Roy Moore faces ethics complaint for same sex ruling

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alabama-judge-faces-ethics-complaint-gay-marriage-letter-n295601

Judge Moore says states are not bound by lower federal rulings. Whut! I wonder if they'll kick him out again? They should.

Vikingwoman wrote:

Judge Moore says states are not bound by lower federal rulings.

Is there an amateur lawyer reading this? If so give me some assistance.

Now regardless of which side of the toaster you're on, I think you would agree with me that whatever the law is on this it should be very clearly stated in either Constitional Amendments and/or Supreme Court decisions which together are the final arbiters on disputes of this kind.

So, what are those laws as stated in the Constitition and Supreme Court decisions?

And two, if whatever we find is NOT CLEAR to anyone who reads it, then our governance has become a fucked up mess.

And three, this is a fair and balanced post. So can anyone on the right produce relevant Constitional law to support Moore's side?

A majority of an Appellate panel has found restrictions to be a violation of the equal protection clause. There are 12 US Court of Appeals which have multi state jurisdiction. When this happens, it is the law in all those states in the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. One judge who is a Federal District court judge is applying the Court of Appeals decision, and has now had a hearing on just one Probate judge in Mobile. That judge can appeal the Federal district court decision in regard to the one probate judge, and this may take time because if the judge does not issue marriage licenses there will be a contempt of court hearing. If the Appellate Court in Banc rules against the judge, there is still the appeal to the Supremes. If Alabama judges want to be dicks.....they can extend this but I can guarantee you this will be fast tracked, and the Supreme Court will act swiftly. I suspect they will not be dicks......this battle is over.

2seaoat wrote:A majority of an Appellate panel has found restrictions to be a violation of the equal protection clause.  There are 12 US Court of Appeals which have multi state jurisdiction. When this happens, it is the law in all those states in the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.

Thanks.

So obviously any state Supreme Court Justice would know that to be the case. Because for a state Supreme Court Justice to not know that would be like a car mechanic not knowing where the dipstick is. Or a pinball machine mechanic not knowing how to read the schematic.

Which means Moore knows he could not win. So what exactly is his motive for doing this?

The govt should remove itself from this civil union except to record the fact and mediate the end as impartial arbiter.

Like most of it's intended constitutional functions.

Which means Moore knows he could not win. So what exactly is his motive for doing this?

The Supreme Court has not clearly ruled on this so even though his argument is like a 1% viable argument, he is basically making a state rights argument that the Supreme Court has not ruled on this. I think it is disrespectful and mean spirited, but it is certainly legal at this point.

The govt should remove itself from this civil union except to record the fact and mediate the end as impartial arbiter.

Like most of it's intended constitutional functions.


Do you make this stuff up as you go along, or do you have any source for these bizarre constitutional interpretations? I am not being a dick.....I have just never in forty years heard anything like what you just posted, nor have I ever read anything close to what you post here.

2seaoat wrote:

The Supreme Court has not clearly ruled on this

See that gets back to my original question and now you've provided me the answer.
The fact that by as late as 2015 this issue has not been resolved with a definitive Supreme Court decision just absolutely renders me speechless.

The Appellate Courts are near unanimous and the issue is before the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court established that the right to marry is a fundamental right which requires the state to have a compelling state interest to stop the marriage.....then the rational basis test which Alabama has historically applied and denied issuance to same sex marriages will be a violation of the 14th amendment equal protection clause. Clearly, the courts have arrived at this logic, and we are awaiting the Supreme Court to establish the same. Small bites all over the apple, but a court in Alabama certainly has the right to object, and appeal seeking the Supreme Court's decision.

But they do not have the right to issue a letter to ignore the federal ruling.

What the hell is wrong with a civil union tceremony.....one that would solve all the legal ramifications of a same sex partnership?

This is what Roy Moore said about homosexuality. He gave custody to an abusive father rather than a mother who was a lesbian.



"To disfavor practicing homosexuals in custody matters is not invidious discrimination, nor is it legislating personal morality. On the contrary, disfavoring practicing homosexuals in custody matters promotes the general welfare of the people of our State in accordance with our law, which is the duty of its public servants...

The State carries the power of the sword, that is, the power to prohibit conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution. It must use that power to prevent the subversion of children toward this lifestyle, to not encourage a criminal lifestyle...

