Chief Jackass Roy Moore at it again…
As if pandering to the Christian nation crowd with a large granite monument of the Ten Commandments in the lobby of Alabama’s Supreme Court building wasn’t bad enough, now Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore thinks it’s a hell of an idea to follow in the footsteps of George Wallace and John Calhoun:
Late Sunday night, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore issued an order in which he instructs state probate judges to neither issue nor recognize a marriage license for same-sex couples.
The order states, “Effective immediately, no Probate Judge of the State of Alabama nor any agent or employee of any Alabama Probate Judge shall issue or recognize a marriage license that is inconsistent with Article 1, Section 36.03, of the Alabama Constitution or § 30-1-19, Ala. Code 1975.”
Can he be arrested for this? Or at least stripped of his powers?Report
At best, he can get voted out of office, but since the people elected him (again) almost two years ago despite his issues, I don’t see that happening.
As far as I know, he has no legal authority to prevent state officials from complying with federal law, even those under his supervision. Handcuffs aren’t necessary but perhaps some duct tape is in order.Report
Thanks, @dave . But I’m curious… I know we have “freedom of speech”, but aren’t there laws against encouraging people to break the law? And wouldn’t any judges who followed his order be breaking the law?Report
In Alabama’s defense, he came back into office with a pretty slim margin against a Democratic Party that had to scramble to find a remotely competitive candidate.
And that was after getting his butt kicked twice running for governor.Report
@kazzy
I think that if he attempts to invoke a legal argument, it’s a bit different. I’d much rather see a federal court step in and tell him to cut it out than having him be arrested. If he continues down his path after that, then I assume violating a court order would get him tossed into jail, but don’t hold me to that.Report
He can be impeached, but it seems easier if you liquor him up first.Report
He can be removed from office through an Ethics complaint to the Alabama Court of the Judiciary. This already happened once before in 2003 over his refusal to obey the US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that his Ten Commandments monument on state property was placed in violation of the Constitution and was ordered to be removed.
http://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/ex-c_in_re_moore_ct_of_the_judiciary_no._33.pdfReport
The SPLC has filed just such a complaint in response to his actions. It may take a while to work its way through the ACOJ system but you can expect it will reach trial.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/splc-files-ethics-complaint-against-alabama-chief-justice-roy-moore-over-pledge-toReport
I suspect that stuff like this is going to get worse before it gets better. Or it is at least going to heat up especially because 2016 is a Presidential election year. The hardcore social conservatives are going to want their red meat and pandering. We have already seen some right-wing Florida clerks fight tooth and nail in order not to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. We have also seen Mike Huckabee* theorize about similar Calhounian techniques.
I would say that history, jurisprudence, and time is on the side of those who favor LGBT-rights and Same-Sex Marriage but there is probably a sizable minority (or maybe a plurality) of hardcore unpersuadables left. The only thing that can probably get rid of this side is attrition.
*This is going to reveal my geographic narrowness but I am surprised that Huckabees current red-meat campaign tactics. In 2014, it just seems silly to campaign on stuff like NYC women have too much freedom, too much swearing, too much drinking, complaining about Obama’s daughter wearing a Beyonce t-shirt, etc. I guess this plays differently in other parts of the country but how I would love to ask him “Does thou think because thou art virtuous that there shall be no more cakes and ale?”Report
@saul-degraw
We have already seen some right-wing Florida clerks fight tooth and nail in order not to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. We have also seen Mike Huckabee* theorize about similar Calhounian techniques.
What’s amusing about that is that I’ve probably forgotten more about Calhoun’s theories and the underlying states rights arguments than the people that invoke them know. It’s also a reason why I shake my head every time I hear the cry of state sovereignty. I guess they don’t realize that the same arguments that support a state’s right to ignore the federal courts also support a state’s right to lawfully secede. I can argue against that position backwards, forwards and in my sleep without using the Civil War or the post Civil War Supreme Court jurisprudence to make my case.Report
It is just as much about Hucksters geographic narrowness as yours Saul. In other words thats not really the issue. Hucker needs to fire up his base.Report
I prefer to think of him as Taliban Mike or Malvolio Mike and you are right that it is just as much about the geographic narrowness of his base and probably a good deal of hypocrisy. I am not a fan of cursing for the sake of cursing and having Fuck be every other word in a person otters but it seems weird that cursing can rally a base. Just what do they think of the big city?Report
Saul, plenty of rural conservative folks have hated and feared “the big city” for generations. It is a perfect twin to the city folk snobbery at rural types. Yin and Yang flavored snobberies.Report
I think its more like Wallace than Calhoun. “Homophobia now, homophobia tomorro, homophobia forever.” They are using the same techniques used to resist civil rights legilsation and decisions.Report
That might be a better exampleReport
Good point. It’s the bigotry that drives this more than anything else.Report
Inasmuch as he makes this a genuine live issue for 2016 the Democratic Party shoudl send him a fruit basket. I had assumed this was going to be a mostly silent issue for the next election.Report
Remember how the government shutdown was a big issue in the last congressional election?
