Posted on 03/09/2016 5:07:21 AM PST by HomerBohn
Great. Time for states to take their rights back.
I understand where you’re coming from on this, but I honestly think that reconfirming justices via popular vote would simply lead to conservatives being ejected. The campaign to eject Scalia, for example, would have been vile and likely effective.
At no time did the founding fathers want our country ruled by a mob, and went to great lengths to create a government which wasn’t.
You can say that again.
This part of the article (below) is especially just wonderful! Thank you, Justice Moore:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Justice Moore then gave wise counsel to sodomites who claim that they can engage in sodomy and be dignified in marriage.
“Historically, consummation of a marriage always involved an act of sexual intimacy that was dignified in the eyes of the law. An act of sexual intimacy between two men or two women, by contrast, was considered ‘an infamous crime against nature’ and a ‘disgrace to human nature.’ Homosexuals who seek the dignity of marriage must first forsake the sexual habits that disqualify them from admission to that hallowed institution. Surely more dignity attaches to participation in a fundamental institution on the terms it prescribes than to an attempt to wrest its definition to serve inordinate lusts that demean its historic dignity.”
Indeed, I wish more people understood that liberty is not the ability to do what the law condemns, but to do what is right before our Creator. May God bless the Alabama Supreme Court!
This is so friggin AWESOME!!
I’m SHOCKED this isn’t front page news. WAY TO GO ALABAMA. It’s time someone call out these activists for legislating from the bench.
The order dismisses "all pending motions and petitions" -- and those pending motions and petitions sought to have the Alabama Supreme Court defy Obergefell and grant relief from having to issue gay marriage certificates.
Everything written after the simple statement of dismissal consists simply of concurrences in the dismissal by several individual justices. Moore's lengthy concurrence makes it confusing, because he goes to great lengths to express his vehement disagreement with Obergefell, and at the end states his belief that the March 2015 order upholding the constitutionality of the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act still stands. Then he immediately (and even more confusingly) states that he concurs in the dismissal.
The concurrence by Justice Stuart on the following page (p. 106) lets one know what the upshot is of Moore's confusing concurrence/dissent/whatever you want to call it:
Motions and petitions are dismissed without explanation by this Court for numerous reasons as a matter of routine. When a Justice issues a writing concurring in or dissenting from an order summarily dismissing a pending motion or petition the writing expresses the explanation for the vote of only the Justice who issues the writing and of any Justice who joins the writing. Attributing the reasoning and explanation in a special concurrence or a dissent to a Justice who did not issue or join the writing is erroneous and unjust.Bottom line: Moore is speaking for himself, and the petitioners do not get a declaration that the March 2015 order affords them relief from having to grant gay marriage licenses. That order, as Justice Shaw makes clear in his concurrence (p. 146), "no longer has a field of operation or any legal effect."
Carry on.
“makes homosexuality and lesbianism appear unwholesome.”
Appearances be damned, it is an abomination period.
It’s about time a state government stood up to the federal homosexual mafia led by Obama himself.
Liberals are always telling us that the constitution is a living, flexible document that can mean anything until they get a verdict that they like, which they suddenly say the rule is in affect forever.
About time they got some much needed push back.
Good to read. Now, if they’d follow suite vs. O’Care, BLM, 2nd Amendment....
Ping for later
See my #29.
Its time we take our freedom back. Thank you Alabama SC !
Please communicate in non-legal terms for those of us who don’t know legal context. Thanks.
But what do I know? I'm only an attorney.
“But what do I know? I’m only an attorney. “
Which is why we have courts...no two attorneys can agree on anything, much less what the law says.
10th Amendment how it was meant to be interpreted.
What you claim is on page 106 isn’t on that page. It is on page 107.
Page 106:
“As stated at the beginning of this special concurrence,
the certificate of judgment in this case does not disturb the March 2015 orders of this Court that uphold the
constitutionality of the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and
the Alabama Marriage Protection Act. For that reason, as
explained above, I concur.”
I commend the Alabama Supreme Court for taking a stand against the tyranny of state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.
On the other hand, the chain of events leading to the Alabama Supreme Court’s action possibly would never have happened if parents were making sure that their children were being taught about the federal governments constitutionally limited powers as the Founding States had intended for those powers to be understood, particularly 10th Amendment-protected state sovereignty.
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.