Supreme Court of the US not so supreme?
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 8:31 am
At least not according to Judge Roy Moore, Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.
(Yes I know I pick on him a lot.)
Late last week, the Alabama Supreme Court dismissed a bunch of petitions wanting the Alabama rules to trump the Supreme Court rulings resulting from the Obergefall case.
The court issued a one-page ruling. Seven of the judges added comments for a 169-page document. Moore's was over half of that.
Even though he sided with the ruling, he set some serious questions in there.
Funny how, if one wants to talk about SCOTUS judicial mistakes, no one in the Alabama judiciary ever brings up Plessy v Ferguson.
Source: http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index ... misse.html
(Yes I know I pick on him a lot.)
Late last week, the Alabama Supreme Court dismissed a bunch of petitions wanting the Alabama rules to trump the Supreme Court rulings resulting from the Obergefall case.
The court issued a one-page ruling. Seven of the judges added comments for a 169-page document. Moore's was over half of that.
Even though he sided with the ruling, he set some serious questions in there.
I find it interesting that Judge Moore picked those two cases. Dred Scott historically is viewed as a bad ruling, but it wasn't overturned by a later court, but by the Reconstruction Amendments (something a lot of politicians -- and I include Moore in this category -- conveniently forget). Roe v Wade is an ongoing battle, but still is the law of the land, his opinion notwithstanding.Moore, who graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1969 and served in the U.S. Army as a company commander with the Military Police Corps in Vietnam, wrote about obeying commands.
"Although the United States military depends for its effectiveness on obedience to the chain of command, the principle that a subordinate has a duty to resist illegal orders is also well established. The duty to obey the orders of a superior is absolute "unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful."
"The general principle of blind adherence to United States Supreme Court opinions as 'the law of the land' is a dangerous fallacy that is inconsistent with the United States Constitution," Moore also writes.
"In my legal opinion, Obergefell, like Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade that preceded it, is an immoral, unconstitutional, and tyrannical opinion. Its consequences for our society will be devastating, and its elevation of immorality to a special "right" enforced through civil penalties will be completely destructive of our religious liberty," Moore wrote.
Funny how, if one wants to talk about SCOTUS judicial mistakes, no one in the Alabama judiciary ever brings up Plessy v Ferguson.
Source: http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index ... misse.html