Nullification: Not Just For The 19th Century Anymore!

[Flagg]

Rawstory

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore issues late night order forbidding same-sex weddings on Monday

Tom Boggioni
08 Feb 2015 at 23:15 ET

tating he is empowered to block any move that will “bring chaos and confusion into the system,” late Sunday night Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore ordered all probate judges and employees in Alabama to adhere to existing state laws and not issue or recognize same-sex marriages that are supposed to begin Monday morning, according to AL.com.

Moore recently sent a letter to Alabama Governor Robert Bentley saying a federal ruling allowing same-sex marriages violates the state constitution.

At that time, Moore advised judges to disregard the federal court ruling, writing, “I am dismayed by those judges in our state who have stated they will recognize and unilaterally enforce a federal court decision which does not bind them. I would advise them that the issuance of such licenses would be in defiance of the laws and constitution of Alabama.”

Sunday night Moore went a step further issuing an order (pdf), telling state employees they may not “issue or recognize a marriage license” inconsistent with current Alabama statutes.

Moore wrote that should any probate judge fail to follow “the Constitution and statutes of Alabama as stated,” including a statute stating that the state “shall not recognize as valid any common law marriage of parties of the same sex,” they could be subject to sanctions from Alabama Governor Bentley.

The order from Moore comes just hours before the January decision by United States District Court Judge Callie V. S. Granade was scheduled to take effect, allowing same-sex couples to wed.

This was settled in a small affair known as the United States Civil War. Judge Moore (and the Governor of Alabama) ireally must want tank treads surrounding whatever shithole of a capital that shithole of a state has.

But for real-real, not for play-play, what happens now as far as Judge Frederick Davis goes? I mean we know what happens if the empty suit of a Governor backs him and calls up the states National Guard (a majority or at least a large minority of which are likely minorities) and we have a possible crisis on our hands. But if Judge E. Lee is the Alamo (another battle fought in the war for slavery, we're really learning today!) and stands alone, does he just get kicked off the bench like last time, and what would prevent him from running for governor (since I have a feeling he may not have a law license after this, but Alabama...) and just does what he apparently wants the Governor of Alabama to do?

[The Romulan Republic]

I really don't think this is going to lead to a civil war, as much as you seem to be salivating at the possibility.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I really don't think this is going to lead to a civil war, as much as you seem to be salivating at the possibility.

Naaah. There are a few actual options. Depending on how nasty the court wants to get. But the basic remedy is Contempt of Court. This can range from a fine levied against the state, compounded daily to the tune of whatever amount the court decides (this is what they federal courts tend to do when Joe Arpaio refuses to comply with federal court rulings), to having Federal Marshalls frogmarch the offending party into federal prison for as long as they do not comply with the court ruling.

[Flagg]

I really don't think this is going to lead to a civil war, as much as you seem to be salivating at the possibility.

Sarcasm and sardonicism are lost on you, I see. The only one salivating for another Civil War, seems to be Chief Justice of the supreme court of Alabama.

[Patroklos]

Why do you think it likely the NG or Alabama is majority minority?

[Zaune]

Well, this should be entertaining to watch.

[Flagg]

Why do you think it likely the NG or Alabama is majority minority?

I remember reading some article about 10-12 years ago about how in many southern states their NG were becoming more diverse with more minorities joining and them expected to outnumber whites by some year. I can't of course find this article as it would be useful and thus make my life easier, so it's a guestimate? I did also say "a large minority" as a possibility. But in any case I don't want to derail this thread with nit-picking so I'll just concede the point that really isn't important so we can move on.

[Joun_Lord]

I'll never get just how much of a hard-on these idiots have for going against gay marriage. Its something that scarcely effects them. Their marriages to their wives (be it first, second, third, or more, because of sanctity of marriage is soooooooooooo important) isn't destroyed by Adam and Steve getting hitched. Though maybe cheating on their wives, sleeping with dudes in public bathrooms on the sly, and being more worried about what goes on in other peoples bedrooms might destroy it.

Gay marriage does create money because gay people have to have big FABULOUS marriages, create more stable households by having two parents, and are more likely to adopt children thus helping out our massively swamped adoption system. That seems to me like it would have benefits to the institution of marriage and society in general but then I'm not a total idiot who follows the teaching of some ancient book.

