Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Why don’t these states enforce their Loser Pays laws?
Ping!
This is one unintended consequence of “loser pays” laws that tort reform advocates have pushed for decades. Frankly, these fees are likely just a drop in the bucket compared to how much those laws have saved by preventing/limiting frivolous lawsuits.
It doesn’t matter what the Inferior Court says, NO STATE is Bound by ANY Decision of any INFERIOR COURT. See Roy Moore
A recent detailed study of the courts of all 50 states and the District of Columbia determined that 46 states and the District of Columbia adopt the position that the precedents of lower federal courts are not binding in their jurisdictions. Wayne A. Logan, A House Divided: When State and Lower Federal Courts Disagree on Federal Constitutional Rights, 90 Notre Dame L. Rev. 235, 280-81 (2014). The position of three other states is uncertain. Only one state (Delaware) defers to the constitutional decisions of lower federal courts. Id. At 281.
Federal courts have recognized that state-court review of constitutional questions is independent of the same authority lodged in the lower federal courts. “In passing on federal constitutional questions, the state courts and the lower federal courts have the same responsibility and occupy the same position; there is a parallelism but not paramountcy for both sets of courts are governed by the same reviewing authority of the Supreme Court.” United States ex rel.Lawrence v. Woods, 432 F.2d 1072, 1075 (7th Cir. 1970).
Although consistency between state and federal courts is desirable in that it promotes respect for the law and prevents litigants from forum-shopping, there is nothing inherently offensive about two sovereigns reaching different legal conclusions. Indeed, such results were contemplated by our federal system, and neither sovereign is required to, nor expected to, yield to the other.
Surrick v. Killion, 449 F. 3d 520, 535 (3rd Cir. 2006).
The United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that state courts “possess the authority, absent a provision for exclusive federal jurisdiction, to render binding judicial decisions that rest on their own interpretations of federal law.” Asarco Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 617 (1989). Two justices of the United States Supreme Court in special writings have elaborated on this principle.
The Supremacy Clause demands that state law yield to federal law, but neither federal supremacy nor any other principle of federal law requires that a state court’s interpretation of federal law give way to a (lower) federal court’s interpretation. In our federal system, a state trial court’s interpretation of federal law is no less authoritative than that of the federal court of appeals in whose circuit the trial court is located.
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 375-76 (1993) (Thomas, J., concurring). See also Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 482, n. 3 (1974) (Rehnquist, J., concurring) (noting that a lower- federal-court decision “would not be accorded the stare decisis effect in state court that it would have in a subsequent proceeding within the same federal jurisdiction. Although the state court would not be compelled to follow the federal holding, the opinion might, of course, be viewed as highly persuasive.”).
Let them have gay marriage. Let them redefine marriage.
When the dust settles, create a new form of legal contract: “Procreation Partnerships.”
Refuse to pay. Are they going to file a lien against the courthouse?
Yeah, kinda like the "individual constitutional rights" of bakers and florists supersede the rights of queers, huh?
Pro-gay, politically correct interpretations of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protections Clause by activist judges aside, the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage. So the states are free to make laws which prohibit gay marriage.
And the reason that the states are footing legal bills to pay for gay activist to unconstitutionally tear down their marriage laws is because state government leaders are evidently as constitutionally clueless as the voters who elected them are.
The judge is wrong and should be pulled from his or her house in the middle of the night like the common criminal he or she is and be imprisoned for violation of their position as a judge. It won’t be till the states throw off the shackles of these federal oligarchs and strip them from their power forcibly if necessary will we have a true Republic again. Its beyond time.