Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is fine and sounds logical. So the State legislature needed to Amend the State Constitution, which his rulings where based upon.
The states constitutions are suppose to be less restrictive with more liberty than the US Constitution. It is not this judges duty to change the State Constitution from the bench, like so many liberal judges do. His hands are dutifully tied to the language of the State Constitution.
Please cite your source for this.
I am personally familiar with a state constitution that contains provisions that have since been ruled against by SCOTUS. No one suggests that the state must go through an amendment process in order for state judges to rule in accordance with the SCOTUS ruling. Everyone just ignores the offending provisions, because they're moot.
I am personally familiar with a state constitution that contains provisions that have since been ruled against by SCOTUS. No one suggests that the state must go through an amendment process in order for state judges to rule in accordance with the SCOTUS ruling. Everyone just ignores the offending provisions, because they're moot.
STATE Supreme Court Justice. He deals with State issues concerning the States Constitution.
STATE Supreme Court Justice. He deals with State issues concerning the States Constitution.
That's not an answer to my question.
I know that's what you think, but I highly doubt that any Alabama judges or lawyers are calling you up to ask for your opinion, and then relying on your opinion as they deliver their decisions or make their cases.
I am asking for some legal authority or jurisprudence principle, of the kinds that a judge or a lawyer would cite in their cases.
I know that's what you think, but I highly doubt that any Alabama judges or lawyers are calling you up to ask for your opinion, and then relying on your opinion as they deliver their decisions or make their cases.
I am asking for some legal authority or jurisprudence principle, of the kinds that a judge or a lawyer would cite in their cases.
They and you, are demanding he legislate the state constitution, from the bench.
That is fine and sounds logical. So the State legislature needed to Amend the State Constitution, which his rulings where based upon.
The states constitutions are suppose to be less restrictive with more liberty than the US Constitution. It is not this judges duty to change the State Constitution from the bench, like so many liberal judges do. His hands are dutifully tied to the language of the State Constitution.
Less restrictive, how is ruling against same sex marriage amount to less restrictive. The judge doesn't have any more authority to rule on marriage than he does on whether blacks get to vote, this is where federal law takes precedence. Maybe you would rather have each judge in the states determine which federal law applies in their state.
That is fine and sounds logical. So the State legislature needed to Amend the State Constitution, which his rulings where based upon.
The states constitutions are suppose to be less restrictive with more liberty than the US Constitution. It is not this judges duty to change the State Constitution from the bench, like so many liberal judges do. His hands are dutifully tied to the language of the State Constitution.
I think you're very confused. A State judge is bound by the Federal Supreme Court ruling if it disagrees with the State constitution. He's obligated to follow Federal laws, before State laws. His hands are not tied by the State Constitution, because the Supreme Court ruling trumps the State constitution.
I think you're very confused. A State judge is bound by the Federal Supreme Court ruling if it disagrees with the State constitution. He's obligated to follow Federal laws, before State laws. His hands are not tied by the State Constitution, because the Supreme Court ruling trumps the State constitution.
He is bound by the STATEs Constitution. It is not his job or his authority to change it from the bench.
They are going after him, because the legislature and the people of Alabama refuse to change their state constitution. So they are demanding the judge do it from the bench, or he will be removed..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
