I hear quacking..
Posted on 01/28/2015 6:35:37 AM PST by SeekAndFind
It’s Roy Moore, who’s already nationally famous for his willingness to defy federal courts. He got elected chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court in 2001, had a monument to the Ten Commandments installed on the courthouse grounds, then was tossed off the bench for refusing to comply when a federal judge ordered him to remove the monument to prevent a violation of the Establishment Clause. He got reelected chief justice a few years ago and now he’s going to defy the federal judiciary on another hot-button “values” issue, namely, last week’s ruling that the part of the Alabama constitution that bans gay marriage violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. Will he be kicked off the bench again for this? If so, how many years will it be before he’s elected chief justice for the third time? The over/under is three.
Terrible, terrible news for a GOP presidential field that’s (mostly) desperate to duck this issue. Glorious, glorious news for content-hungry bloggers who know what sort of traffic a big intraparty food fight over SSM can produce.
Moore’s office released the three-page letter that was delivered to the governor this morning in response to a federal judge’s ruling Friday striking down the ban.
“As Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, I will continue to recognize the Alabama Constitution and the will of the people overwhelmingly expressed in the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment,” Moore wrote.
“I ask you to continue to uphold and support the Alabama Constitution with respect to marriage, both for the welfare of this state and for our posterity,” Moore continued at the end of the letter. “Be advised that I stand with you to stop judicial tyranny and any unlawful opinions issued without constitutional authority.”…
“As you know, nothing in the United States Constitution grants the federal government the authority to redefine the institution of marriage,” Moore wrote.
Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley responded with his own statement, acknowledging that “[a]s governor, I must uphold the Constitution” but adding that “[t]he Federal government must not infringe on the rights of states.” If all of this sounds familiar, it should: It’s the same basic nullification idea that Mike Huckabee was pushing last week when he insisted that SCOTUS can’t legalize gay marriage on its own. The Court needs the cooperation of state legislatures, he claimed, which is … just not correct but makes for a nifty talking point for a guy who wants to show social conservatives that he’s willing to do things to defend traditional marriage that the other so-called social cons in the field are not. Here’s what he said this weekend in Iowa when asked about that again:
“There’s no such thing in the Constitution as judicial supremacy where the courts make a ruling and it becomes quote ‘the law of the land,’” he said before a speech to conservatives here Saturday, in remarks that drew criticism. “A great example of this is the 1857 Dred Scott decision, in which the Supreme Court in one of its most horrendous decisions … said that people who are black aren’t fully human. Now Abraham Lincoln said he wasn’t going to fully abide by that. Nobody argues that Abraham Lincoln should have abided by the Dred Scott decision. We recognize that he had the courage to realize that he didn’t have to enforce something that was morally wrong.”
Democrats will have a lot of fun with that slavery analogy down the road. But anyway — here’s Moore doing exactly what Huckabee thinks socially conservative state employees should do in the name of morality. I’m dying to see a poll on this topic, just to see how right or wrong my hunch is about how Americans will react. You know what the polls on legalizing gay marriage look like; there’s now a reliable majority in favor, although that majority seems to be capped at around 58 or 59 percent. My hunch is that public opinion on state officers defying federal court rulings will run much higher, as not only will you pick up all of the pro-SSM adults but you’ll pick up a chunk of anti-SSMers who see chaos in the idea of government officials picking and choosing which court rulings to obey. (Imagine if SCOTUS’s ruling on ObamaCare’s mandate came out the other way in 2012 and blue states decided to enforce the federal individual mandate anyway, as a procedural necessity towards the “moral” goal of universal health care.) If I’m right then Moore’s defiance is a political nightmare looming for GOP presidential candidates: Some Republican primary voters will support him as a lonely traditionalist bulwark against judicial tyranny but most of the public will oppose him for refusing to follow the constitutional order imposed by the Supremacy Clause. Republican candidates will have the media gleefully amplifying lefty attacks that, a la the 1950s, once again we have officials in the deep south refusing to implement antidiscrimination rulings by the federal bench. (The fact that this is playing out in Alabama portends lots of George Wallace references, most of which will omit his party affiliation of course.) On the other hand, they’ll have Mike Huckabee amplifying Moore’s position, wondering aloud just how much we can trust Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio if they’re willing to condone left-wing morals imposed by judicial diktat. It’s a clusterfark in the making.
Here’s Huckabee tackling this subject on “Meet the Press” a few days ago. Today he told a radio host during an interview that it’s “trashy” for women to use profanity in the workplace, which should make for a nice week-long media digression next summer if he ends up as the nominee.
Exactly right.
Shoot, I’ve said it a thousand times, even on live television. We can’t possibly save the country at this point unless and until we learn to tell usurping judges to go to hell.
He definitely is batting for the other team with this piece.
