As noted in a post last night, the Alabama Supreme Court in a move reminiscent of the 1950's and 1960's issued a ruling ordering state court judges to ignore a federal court ruling invalidating Alabama's ban on same sex marriage. The Alabama Supreme Court took this move despite the fact that the U. S. Supreme Court had refused to stay the lower federal court ruling thereby signally that a high court ruling striking down same sex marriage bans is likely towards the end of June this year. AL.com - which disseminates stories from Alabama's largest newspapers - seems to be over Alabama ALWAYS being on the wrong side of history and took the Alabama Supreme Court to task over its insane ruling. Here are the money quotes:
The Alabama Supreme Court has ordered Alabama's probate justices to stop issuing same-sex marriage licenses.
In doing so, the state's highest court has muddied the legal waters of Alabama, contradicting U.S. District Judge Ginny Granade's ruling that the Alabama Marriage Protection Act is unconstitutional and that Alabama's probate system should license same-sex marriages.
Our state leaders have argued that the federal court system's decision subverts the will of the majority, that an unelected federal judge should not holder greater authority over Alabama than her elected state judges or be able to overturn an Alabama law.
We feel compelled here to reiterate that the point of Granade's ruling is the U.S. Constitutional guarantee that in no state can the majority impose its will on minorities when it comes to unalienable rights.
Yesterday's decision does not change the definition of equal or unalienable in Alabama. It only delays the state's recognition of it.
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to provide the final word on same-sex marriage in June; and we believe that Alabama's Supreme Court will find its decision does not hold legal weight. . . . the [U.S.] Supreme Court denied Alabama's request for a stay, and that should have been the final word on the matter. History has demonstrated that, in constitutional matters, federal courts trump state courts.
We continue to believe that, in June, the Supreme Court will rightly hold that the unalienable rights of Americans include the right to marry, for all.
So how does one explain the action of the Alabama Supreme Court? Two words - elected judges. Sadly, in Alabama, the Christofascist have largely hijacked much of state government and justices on the Court fear having to face the knuckle dragging Christofascists come the next time they must stand for reelection. Virginia's appointed judiciary has its problems, but compared to an elected judiciary, it looks pretty remarkable.
1 comment:
Let me just add, once again, that the four most corrupt Injustices of the Supreme Court of the United States have held that there is no reason that the Chief Justice of the West Virginia Supreme Court should not be recused from hearing the appeal of a $50 million judgement against a coal company just because the CEO of that company made a $3 million "contribution" to the judge's campaign committee, as long as the money was laundered properly.
These are also the same sociopaths, plus Justice Kennedy, who ruled that it's OK for someone to give a multi-million "donation" to a politician as long as you do not specifically tell him/her what the bribe is for (although presumably a bribee would not need to be told explicitly that an oil company executive making a multi-million dollar "contribution" is probably not in favor of increased environmental protection legislation, renewable energy, or a more equitable tax system).
Post a Comment