Posted on 03/07/2016 3:14:17 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian
As a pro-lifer, I’m concerned that only a nutcase would put their child up for adoption at this point. Imagine these deviants getting a hold of your flesh & blood?
Just ignore it. We the people shall make our laws or rules as its intended. The lesbian woman can be jailed.
As CS Lewis wrote in “That Hideous Strength,” “the poison has spat itself everywhere now.”
I agree. Jail her.
They’re sending a not-very-subtle message to the AL supreme court, which just ordered probate judges not to perform fake “gay” “marriages.”
The US Supreme Court is now completely dominated by Sodom.
Nothing will change either until we learn to tell them to go to hell, and start summarily impeaching and removing them.
You’re 100% right my good friend.
The Alabama Supreme Court actually did just the opposite, although Roy Moore's "specially concurring" opinion tried hard to obfuscate that fact.
The details, if you care for legal trivia:
Roy Moore, acting in his administrative capacity, ordered probate judges not to issue same-sex marriage licenses. A federal judge then ordered the probate judges to issue such licenses, and they have been issuing them. Next, an anti-gay marriage organization asked the Alabama Supreme Court to order the probate judges to follow Moore's order, and not the federal court's order. The Alabama Supreme Court just said that "the motion is denied," without saying anything further. Which means the federal judge's order remains in effect.
Last Friday the Alabama Supreme Court made permanent the Petition for Mandamus, which upheld the marriage laws and ordered the probate judges to comply with those laws. The Judgment reads as follows:
CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT
WHEREAS, the ruling on the application for rehearing filed in this cause and indicated below was entered in this cause on March 20, 2015:
Application Overruled. No Opinion. PER CURIAM - Stuart, Bolin, Parker, Murdock, Main, Wise, and Bryan, JJ., concur. [This refers to a motion for rehearing filed by Probate Judge Reed.]
WHEREAS, the above referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the Supreme Court of Alabama and the orders indicated below were entered in this cause:
Petition Granted. Writ Issued. March 3, 2015. PER CURIAM - Stuart, Bolin, Parker, Murdock, Wise, and Bryan, JJ., concur. Main, J., concurs in part and concurs in the result. Shaw, J., dissents. [This refers to Liberty Counsel’s Petition for Mandamus.]
Writ Issued as to Judge Don Davis. March 11, 2015. PER CURIAM - Stuart, Parker, Murdock, Main, Wise, and Bryan, JJ., concur. Shaw, J., dissents. [Same as above]
Writ Issued as to additional respondents. March 12, 2015. PER CURIAM - Stuart, Bolin, Parker, Murdock, Main, Wise, and Bryan, JJ., concur. Shaw, J., dissents. [Same as above]
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this Court’s judgment in this cause is certified on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.
Along with the Judgment, the Alabama Supreme Court released the separate opinions of the Justices. In his 105-page opinion, in which he concurred in the Judgment, Chief Justice Roy Moore wrote the following:
Today this Court by order dismisses all pending motions and petitions and issues the certificate of judgment in this case. That action does not disturb the existing March orders in this case or the Court’s holding therein that the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment, art. I, § 36.03, Ala. Const. 1901, and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act, § 30-1-9, Ala. Code 1975, are constitutional. Therefore, and for the reasons stated below, I concur with the order.
Later in a public statement after the Judgment was issued, Chief Justice Roy Moore made the following statement:
The Court dismissed in its order “pending motions and petitions” in the API case today but did not dismiss “lawsuits” or dismiss the case. In fact, the Court also issued the certificate of judgment (COJ) which explicitly recognized the 3 orders issued in this case last year. As I stated in my written concurrence, the Court did not disturb the existing orders in this case or the holding in API that Alabama’s Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act were constitutional.
“Some media reported the opposite of what the Alabama Supreme Court did. When the Alabama Supreme Court entered the Judgment on its March 2015 order and dismissed the ALCU’s motion to reverse that order, the result was a clear victory for our case,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “The Alabama Supreme Court order upholding the marriage laws and ordering the probate judges to comply with those laws still remains in effect. The ACLU’s request to reverse that order was dismissed. The Alabama Supreme Court rejected the 5-4 marriage opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court. While some of the Alabama Supreme Court Justices wrote separate opinions ripping apart the U.S. Supreme Court, it is clear a majority of the Court issued a Judgment affirming that their prior orders upholding the marriage laws remain valid in Alabama,” said Staver.
“...state courts must recognize legitimate rulings by courts in other states.”
Good to know that I can open carry in Downtown Manhattan, now.
The only one I trust on that court any more is Clarence Thomas. If he voted for this, then there must be some underlying Constitutional or legal-framework issue that, if ruled against, would destroy the system. It just turns out there are lesbians and kids in this case, is all. Thomas wouldn’t endorse that, but he would stay true to the legal system we have.
I need to chew on this. It sure sounds like judicial activism. On its face, the restraints on the court are not boundaries within which they can write laws. Those are the types of constraints legislatures feel. The court's job is to resolve conflicts between parties.. whether those conflicts exist between people or existing laws. As I read this, the court decided the direction they wanted to go in setting a brand new precedent (law?) and there was no existing law in place... so they filled the void.
That isn't the job of the courts!
I'm admittedly not up on the Georgia law in this case, but if a party wants to perform some action (adoption, for instance), and there is no law prohibiting it, wouldn't the correct role of the court be to stand aside and allow that action?
Otherwise the court would clearly be making law.
You could be right. Like I said... I need to chew on it.
Hmm. That’s a good analysis.
I hate to admit it, but my initial reaction was wrong.
The only judicial activism was by the Alabama Supreme Court, which is why the Supreme Court reversed them 8-0.
As I read this, the court decided the direction they wanted to go in setting a brand new precedent (law?) and there was no existing law in place... so they filled the void. That isn't the job of the courts!
You're reading it way wrong. (That's not criticism of you; it's written in rather technical legal jargon.) This is what happened:
1. The Georgia court allowed one woman in a lesbian relationship to adopt her partner's child. Both women lived in Georgia and both supported the adoption.
2. The two women later moved to Alabama, then split up.
3. The adoptive mother sued in Alabama court to get visitation with her adoptive child.
4. The Alabama court said that she couldn't get visitation because she had never legally adopted the child.
5. On appeal, the adoptive mother said that the adoption had been granted by a Georgia court under Georgia law to Georgia residents, so Alabama had no power to say that it had never happened, because one state must give "Full Faith and Credit" to the decisions of another state's courts.
6. The Alabama Supreme Court said that it didn't have to follow the Georgia court's decision because the Georgia court had no "jurisdiction" to allow the adoption.
The language you quoted was the U.S. Supreme Court's response to Alabama's "no jurisdiction" argument: the Georgia court was the kind of court that has jurisdiction to grant adoptions; nothing in Georgia law says anything different; therefore, Alabama couldn't pretend that the Georgia courts hadn't decided the adoption case.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Exactly right! I will point out that we knew all along how Elena Kagan, with her abnormal lesbian brain, would vote here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.