The timing on this is the same. SCOTUS is going to provide a definitive ruling late spring /early summer, and then Moore and his ilk* won’t even have the fig leaf this still being an active issue in the court system. We’re going to be over 6 months into this being a fait accompli by the time Iowans and New Hamshirites actually do cast a vote in the 2016 Presidential contest, and by then, there will be an entirely different set of talking points and hot button issues.
*I don’t think Thomas and Alito are wrong, actually, in their dissent from the denial of the stay. (that is, they wanted to grant the Alabama AG’s motion to stay the federal court ruling that Moore is taking the path of massive resistance on). They have a point that in an active case before the Supreme court, the active consequences are usually delayed (in this case, marriage licenses) until the Supreme Court makes their final ruling.Report
I agree with your points here Kolohe but I was talking less principle and more politics. If Moore and his ilk get traction and start generating heat on the subject on the right it could become an issue during the GOP nomination process which is starting to get under way now and will be in full fling when the courts move on it. There’s nothing Dems would like more than for the GOP to bring the subject up. I do think that the GOP establishment is thoroughly over the subject and will try to put it to bed of course but they have to do so in a way that doesn’t discourage the true believers from voting.Report
@dave @north
Apparently there is a long-history of Alabama probabte judges refusing to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples long after Loving v. Virginia. Alabama kept the anti-interracial marriage law on the books in a kind of clinched fist defiance of the Supreme Court:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/1999/06/white_weddings.htmlReport
@kolohe
I agree with your point, but I see the Court’s action as less a slap aimed at Alabama than one aimed at the Sixth Circuit. As in, “There isn’t really an active case, we’re just going through the motions because those idiots in the Sixth Circuit don’t seem to be smart enough to understand the clear message we sent.”Report
@north I am talking about the politics. The peeps that spoke at King’s Iowa summit a couple a weeks ago generally avoided the subject. Moore is relatively a fringe player in the big picture of GOP power structure and even in its ideological makeup increasingly toward the edge. This issue isn’t going to get traction other than a brief spin up right when the Scotus decision comes down. Then over a year will pass until the Republican convention. It will be a done deal – and its sufficiently different than abortion (politically) to generate a similar semi-permanent movement against the decision (which took nearly a decade to be in position to influence things)Report
I am generally in agreement Kolohe, in as much as you and I are wrong on it the Dem’s owe Moore a fruit basket. Maybe just one with grapefruits.Report
Someone needs to ask him if he likes apples.Report
Thomas and Scalia, yes?
Their dissent made some sense, but I still had to laugh at Mr. Of Course I Help My Wife Lobby and Mr. Bomb Thrower tsk-tsking that the Court is acting with lack of decorum.Report
This is a textbook example of the illiberal problem in a democracy. Same-sex marriage makes ethically, legally, and philosophically to most people on this blog. It does not make any sense to the people of Alabama, who decided to add anti-same sex marriage amendments to the Alabaman constitution in 2006. It doesn’t matter that these provisions have been held to violate the federal constitution, they are going to fight against same-sex marriage like they fought against civil rights for African-Americans, although they don’t seem to have quite the same spirit that they did in the mid-20th century. You can’t force philosophical liberalism on a population that doesn’t want it. Yet you can’t let them impose thier illiberal mores on society either.Report
Actually it’s only being “imposed’ on the people who live in that state. And by “imposed” I mean, through democracy and the vote, so this is what the majority state population wants.Report
Well, for over a century the majority of Alabama also didn’t want black people to be able to vote, eat at the same restaurants as white people, use the same transportation as white people, have any physical security, or attain economic success, either. And for several centuries before that the majority of Alabama didn’t want black people to have any rights whatsoever, including liberty or life.
That’s why freedom has to mean a little bit more than just “majority rule”.Report
Gee, “majority rule” is pretty much the definition of democracy, but that wasn’t my exact point. The point is that that there is a large contingent, on this site and in this country, where it’s “democracy prevailed” when their side won some debate or election, and it’s “a failure of democracy” when that same side lost some argument or election.Report
I often consider that Damon doesn’t operate in half measures of freedom.Report
@damon
The point is that that there is a large contingent, on this site and in this country, where it’s “democracy prevailed” when their side won some debate or election, and it’s “a failure of democracy” when that same side lost some argument or election.