Homosexual behavior is a ground for divorce, an act of sexual misconduct punishable as a crime in Alabama, a crime against nature, an inherent evil, and an act so heinous that it defies one's ability to describe it. That is enough under the law to allow a court to consider such activity harmful to a child. To declare that homosexuality is harmful is not to make new law but to reaffirm the old; to say that it is not harmful is to experiment with people's lives, particularly the lives of children."[12]

by Vikingwoman Yesterday at 11:56 pm
But they do not have the right to issue a letter to ignore the federal ruling.
----
Sure they do broomrider

But they do not have the right to issue a letter to ignore the federal ruling.

Yes, under state law they do. Until the rule to show cause hearing at the district court level, there is yet a justiciable issue to take up on appeal, and the District Court has wisely taken one of the probate judges and not the Chief of the Alabama Supreme Court to be the target of the injunction. The key will be if the Probate judge will appeal. If he does not, others may still refuse and they would face the same District Court action. However, if the Mobile Probate judge says pound on sand, the Supreme Court has not made this a fundamental right and our legislators have the right to define classifications using simply a rational basis, then it will go up to a full panel, and if appealed again....quickly the Supreme Court will act. Rumors are that Scalia and Thomas are the only two who may fight a unanimous Supreme Court approval of same sex marriage.

2seaoat wrote:The govt should remove itself from this civil union except to record the fact and mediate the end as impartial arbiter.

Like most of it's intended constitutional functions.


Do you make this stuff up as you go along, or do you have any source for these bizarre constitutional interpretations? I am not being a dick.....I have just never in forty years heard anything like what you just posted, nor have I ever read anything close to what you post here.

Why is the govt involved in an agreement between two people unless there is a record or a disagreement?

Why is there an encouragement to procreate or a penalty to remain single? Must be a good reason for everything... eh?

Why is the govt involved in an agreement between two people unless there is a record or a disagreement?


Really? I guess in Michigan they allow children to marry......eh? Marriage regulation is a legitimate government function. It has worked well for thousands of years across multiple government platforms. Now the Loving vs Virgina case which made it illegal to marry between races was overturned by the same equal protection clause, under the 14th amendment which you detest. If you do not get stop lights, bridges, birth certificates, and marriage certificates....not much I can help you with.

Vikingwoman wrote:

   Homosexual behavior is a ground for divorce, an act of sexual misconduct punishable as a crime in Alabama, a crime against nature, an inherent evil, and an act so heinous that it defies one's ability to describe it.

Isn't that what most of you Alabamartians said about integration of the schools too,  Roy?  And where was your state on the issue of human slavery?  As I recall you didn't much care about that at the time,  did you?  lol

Isn't that what most of you Alabamartians said about integration of the schools too, Roy? And where was your state on the issue of human slavery? As I recall you didn't much care about that at the time, did you? lol

He is on the wrong side of history and obviously thinks that some have lesser rights in America. I am really however shocked at how quickly the equal protection analysis was accepted by Appellate Courts. I predicted in the PNJ that it would be fifteen years before the Supreme Court would rule favorably under the equal protection clause.....they did it in ten years.....remarkable. However, showboating judges who legislate from the bench will be here today and certainly twenty years from now......He really is dogmatic and myopic and has no business being a judge in my opinion.

2seaoat wrote:But they do not have the right to issue a letter to ignore the federal ruling.

Yes, under state law they do.  Until the rule to show cause hearing at the district court level, there is yet a justiciable issue to take up on appeal, and the District Court has wisely taken one of the probate judges and not the Chief of the Alabama Supreme Court to be the target of the injunction.  The key will be if the Probate judge will appeal.  If he does not, others may still refuse and they would face the same District Court action.  However, if the Mobile Probate judge says pound on sand, the Supreme Court has not made this a fundamental right and our legislators have the right to define classifications using simply a rational basis, then it will go up to a full panel, and if appealed again....quickly the Supreme Court will act.  Rumors are that Scalia and Thomas are the only two who may fight a unanimous Supreme Court approval of same sex marriage.

You can't say he has a right to do that until the JIC issues a determination whether he violated ethics laws. He has a complaint lodged on him now.

