snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Moot Court

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 24 January 2015, 02:04 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,606
Judge Federal judge strikes down gay-marriage ban in Alabama

Alabama has become the latest state to see its ban on gay marriage fall to a federal court ruling, as the issue of same-sex marriage heads to the U.S. Supreme Court.

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/us/art...in-6036327.php
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 24 January 2015, 05:27 AM
Horse Chestnut's Avatar
Horse Chestnut Horse Chestnut is offline
 
Join Date: 11 August 2004
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 5,307
Judge

Next stop, Ohio.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06 January 2016, 09:00 PM
Rebochan's Avatar
Rebochan Rebochan is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2002
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 11,587
Icon19

I was going to post a new thread, but then I remembered this came up a year ago and figured it should go in that thread.

Alabama chief justice orders halt to same-sex marriage licenses

Quote:
The chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the state's probate judges on Wednesday not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, despite a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court last year legalizing gay marriage.

Chief Justice Roy Moore said the U.S. Supreme Court decision is at odds with earlier opinions by the state's highest court, resulting in "confusion and uncertainty" among probate judges.

Many of the state's judges have been issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples since the national ruling, while others refused to do so or stopped issuing licenses to any couples, Moore said.

"This disparity affects the administration of justice in this state," he said in his administrative order.
It's not really clear what effect this ruling has since he can't nullify the SCOTUS ruling.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06 January 2016, 09:12 PM
crescent crescent is offline
 
 
Join Date: 13 August 2008
Location: Right here
Posts: 2,518
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebochan View Post
It's not really clear what effect this ruling has since he can't nullify the SCOTUS ruling.
He probably believes he can nullify SCOTUS rulings. Nullification and believe in the invalidity of the SCOTUS Judicial Review is all the rage in far-right circles these days.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06 January 2016, 11:18 PM
diddy's Avatar
diddy diddy is offline
 
Join Date: 07 March 2004
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 10,859
Default

I fai to see the confusion and I am a long way from being a judge. The answer is simple - the Supreme Court overrides any opinions or rulings by any court in any jurisdiction on these matters. This is due to the supremacy clause and the constitution. Those opinions he cites are null and void.

Essentially the Supreme courts trump the Alabama courts. The order is going to be quickly nullified by the nearest circuit court and the the state is still going to have to issue marriage licenses anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06 January 2016, 11:57 PM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 10 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 6,557
Mouse

So are we in for another Rightwing Self-Martyrdom Circle-Jerk ala Kim Davis and those nutbars at the Bird Reserve in Oregon? Oh, Jeez...when will this end?

Again, more and more I wish Life was like Art; Art has to actually make sense. While it's probably not possible to be completely original, at least, Art has to actually put forth some effort. Can't just turn in a paint-by-numbers version of Monet's Waterlilies and call it a day. Of all the realities to be born into, I had to wind up in one that's both boring and nonsensical at the same time.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07 January 2016, 08:14 PM
E. Q. Taft's Avatar
E. Q. Taft E. Q. Taft is offline
 
Join Date: 30 July 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 13,146
Default

I think his 'logic' was that the SCOTUS ruling only applies in the specific states that brought the case, rather than to the whole country.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07 January 2016, 08:24 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 23,872
Default

I'm all for that interpretation if that means that only Citizens United is allowed to influence the political process without any significant control or oversight.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07 January 2016, 10:18 PM
Elkhound Elkhound is offline
 
Join Date: 09 October 2002
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 10,676
Default

Art has to make sense? You are familiar with Dada and Surrealism, aren't you?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08 January 2016, 12:51 AM
diddy's Avatar
diddy diddy is offline
 
Join Date: 07 March 2004
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 10,859
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by E. Q. Taft View Post
I think his 'logic' was that the SCOTUS ruling only applies in the specific states that brought the case, rather than to the whole country.
Which is false and irrelevant. My understanding is that he doesn't have the authority to interpret a Supreme Court ruling. Anyhow he is probably wrong since the courts ruling did not make any statement that would indicate that it was limited - it (to me) was the exact opposite. It was clear (to me) that the ruling was based on an interpretation of the US constitution which would take precedence over anything a state could pass.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08 January 2016, 01:35 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 22,696
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elkhound View Post
Art has to make sense? You are familiar with Dada and Surrealism, aren't you?
Not the best examples. As anti-idealist as they may have been, anti-idealism is itself idealistic in some (you-can't-get-there-from-here) sense.

