I bolded the key bit. His gamble relies on the feds not being willing to take it that far.
I've heard the rest of your argument before. Last time, it was about federal drug enforcement laws and the 2005 Supreme Court decision that said federal laws trump state laws. The feds going in is precisely what didn't happen, despite the fact there were several states outright violating a Supreme Court ruling. So, it is not unreasonable for someone to gamble that the Supreme Court lacking power because of a lack of federal enforcement is not a one-time event.
Of course, there is that pesky little detail that he may get kicked out of office again...
Edit: Keep in mind that, due to how long it takes cases to move through the court system, our current President will not be the one in charge by the time this nears the Supreme Court. So current Presidential politics do not necessarily apply.
No. It doesn't depend on the feds. The feds aren't in control. Someone gets denied due to this judge's advice. They will sue. If nothing else, one of the gay rights groups will set up a test case. Apparently they'll lose in Alabama courts, under the "The Supreme Court ain't the boss of me" theory. Then they'll appeal to federal courts and the federal courts will laugh this doctrine out of the court room.
The drug cases you're talking about are an entirely different situation. There's no legal doctrine or precedent involved other than prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutors don't have to prosecute anything they don't choose to and in this cases the justice department has chosen not to prosecute drug crimes under certain circumstances.
But there won't be any prosecutors involved in this. It's entirely a civil matter. If you disagree, what happens to the couple suing and how does it end without a victory for them.
The judge in this case is the chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court. He has judicial immunity. They can't sue him due to the arena in which his actions lie. The only chance they have is to either sue the state and hope that works (which, given that's been done once already, probably won't) or get him tried on criminal charges. That's for as long as he's in office.
The federal courts have already laughed this doctrine out of the court room. He's going ahead with it anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't mean in the history of ever, sorry. More like last 10-20 years. Is this still a concern? Why wouldn't their licenses to practice be subject to revocation?
Here's Mississippi less than a year ago. Quote from the article: "I thought great, I am the only baker in Jackson that does wedding cakes."
There are laws like this being introduced in several states. Most of those states have large rural areas so there is often only one or two similar businesses in town.
Here's some examples of people being denied healthcare based on religious beliefs.
These are nearly all less than 10 years old.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sue him personally. You're right that he might not be punished.
Suing the state to be allowed to marry. To have his ruling that the federal decision doesn't apply overturned. And actually, as I understand it, his current stance is that the federal district court ruling doesn't bind Alabama and they can wait for an actual Supreme Court ruling. He hasn't actually said he'd order judges to defy that.
If he does, the federal government can't let that stand. Even an administration that wasn't in favor of same-sex marriage can't do that.
At the moment he's got a pseudo-legal argument that'll work its way through the court system - probably pretty quickly, since it involves a direct challenge to the court-ordered marriages. Shouldn't even need a new case, just another move on the old one.
His current stance is that SCOTUS doesn't have the authority to rule on gay marriage. Source
His exact words on SCOTUS ruling in favor of gay marriage, so people do not have to read the entire article:
"[T]here's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that authorizes the Supreme Court of the United States or any federal court anywhere to misinterpret the word 'marriage' to include something like that."
He also went on to question "whether I could comply with an unlawful order of the United States Supreme Court."
In short, he's setting up the pseudo-legal argument that any ruling SCOTUS gives on the matter that he doesn't agree with is one he doesn't have to obey. And gambling that he won't suffer the effects of criminal charges for doing so.
Edit: Note that I pasted the wrong article at the beginning. I think it's a natural aversion to this guy. My mind hates what he has to say so much that I instinctively try to avoid as much of what he has to say as possible.
And, I feel slimy after copying and pasting those words. So, I need an hour to shower.
|
It always saddens me to see the death of someone due to their only trying to make themselves fit into expectations:
Transgender woman dies after injecting silicon
:(
I didn't mean in the history of ever, sorry. More like last 10-20 years. Is this still a concern? Why wouldn't their licenses to practice be subject to revocation?Here's Mississippi less than a year ago. Quote from the article: "I thought great, I am the only baker in Jackson that does wedding cakes."
There are laws like this being introduced in several states. Most of those states have large rural areas so there is often only one or two similar businesses in town.
Here's some examples of people being denied healthcare based on religious beliefs.
These are nearly all less than 10 years old.
The first link is about having to legislate a freedom business owners should have anyway. It's stupid. Luckily, it looks like a lot of the other business owners won't have any of it. Good on them.
The second link is abhorrent. I don;t know what the medication was, but if it was necessary for existence, then his medical license should be revoked. Like, now.The third, is sad. Until people take the time to learn about transgendered people, ignorance will prevail.
