Another Update on The Gay in Alabama: State Supreme Court “Overrules” Federal District Court

Posted: March 4, 2015 in homosexuality, legal / law
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sigh. To me, this is neither a conservative, nor a liberal issue at this point. (Though maybe it is? State supremacy = conservative cause?) Here’s the latest from Alabama, just in Sunday night (so less than 12 hrs old): “Alabama Judges Ordered to Halt ‘Halt’ Weddings.” It’s by Cheryl Chumley, who I haven’t seen before on WND.

And let’s be very clear: It’s not the weddings at issue, it’s the issuance of marriage licenses.

Anyway, the decision was 7 to 1 with Roy Moore recusing himself (probably the only thing he’s done right in this, in my opinion). The dissenting judge effectively told his co-justicies: “WTF, are you high?” He actually that he didn’t think the case was properly filed, the court had any jurisdiction, and that public interest groups could sue in Alabama’s name, since it was outside groups and not the Governor, Legislature, nor Attorney General who sued.

The issue for me is that second one: Jurisdiction. Article 6, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution clearly says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Most people I know interpret this to mean that federal laws and courts have supremacy over state. In other words, the Federal District Court Judge’s ruling has supremacy over a state Supreme Court.

This is besides the fact that I think this is a ruling meant to uphold a hugely discriminatory law. Or, as God put it today:

God Tweets on Alabama Supreme Court

God Tweets on Alabama Supreme Court

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Howard says:

    i am assuming the underlying case was brought under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. If so, the State Supreme is screwed. If the underlying case was brought under the state constitution then the State courts have supremacy. I am assuming as this was brought in Federal Court the former and not the later is the case.

    • Stuart Robbins says:

      Pretty much. Original case brought to the federal court. Christians went and complained to the state court after the federal court handed down the ruling they didn’t like.

  2. Howard Lewis says:

    My god. I re-read my comment of the 4th. I am terrible at drafting on my iPhone. My apologies. My guess is the State Supreme Court is going to get smacked down pretty hard.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s