I would have gone with Mouse's specific example. Contrary to Mouse's opinion, I think one can indeed "turn in a paint-by-numbers version of Monet's Waterlilies and call it a day":
http://americanhistory.si.edu/paint/unfinishedWork.html
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08 January 2016, 01:26 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 23,872
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post
My understanding is that he doesn't have the authority to interpret a Supreme Court ruling.
All judges have the authority to interpret Supreme Court rulings, that is a large part of their job. If he has interpreted it wrongly, then it is up to the legal system to correct that ruling.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09 January 2016, 01:12 AM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 10 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 6,557
Mouse

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
Not the best examples. As anti-idealist as they may have been, anti-idealism is itself idealistic in some (you-can't-get-there-from-here) sense.
I admit I was thinking more in terms of fiction. Even if said setting is one of those goofy, zany stories where anything goes, even in those stories there are rules and logic that they have to follow.

Again, I'm not sure what bothers me most about this reality that it's boring or that it's nonsensical.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09 January 2016, 01:50 AM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is online now
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 7,311
Default

I don't find reality boring.

Kim Davis may be boring. But there's a whole lot more to reality than Kim Davis. Don't confuse her -- or her and her cohorts -- with a universe infinitely bigger than they are.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09 January 2016, 03:20 AM
diddy's Avatar
diddy diddy is offline
 
Join Date: 07 March 2004
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 10,859
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
All judges have the authority to interpret Supreme Court rulings, that is a large part of their job. If he has interpreted it wrongly, then it is up to the legal system to correct that ruling.
Well I doubt they can interpret court rulings in a factual manor - i.e. they say that they supreme court means X when they explicitly says Y where Y is in direct contradiction to X. What I should have said is that an average judge can't just overturn a higher court by saying “I don’t think that this applies to this state” when it just doesn’t.

That’s my opinion at least.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09 January 2016, 04:05 AM
Amigone201's Avatar
Amigone201 Amigone201 is offline
 
Join Date: 11 March 2005
Location: Islip, NY
Posts: 6,038
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
All judges have the authority to interpret Supreme Court rulings, that is a large part of their job. If he has interpreted it wrongly, then it is up to the legal system to correct that ruling.
Judges can choose which legal principle applies to the case before them, so in theory, a judge could find some distinction between what the Supreme Court ruled and what's in front of them. What they can't do is say "SCOTUS ruled X when applied to Y facts. We have Y facts here, but I don't like X ruling, so we'll just ignore it."
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09 January 2016, 04:53 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,402
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amigone201 View Post
What they can't do is say "SCOTUS ruled X when applied to Y facts. We have Y facts here, but I don't like X ruling, so we'll just ignore it."
I wold say that judges can, and regular do just that. That is why judges get overturned as often as they do.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09 January 2016, 07:00 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,234
Default

No, that isn't why judges get overturned as often as they do. Judges very very rarely ignore law that is directly on point. Moore is an aberration by far. The vast majority of judges work hard to try to reach the right answer, and to try to not be reversed on appeal. They are reversed on appeal in many cases just because they are resolving questions that haven't been answered before by the higher courts. And the reversal rate for trial court judges in general is quite low. If they were just making stuff up on a whim it would be much higher.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 30 September 2016, 11:00 PM
Psihala's Avatar
Psihala Psihala is offline
 
Join Date: 28 February 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 7,258
Icon13 Roy Moore Suspended From Alabama Supreme Court For Anti-Gay Marriage Order

Roy Moore, Alabama's controversial chief justice of the state Supreme Court, was suspended without pay for the remainder of his term on Friday for instructing probate judges to deny same-sex couples marriage licenses, in contradiction to a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-o...stance-n657511
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Judge strikes down Pennsylvania law barring gay marriage snopes Moot Court 9 21 May 2014 03:57 PM
Federal Judge Strikes Down Texas Gay Marriage Ban CenTex Soapbox Derby 0 26 February 2014 07:14 PM
Supreme Court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act rujasu Soapbox Derby 34 24 July 2013 02:54 PM
Mysterious respiratory illness strikes 7 in Alabama; 2 dead A Turtle Named Mack The Doctor Is In 0 22 May 2013 03:39 PM
Federal judge strikes down Idaho ban on late-term abortions snopes Moot Court 0 07 March 2013 03:24 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.