Don’t forget to mention Supreme Court cases. The doctrine of “judicial restraint” has been defended by both conservatives and liberals.Report
“Judicial restraint” and “federalism” both mean “I hate it when my side loses”.Report
@mike-schilling
“Judicial restraint” and “federalism” both mean “I hate it when my side loses”.
Yep, and I heard almost as much of that after Lawrence v Texas as I did Heller and Citizens United, although I don’t think I’ve ever seen liberals champion federalism. It doesn’t seem like your cup of tea.Report
One of these days, when States’ Rights no longer means “Stop interfering with my bigotry.” Judge Moore isn’t helping with that.Report
@mike-schilling
Federalism, which was rooted in the notion of state sovereignty (non-existent today), and the doctrine of states rights developed in the mid 19th Century and invoked by people like George Wallace and Roy Moore rest on very different philosophical foundations (dare I say metaphysical foundations).
I would never expect you to support states rights, nor should you expect me to do the same. Ever. Frankly, it’s a perversion of our federalist system. However, if we wanted to have a conversation about, say, the anti-commandeering doctrine, we should be able to do that without invoking the doctrine of states rights.Report
You and I might not think states have rights, but someone needs to have a talk with the majority in the Shelby County decision.Report
“You can’t force philosophical liberalism on a population that doesn’t want it. Yet you can’t let them impose thier illiberal mores on society either.”
Geez, I think you sat down in my camp. How do you take your coffee?Report
2/3rds coffee, 1/3 whole milk. Sometimes with a teaspoon of sugar or a packet of splenda sometimes not.Report
That’s a lot of milk!!Report
Well he gets all he wants, it’s a long trek out here.Report
Special congratulations to Dinah McCaryer and Olanda Smith, the first same-sex couple to be legally married in Alabama, with the ceremony completed only minutes after SCOTUS declined to grant a stay to the SSM order applicable to that state, earlier this morning.
But also special props to Judge Michael G. Graffeo of the Tenth Circuit Court of Alabama in Birmingham, who presided over the ceremony and signed the order, impliedly telling Chief Justice Moore where he stands in the hierarchy of binding orders: below that of the Federal court which issued the order in the first place. Judge Graffeo may well be picking a fight with Chief Justice Moore, but he has at least one colleague on his side: Judge Alan L. King of the Alabama Probate Court in and for the County of Jefferson, who offers both a normative and a legal analysis to explain why he was preparing to spend the day ignoring Justice Moore’s order in a courtroom festooned with festive balloons:
It’s a happy day for Alabama. Maybe not so happy for Alabama’s Chief Justice, but that makes him of him.Report
In brighter news, cooler heards can prevail:
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/02/05/boehner-house-gop-staying-supreme-court-marriage-cases/Report
Thomas and Scalia complained that the Court didn’t show ” “the people of Alabama the respect they deserve.” Apparently they aren’t familiar with the people of Alabama.Report
Sad to see the title of this thread when hear about civil discourse from liberals all the time. I doubt we would see a similarly titled thread about a liberal.Report
Do you hear that, Dave? You’re a liberal now.Report
@mike-schilling
Funny. I didn’t see any of you rolling out the red carpet for me.Report
I wanted to but we’re all out of red fabric. Seems we liberals used it all up back in the mid last century on flags or something and now we’re plumb out. Would you settle for a green carpet? We have some lovely organic handwoven pesticide and cruelty free blends.Report
Rolling out carpets is a union job. What do you think we are, scabs?Report
We, uh, don’t have no carpets available right now.
As soon as Jimmy gets back from his, uh, “errand”, we’ll grab one from his trunk.Report
LMAO!
Commies, betas and organic types…oh my!!!!
I assume that the feast being prepared in my celebrated is vegan-approved, gluten free, 100% organic and tastes something like rabbit food.Report
What’s wrong, you don’t like quinoa?Report
@mike-schilling
That will work.Report
There are a number of liberals I don’t care for, but they don’t seem to irritate me as much as the douchebag extraordinare Chief Justice in Alabama. The closest one I can think of is Ian Millhiser but he’s too easy a target.Report
Oh, Lawn Gnome was way, way more irritating.
Couldn’t run a city in Ohio, but thought he would be a good fit for POTUS.Report
Dude, I’m pretty sure there’s no such thing as a Jackass liberal supreme court justice. Our high-profile jackasses are pretty concentrated in the legislative and executive branches.Report