The almight Bible says gaymosexuals shouldn't get married. Well it also advocates for slavery, murder, kidnapping women, women being subservient to men, bashing childrens brains in with rocks, and bear attacks. Strangely I don't see too many christians out and about whining that we should repel murder laws and the 13th Amendment.

These are the same fucks who probably would be against the 13th Amendment and laws allowing interracial marriage back in the day when that was hot shit. Probably still against it now just don't say it out loud.

People seriously need to just stop focusing on the bedroom antics and marriages of other people and start looking at their own. Everyone would probably get along much better that way.

[bilateralrope]

These are the same fucks who probably would be against the 13th Amendment and laws allowing interracial marriage back in the day when that was hot shit. Probably still against it now just don't say it out loud.

About that: George Wallace's 1963 Inaugural Address

George Wallace's 1963 Inaugural Address was delivered January 14, 1963, following his election as Governor of Alabama.[1] Wallace at this time in his career was an ardent segregationist, and as Governor he challenged the attempts of the federal government to enforce laws prohibiting segregation in Alabama's public schools and other institutions. The speech is most famous for the phrase "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" which became a rallying cry for those opposed to integration and the Civil Rights Movement

Question is if Alabama is going to back down, or if they make up a catch phrase and get a repeat of how their resistance to the Civil Rights Movement went.

[Lost Soal]

Well SCOTUS told them to shut up and start issuing Marriage licences with a 7-2 ruling. Lets see if they try to ignore that

[Iroscato]

Ugh. What an impotent, pitiful little man. Rather interested to see where this goes now...

[Irbis]

Well SCOTUS told them to shut up and start issuing Marriage licences with a 7-2 ruling. Lets see if they try to ignore that

Is anyone surprised who was against? And it seems they want to do just that:

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented from the high court’s action, with Thomas writing that the court’s “ordinary practice” is to let such laws take effect while the Supreme Court hears arguments and prepares a decision on the laws’ constitutionality.

“Today’s decision represents yet another example of this Court’s increasingly cavalier attitude toward the States. Over the past few months, the Court has repeatedly denied stays of lower court judgments enjoining the enforcement of state laws on questionable constitutional grounds,” Thomas wrote in his dissent, joined by Scalia. “It has similarly declined to grant certiorari to review such judgments without any regard for the people who approved those laws in popular referendums or elected the representatives who voted for them. In this case, the Court refuses even to grant a temporary stay when it will resolve the issue at hand in several months.”

The U.S. Supreme Court announced in January that it will take on the issue of whether same-sex couples can marry nationwide. Arguments are set to begin in late April, with a decision to come before the term’s end in June.

Thomas and Scalia also suggested in their dissent that the court’s refusal to stay the federal court ruling enforcing same-sex marriage rights in Alabama could be a signal that the justices will vote in the pending cases to make same-sex marriage available nationwide.

“The court looks the other way as yet another Federal District Judge casts aside state laws without making any effort to preserve the status quo pending the Court’s resolution of a constitutional question it left open in United States v. Windsor,” Thomas wrote, referring to the 2012 case where the justices banned the federal government from discriminating against gay couples but left unresolved the question of whether states could still discriminate.

“This acquiescence may well be seen as a signal of the Court’s intended resolution of that question,” Thomas added. “This is not the proper way to discharge our Article III responsibilities. And, it is indecorous for this Court to pretend that it is.”

Alabama Governor Robert Bentley and Attorney General Luther Strange, both Republicans, issued separate statements Monday condemning the Supreme Court’s decision and expressing their agreement with the dissenting opinion. Bentley and Strange both declined to say whether they will act to enforce the federal court’s ruling.

“We will follow the rule of law in Alabama, and allow the issue of same-sex marriage to be worked out through the proper legal channels,” Bentley said in his statement. Bentley did not say whether he will fight the federal court ruling before the U.S. Supreme Court definitively decides the issue later this year.

[Flagg]

Well from what I can see he just ignored them and told the Alabama JUdges to as well. So basically some are issuing liscenses and some are not, creating a massive clusterfuck the likes of which have not been seen since the last time Republican YECs were given too much (any) power.