Law Alabama Cheif Justice Won't Follow US SCOTUS If It Overturns SSM Bans

[BKMMAFAN]

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore promises to 'dissent from' a likely SCOTUS ruling this summer which would effectively hold all SSM bans to be unconstitutional. He claims to be doing this legally because the Supreme Court, among other dubious arguments, doesn't have the jurisdiction to hear the case, which should be a question of law strictly reserved to state state authority. He promises to follow the law as he interprets it.

Here's the other-wordily transcript via CNN:

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1502/12/nday.06.html

And a summarized version via an article:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/12/polit...gay-marraige-supreme-court-slavery/index.html

He was interviewed by Chris Cuomo. Here are some interesting exchanges (though all should really read the entire transcript to grasp the full inanity of this charlatan):

"CUOMO: That's right, because of the specific issue before them. And now they're meeting again in June. And if June comes and they hold the same way, then what will you do?

MOORE: Then I will do what the Court should -- or what the Court should have done under Dred Scott. If it's an unlawful mandate, you don't have to recognize it. You can recuse from the case.

CUOMO: So you still --

MOORE: You can dissent. You can dissent to the United States Supreme Court, just like you can dissent to anything else. ...

CUOMO: So you'll allow gay marriage when it goes forward if it happens in June?

MOORE: I said I will follow the law as I interpret it. ...

CUOMO: So you think gay marriage is wrong, right? Just say it.

MOORE: I think gay marriage is an alteration of the definition of marriage and the United States Supreme Court does not have the authority -- or the federal courts do not have the authority to interpret a word that disputes the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment is very clear. The power's not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively.

CUOMO: Well, you don't believe that as a matter of personal opinion, right? But times change, definitions change. We didn't think blacks were equal to whites. That changed.

MOORE: No, I believe that's a matter of law because our rights contained in the bill of rights do not come from the Constitution; they come from God. It's clearly stated --

CUOMO: Our laws do not come from God, Your Honor, and you know that. They come from man.

MOORE: Well, let me ask you one question. Let me ask you one question, Chris. Is the Declaration of Independence law?

CUOMO: You would call it organic law as a basis for future laws off of it?

MOORE: I would call it the organic law because the United States code calls it organic law. It is organic law because the law of this country calls it the organic law of our country means where our rights come from. And if they come from there, men can't take -- "

I've never understood how a state judge can elect to 'dissent' from a US Supreme Court (or any federal court) ruling on the constitutionality of a state law. I suppose I don't fully comprehend how god's will should be realized under organic law either. :icon_conf

Anyone here agree with the Ala. Chief Justice?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Again, makes the point that "states' rights" is just opposition to human rights.

 

[Denter]

Again, makes the point that "states' rights" is just opposition to human rights.

gay marriage is a human right?

 

[Jack V Savage]

gay marriage is a human right?

Yep. The only causes "states' rights" people ever fight for is the ability to restriction people's freedoms. And I guess upward redistribution of wealth.

 

[Denter]

Yep. The only causes "states' rights" people ever fight for is the ability to restriction people's freedoms.

You couldn't be more wrong, but you're wrapped up in your bubble, so I'll let you be.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You couldn't be more wrong, but you're wrapped up in your bubble, so I'll let you be.

I am 100% right, and you know it. As I pointed out in another thread, the Fugitive Slave Act was probably the biggest actual violation of "states' rights" we've had, but the same people who screech about the "sovereignty" of subdivisions of the country were enthusiastic supporters of it. It's a bullshit principle.

 

[TheMMAn]

Yep. The only causes "states' rights" people ever fight for is the ability to restriction people's freedoms. And I guess upward redistribution of wealth.

Does this include the "states' rights" people that are for drug legalization?

 

[Ayin]

America. Getting it's laws straight from God.

 

[oldshadow]

Interesting argument but I don

 

[Denter]

I am 100% right, and you know it. As I pointed out in another thread, the Fugitive Slave Act was probably the biggest actual violation of "states' rights" we've had, but the same people who screech about the "sovereignty" of subdivisions of the country were enthusiastic supporters of it. It's a bullshit principle.

Fugitive Slave Act did violence against federalism, for sure.

But you are wrong about gay "marriage", and you know it.

 

[Denter]

Does this include the "states' rights" people that are for drug legalization?

Banning drugs is pro-freedom, get it straight

 

[BKMMAFAN]

I also find it absolutely hilarious that Moore somehow tries to throw the "Would you have enforced Dred Scott?!?" question at Cuomo as if that somehow works in his favor. Moore would quite likely have been on the cutting edge of organic law at the time and clearly would have realized that persons of African descent were never intended to be considered citizens of the United States under our Constitution.

 

[James Keith]

State recognition of your relationship is an entitlement not a right, and an archaic one that should be ended anyway.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Does this include the "states' rights" people that are for drug legalization?

If they're for drug legalization as a matter of principle, they'd be for national drug legalization. If they're just using drug legalization as a weapon in their war against civil rights, they're not really for it.

Fugitive Slave Act did violence against federalism, for sure.

But you are wrong about gay "marriage", and you know it.

Nope.

 

[Lee978]

If government would get out of the business of marriage shit like this wouldn't matter.

 

[oldshadow]

If they're for drug legalization as a matter of principle, they'd be for national drug legalization. If they're just using drug legalization as a weapon in their war against civil rights, they're not really for it.



Nope.

What are the federal marriage laws all states must follow and why are they not doing this now?

 

[spin]

'MOORE: You can dissent. You can dissent to the United States Supreme Court, just like you can dissent to anything else. ..."


interesting. im going to dissent from paying my bills and taxes.

 

[spin]

If government would get out of the business of marriage shit like this wouldn't matter.

who's business is marriage then?

 

[BKMMAFAN]

Interesting argument but I don’t see him winning it.

States do regulate marriage as a state issue in many ways legally now as in age and relationship.

Different states have different ages for marriage and how it applies and some states allow 1st cousin marriage while others do not. So far these differences are allowed.

States can regulate marriage so long as they don't run afoul of the US Constitution while doing so. States have legitimate reasons for restricting marriage by age and genetic relation, not for sexual orientation.

Regardless, even if you do think states should have legitimate authority to regulate marriage based on sexual identity/orientation, the main question here is whether a state must follow the holding of the US SCOTUS once it rules on the issue; even if you disagree with it. Moore thinks you can because apparently he can:

1) Dissent if he knows the ruling is wrong and
2) It's wrong because of one, or both, of the following reasons

a) It's a states' rights issue and the feds have no jurisdiction over it
b) It clearly violates a provision of organic law as extrapolated from god's word

Surely, you can't think he has an interesting view on this unless you mean it's interesting because of how disturbing and daft it is? Allowing states to 'dissent' from Supreme Court rulings on the Constitutionality of state laws would plunge the country into chaos not seen since the days of nullification.

 

[KOQ24]

so whats the penalty here for dissenting the SC?