His current official stance is that Alabama doesn't need to comply with federal district court rulings. He's questioned on a talk-show whether he'd be "bound to honor the decision" the U.S. Supreme Court made, but he hasn't made an official statement on that, since it hasn't happened yet.
Don't get me wrong, he's slime. I have no idea whether he'll suffer criminal charges for it or not.
I do know that whatever rulings he makes that Alabama doesn't have to listen to the Supreme Court won't be upheld, that same-sex couples will get married in Alabama* and that no broad precedent will be set by his actions allowing other states to ignore federal court rulings.*Barring the Supreme Court actually ruling against gay marriage in the relevant case, which is possible, but not likely.
Consider that this is a man who has been removed from office for defying federal judge orders before, including even going as far as to say that he was in the right despite even SCOTUS ruling against the Ten Commandments being put on the same property as a courthouse in a related case. This is a man who believes, fully, that he knows the Constitution better than the Supreme Court.
I don't believe for one second that what he has stated are not his views and what he said about defying SCOTUS is not his actual plan of action; he's shown in the past, as he shows now, that he has no respect for courts that do not agree with his views and will defy them for as long as he is in office.
The issue of marriage licenses? He's already indirectly stated that judges in Alabama who give them out could face trial. He's absolutely clear about what he considers legal and what he considers a judge violating the law of the state he's in. So whether or not the cases get turned over in a higher court may not even matter without a proper show of force and a criminal action case against him to bring justice to the state. That is, of course, assuming the latest attempt to remove him from office fails.
And the sad thing is? Even if he succeeds and does defy the Supreme Court, you're right that he won't be setting a precedent. That precedent is already set. And it was set on an issue related to weed of all things. All he'll do if he succeeds is extend the precedent. And given the political climate at current, I cannot say he won't. Using someone like him to be rid of gay marriage by directing the DoJ to simply not prosecute him would be well within the toolset of the next President... after all, the current President already used that tactic and got away with it.
So, there's the problem. This guy's willing to gamble the marriage rights of millions within his state just to prove he's got the ability to ignore what other courts have to say. He's made that much very clear, and his actions have shown he has no hesitation about doing it. Do you really think for one instant that the moment SCOTUS comes back with "allowing gay marriage is just being a decent person" that he's going to listen when he's already indicated he considers such a position unlawful?
Just in case you have doubts, here's a comment he made about the Ten Commandments issue (Source):
"I'm not sworn to an unlawful order of a court," Moore explained, "and we should recognize courts do issue orders, but the Constitution is the supreme law of the land."
"Not sworn to an unlawful order of a court" makes it pretty clear where he stands on obeying court orders he doesn't like.
It is when you consider there were states telling the feds they had no right to prosecute for marijuana violations at the time. It was mostly empty gesturing (which, actually, violated the 2005 SCOTUS decision telling them they're wrong), and then Obama himself surprised everyone and announced they were going to respect the position of the states on that one.
It actually is a case where the states got to do something that SCOTUS told them they couldn't.
Admittedly, it's an entirely different situation and had entirely different reasons behind what Obama did (one of them, likely, was simply to save money on something that, really, is petty crap). But, unfortunately, it's enough of an opening for people like this to try their luck.
States also cannot compel the feds to not prosecute. It took me one minute of research to find that out. Literally the first link on Google search.
And trying to force the feds not to prosecute was what some states were doing at the time. Which is what I said in my last post. And which is definitely not what you responded to. I have no idea where you got your idea of what I said.
Did you actually read that article? Because it doesn't say anything like you claim it does.
The State of California wasn't a party to the case.
It was a civil suit filed against the Attorney General by some people in California who had plants seized and destroyed.
You're asking the wrong one of us if they read the article. I will pull out the actual quotes. Note that taking them out of context in this way does not change what these quotes say. None of the meaning is lost by the loss of context.
My claim?
"State laws cannot override federal prosecution of drug laws and states trying to pull such were in violation of the Supreme Court decision."
Article states?
"The decision means that federal anti-drug laws trump state laws that allow the use of medical marijuana, said CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. Ten states have such laws."
"At issue was the power of federal government to override state laws on use of 'patient pot.'"
"Along with California, nine states have passed laws permitting marijuana use by patients with a doctor's approval: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. Arizona also has a similar law, but no formal program in place to administer prescription pot.
California's Compassionate Use Act permits patients with a doctor's approval to grow, smoke or acquire the drug for 'medical needs.'"
Whether or not the states were represented is irrelevant; what matters is how the decision affects states. In this case, in a way they weren't really bothered with at the time but came to find a problem later.
Now, we're getting derailed. Shall we move this to another thread if you wish to continue? This one is cluttered enough with this derail.
I doubt it'll matter since your understanding of the legal theory is fundamentally flawed.
State legalization of pot has nothing to due with federal legality of it, and the whole issue has nothing to do with an Alabama judge making another run at nullification or interposition.