Outstanding. You need to back him to the hilt, with everything you've got. It's critical, not just for Alabama, but for the republic.
Roy Moore is one man who REFUSES to back down ( cue the music to the song ).
In the years preceding his first election to the state Supreme Court, Moore successfully resisted attempts by a Federal Judge to have a display of the Ten Commandments removed from the courtroom because it violated “ Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution” (HOW?).
The controversy around Moore generated national attention. Moore’s supporters regard his stand as a defense of “judicial rights” and the Constitution of Alabama.
Moore contended that federal judges who ruled against his actions consider “obedience of a court order superior to all other concerns, even the suppression of belief in the sovereignty of God.
He was REMOVED from his position by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary (COJ), a panel of judges, lawyers and others appointed variously by judges, legal leaders, the governor and the lieutenant governor.
In 2011, Moore chose to enter the race for Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court once again. He ran in the March 12, 2012 Republican Primary against two candidates. They were the sitting chief justice, Chuck Malone, who had been appointed to the office seven months earlier and former Democratic Attorney General Charles Graddick, who had become a Republican in 1994. Moore unexpectedly defeated both without a runoff despite being heavily outspent.
Well look at him today... he’s courting controversy once again and not backing down.
How long will it take for him to be again removed from his position by those in power?
Roy Moore is one man who REFUSES to back down ( cue the music to the song ).
In the years preceding his first election to the state Supreme Court, Moore successfully resisted attempts by a Federal Judge to have a display of the Ten Commandments removed from the courtroom because it violated “ Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution” (HOW?).
The controversy around Moore generated national attention. Moore’s supporters regard his stand as a defense of “judicial rights” and the Constitution of Alabama.
Moore contended that federal judges who ruled against his actions consider “obedience of a court order superior to all other concerns, even the suppression of belief in the sovereignty of God.
He was REMOVED from his position by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary (COJ), a panel of judges, lawyers and others appointed variously by judges, legal leaders, the governor and the lieutenant governor.
In 2011, Moore chose to enter the race for Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court once again. He ran in the March 12, 2012 Republican Primary against two candidates. They were the sitting chief justice, Chuck Malone, who had been appointed to the office seven months earlier and former Democratic Attorney General Charles Graddick, who had become a Republican in 1994. Moore unexpectedly defeated both without a runoff despite being heavily outspent.
Well look at him today... he’s courting controversy once again and not backing down.
How long will it take for him to be again removed from his position by those in power?
"When human laws contradict or discountenance the means, which are necessary to preserve the essential rights of any society, they defeat the proper end of all laws, and so become null and void." -- Alexander Hamilton"Hence also, the origin of all civil government, justly established, must be a voluntary compact, between the rulers and the ruled; and must be liable to such limitations, as are necessary for the security of the absolute rights of the latter; for what original title can any man or set of men have, to govern others, except their own consent? To usurp dominion over a people, in their own despite, or to grasp at more extensive power than they are willing to entrust, is to violate that law of nature, which gives every man the right to his personal liberty; and can, therefore, confer no obligation to obedience."
Judge Moore’s complete letter to the Governor:
http://lifeandlibertyreport.com/blogs/entry/Roy-Moore-refuses-to-obey-the-federal-courts-on-marriage
Please explain what you mean by this post?
Bring it!
The “dirt” they’d find adheres to the Godless.
God Bless Roy Moore.
The Feds would call in troops to enforce a court order just like they did in 1957.
About the same majority that oppose ObamaCare but that wouldn't matter to you because you think majorities that disagree with you are just wrong. (Not you Seek, AllahPundit)
I hear quacking..
No but they do protect and defend the State Constitution, a fact that seems to escape you.
Would you support the Feds if they sent in troops to support this BS law?
“Would you support the Feds if they sent in troops to support this BS law?”
The law is not BS.
God bless Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore and if Ted Cruz becomes president Roy Moore will be chief justice of the US Supreme Court.
“God bless Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore and if Ted Cruz becomes president Roy Moore will be chief justice of the US Supreme Court.”
I don’t think the current Chief Justice will cooperate with that plan.
If you think fag marriage is ok then I suggest you leave this site. Simply put you can GFY!
Wait a minute, this is confusing.
In post 34 you wrote, “Would you support the Feds if they sent in troops to support this BS law?”
It would appear that the only law that is in place in Alabama is that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman.
There is non other law in this discussion and as anyone who studied social studies in the 8th grade understands, only congress can make laws and the president must sign laws that are passed and he agrees with.
Judges do not make laws.
So, please explain why you believe that the law in Alabama that define marriage of only being between a man and a woman is a “BS law.”
You know what I meant. To enforce fag marriage is the BS law that the feds will eventually try to enforce on Alabama. You seem fine with that.
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.