An ethics complaint has nothing to do with the probate judges refusing to issue marriage licenses. There is a separate legal procedure which will be followed to determine if the State has the right in the interim to ignore the Appellate Court and the Circuit Courts rule issuance. The ethic violation has as much relevancy to the issuance of marriage licenses as a finding that he was having sex in chambers with horses.......it might effect his law license and there may be sanctions, but it will have nothing to do with the issuance of marriage licenses.

Seaoat...Moore sent an order to disregard the federal judges ruling to the probate judges. My statement was Moore did not have a right to do that. Are you arguing Moore had a right to do that? I'm not arguing what the probate judges did.

In his function as Chief Supreme Court Justice he most certainly has the right to express his opinion that the federal law does not preempt the state law in the absence of the Supreme Court clearly ruling on the same. The Appellate panel has spoken that the Probate Judges must issue those certificates. The Supreme Court Justice does not handle those ministerial functions and would not be accountable for a rule to show cause why he would be in contempt of court of the Federal District Judge order......A Writ of Mandamus has no function being directed at him, but as chief legal officer of the State Courts he most certainly has the right to issue a legal opinion.

Any person in a state can file an ethics complaint against a judge or lawyer. It means nothing until a hearing. Right now I would guess that every judge in every jurisdiction in America has a pending ethics complaint filed against them. The only issue relevant in regard to same sex marriage is the Probate Judges actions to ignore the law which has a specific course of remedy which has nothing to do with ethic violations and has to do with injunctive relief.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/13/us/alabama-same-sex-marriage-ruling.html?_r=0

U.S. Orders Alabama to License Gay Unions

By CAMPBELL ROBERTSON FEB. 12, 2015

MOBILE, Ala. — "A federal judge here ruled on Thursday that the local probate judge cannot refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, potentially adding some clarity to a judicial quarrel that has roiled Alabama for most of a week.

The order by Judge Callie V. S. Granade of Federal District Court came after a brief hearing and prompted cheers and crying in the halls of the probate court here, where several couples obtained licenses and were married before the license office closed.

While Judge Granade had declared Alabama’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional on Jan. 23, the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy S. Moore, insisted in his own order Sunday night that Judge Granade’s ruling did not apply to the state’s probate judges and directed them not to comply.

The ruling on Thursday was the first in this case with a probate judge as a defendant — Judge Don Davis of Mobile County — and was seen by lawyers for the gay couples who brought the case as a clear signal to probate judges around the state what their duties were..."

2seaoat wrote:In his function as Chief Supreme Court Justice he most certainly has the right to express his opinion that the federal law does not preempt the state law in the absence of the Supreme Court clearly ruling on the same.  The Appellate panel has spoken that the Probate Judges must issue those certificates.  The Supreme Court Justice does not handle those ministerial functions and would not be accountable for a rule to show cause why he would be in contempt of court of the Federal District Judge order......A Writ of Mandamus has no function being directed at him, but as chief legal officer of the State Courts he most certainly has the right to issue a legal opinion.  

Any person in a state can file an ethics complaint against a judge or lawyer.  It means nothing until a hearing.  Right now I would guess that every judge in every jurisdiction in America has a pending ethics complaint filed against them.   The only issue relevant in regard to same sex marriage is the Probate Judges actions to ignore the law which has a specific course of remedy which has nothing to do with ethic violations and has to do with injunctive relief.

It was not a legal opinion. He directed them not to comply as a Supreme Court Judge. You were wrong Seaoat.

I am right as usual. The ethics complaint has nothing to do with a hearing by a District Court Judge to seek injunctive relief under mandamus to force a ministerial Probate Judge to issue a marriage license. The Chief of the Alabama Supreme Court has every right to tell his Probate Judges that states rights still control the debate in Alabama in the absence of the Supreme Court ruling. You do understand that the Mobile Probate Judge can take the District Court Judge's ruling up on appeal. The Appellate panel can back the District Court Unanimously, and rule that the Probate Judge must issue licenses, and that Judge can appeal that decision to the Supreme Court. However, as I have posted, the Judge can comply with the Circuit Court order. The Chief Judge is totally irrelevant both as to the power to issue the ministerial function of a marriage license, or as to what his interpretation of the law is. This is really simple. Take a deep breath. It may make great headlines about what a jerk this guy is, but his letter if given as an interpretation of the law, is fully within his role as chief justice, and as evidenced by the District Court NOT picking him as the target for injunctive relief confirms what I have already tried to explain to you.