While you're right that state legality of it is not related to federal legality of it, there's the problem that I never claimed that it was. I claimed that Obama decided to allow states that legalized it to go ahead with having it legal and not to prosecute cases abiding by those laws. Keep in mind this is entirely not what the ruling of the court case I was talking about allowed, given that the case relied on Congress's authority over commerce.
Thus, Obama actually allowed state legality of it to override federal prosecution of it. Which is exactly what the SCOTUS ruling said is not allowed.
So, no, my understanding of the legal theory involved is not fundamentally flawed. It's based on actual, current enforcement policy and SCOTUS case law as well as the personality of Roy Moore.
Now, how is that related to Roy Moore? It's mostly not; he's gambling that because it happened with marijuana under a Democrat and the current political climate, him getting away with not being prosecuted for violating a much bigger SCOTUS order under what he hopes will be a Republican to come will lead to a de facto illegalization of gay marriage. Basically, he's gambling that the next President will take Obama's example on pot and extend it to gay marriage.
That's my whole argument: This guy is gambling on what amounts to the slippery slope argument actually coming about for once. Given this guy's long history of blatantly illegal long-shots that he got away with and him managing to get elected back to the same position he got kicked out of as well as his view that SCOTUS doesn't have the legal authority to make gay marriage legal nation-wide, it's not out of character.
He is arguing that. But have you ever asked how he plans to get away with such an argument? He knows that if he seriously pressed it and wasn't kicked out of office, he would end up behind bars when the feds come knocking. His only hope to get away with interposition and nullification is if the feds don't come knocking and he knows it.
In fact, he took rather extreme advantage of that during his last round in this job. That's how he was able to ignore a ban on having the Ten Commandments in the courtroom for a rather significant portion of his career as a judge. It's only his ego causing him to protect an illegal statue that cost him his job.
And then he came back years later and got the job back after doing the political equivalent of puttering around.
So, you have a man who is riding very high on his ego, outright stating he can ignore federal court orders, saying what he believes are the powers of SCOTUS itself, and hinting that if SCOTUS doesn't rule as he likes he'll just ignore their ruling. That sounds exactly like everything he did last time, only on a bigger scale and with more ego involved.
Insane? No, he's not that. He's just got an ego so big he thinks he can afford to gamble and this time he might win. After all, what are they going to do? Fire him again? He's already proven that doesn't stick. So in his mind, the most he has to lose is a job he'll just win back again in the future and the most he has to win is a political victory that would make him a living legend. There's pretty much nothing gambled for a loss, so why not?
Or do you seriously think someone of his position and his personal experience of what can cost you a job being in charge of a state supreme court would go on the air and admit he's considering just flat-out ignoring a SCOTUS ruling he doesn't like unless he felt utterly safe in taking the risk?
His political theory isn't some big fight for the power of states... it's simply to see what he can get away with. Or else he wouldn't be doing exactly the same thing he did last time, only with this time including a much bigger target.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps it's time to take the hypothetical legal situation discusdion to a separate thread, guys?
You're still merging too different, sort of unrelated, things. He may "get away with it", in the sense that he won't be prosecuted or even kicked out of his job again for it. That does depend on federal prosecutorial discretion.
He won't get away with it in the sense that he'll keep same-sex couples from getting married in Alabama and inspire other states to do the same, which is your initial claim.
What happens to the actual LGBTQ couples trying to get married and filing suits? Forget about what happens to Roy, I don't care about him.There's no precedent in the marijuana cases. Everyone agrees that the feds have the authority to continue to enforce the laws and that they have the discretion to pick what cases to pursue. That is entirely different from the kind of direct challenge we're talking about here.
He's making it pretty clear he intends to block gay marriage, no matter what the feds say, for as long as he's in office. So, if he's not prosecuted or kicked out of his job for it, he's going to block marriages that are utterly legal within his state. And made it equally clear from his comments that he considers any judge who issues marriage certificates for gay marriage to be violating their oaths and Alabama law... meaning, he'll sack or prosecute them if they do.
He's pretty much making it clear that as long as he's in office, he's going to be an obstacle to equality.
So, what happens to those couples? They get denied their right to get married, sue the state, and watch as it does nothing. It's a de facto ban through abuse of judicial authority.
As for the marijuana issue: The SCOTUS case was a case where people argued that, while Congress does have the authority to regulate the illegal trafficking of marijuana, they don't have the authority to arrest people for growing it for use at home. Moore's contention is that SCOTUS does have the authority to interpret the Constitution, but not the authority to "redefine" marriage. See the similarity? And, yes, I'm aware there's a big difference between the two. My point is that Moore can try to make it stretch.
And, because there have been two calls for another thread, next reply I'm moving to another thread and linking it here.