SCOTUS Ya'll can get your gay weddings now.

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

The Governor of Kentucky is just looking for a way out of a political dilemma.

Really? Because according to the news he campaigned on this issue and this course of action. He wasn't facing a dilemma, he chose to weigh in on it.

Quote

At the moment it is a great stop gap until the issue can be sorted out legally.

But that's the point, isn't it? It's not sorted.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[turtlespeed 226]

jakee

Quote

The Governor of Kentucky is just looking for a way out of a political dilemma.

Really? Because according to the news he campaigned on this issue and this course of action. He wasn't facing a dilemma, he chose to weigh in on it.

Quote

At the moment it is a great stop gap until the issue can be sorted out legally.

But that's the point, isn't it? It's not sorted.

No it's not.
If I had my way she'd be doing time.

I don't get my way as much as I would like. So I am at least partially happy that the populace can get their liscenses as they need them.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[normiss 854]

Why are Alabama judges NOT required to attend law school?

[wmw999 2,541]

Didn't used to be a requirement anywhere. For that matter, you used to be able to read for the bar without going to law school. I know Houston had a judge who didn't have a law degree in the 1980's. P

Not sure either approach is best any more.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[normiss 854]

Whoa.
While I clearly meant that as a tongue in cheek comment, whoa.

[nolhtairt 0]

I fail to see how Roy Moore thinks as a chief justice of a state supreme court, he can thumb his nose at the SCOTUS and declare a ban on same sex marriage licenses.

Then again, he has been known to be an ultra conservative justice who was once removed from the state supreme court for refusing to have a 10 commandment monument removed from a state building that he installed without consulting anyone. Oh and guess what? He ran for election again to the same position and won!

Some shit is going to fly as a result of this bullshit.

[rehmwa 2]

nolhtairt

I fail to see how Roy Moore thinks as a chief justice of a state supreme court, he can thumb his nose at the SCOTUS........... known to be an ultra........

Really? you fail to see this?

A judge that has "ultra" viewpoints is trying to push his social agenda.......

like it doesn't happen all the time and on both extremes of the social agenda......


I have one criteria for my public servants really - they uphold the law. (especially judicial and executive duties. Legislative is supposed to have a balance where competing biases are debated and offset each other)
they can have any social inclinations they want as far as I'm concerned....provided it doesn't bias them in their duties to try and change society in any way other than upholding the law.

Unfortunately, when our vetting process includes a lot of 'litmus test' type questions, and nomination processes that absolutely LIVE on the assumption that personal social biases WILL affect their duties......

how can we NOT have this type of crappy judicial practice with lefties and righties trying to push themselves on the rest of us?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DanG 1]

Quote

Why are Alabama judges NOT required to attend law school?

Because Jesus didn't go to law school, either.

- Dan G

[RonD1120 62]

normiss

Why are Alabama judges NOT required to attend law school?

I guess you don't one at the SCOTUS either.

http://abovethelaw.com/2010/05/you-dont-need-no-stinkin-law-degree-to-be-on-the-supreme-court/

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[lummy 4]

although, the last SCJ who didn't go to law school retired in 1954

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[rushmc 23]

It is called states rights. No where in the US Constitution is the fed given that power

This justice knows this.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JerryBaumchen 1,441]

Hi rush,

Quote

No where in the US Constitution is the fed given that power

It would seem that SOTUS does not agree with you. They have ruled.

If you feel so strongly about this, you should take it up in court. That is where all things in this country are ultimately determined; not here in SC.

Jerry Baumchen

[rushmc 23]

JerryBaumchen

Hi rush,

Quote

No where in the US Constitution is the fed given that power

It would seem that SOTUS does not agree with you. They have ruled.

If you feel so strongly about this, you should take it up in court. That is where all things in this country are ultimately determined; not here in SC.

Jerry Baumchen

So you believe every court ruling they have made is correct and the SC has never changed a ruling of their own?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JerryBaumchen 1,441]

Hi rush,

Quote

So you believe every court ruling they have made is correct

In the structure of the gov't. in the US, they have the final say. No matter what you or I think.

If you don't like that, change the Constitution.

Jerry Baumchen

[SkyDekker 1,465]

rushmc

***Hi rush,

Quote

No where in the US Constitution is the fed given that power

It would seem that SOTUS does not agree with you. They have ruled.

If you feel so strongly about this, you should take it up in court. That is where all things in this country are ultimately determined; not here in SC.

Jerry Baumchen

So you believe every court ruling they have made is correct and the SC has never changed a ruling of their own?

If a SCOTUS ruling is supposedly not correct, as in maybe not supported by current societal ideology, then it is up to the legislative branch to change the underlying laws.

(or you can hope a subsequent ruling "overturns" a previous ruling, though this is rather rare.)

[wmw999 2,541]

There are rulings I disagree with. However, they are, nevertheless, the law. It's how the rules of the country are written. As individuals we can choose not to obey them, and suffer the consequences if there are any (there are cases where the rules allow me to do more than I think is right).

However, preventing people from doing what the SC has specifically said is lawful is (ahem) unlawful. Convincing them (or trying to convince them) is not.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[nolhtairt 0]

rushmc

It is called states rights. No where in the US Constitution is the fed given that power

This justice knows this.

Governor George Wallace made his stand in the door, but even he knew it was wrong and the feds were right. And thus, the first blacks were admitted to the University of Alabama.

[JerryBaumchen 1,441]

Hi Jeanne,

Quote

Same sex is legal across the land.

A little update: http://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/politics/2016/01/25/commission-votes-remove-judge-vance-day/79320770/

Not even a judge is above the law.

Jerry Baumchen

[turtlespeed 226]

JerryBaumchen

Hi Jeanne,

Quote

Same sex is legal across the land.

A little update: http://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/politics/2016/01/25/commission-votes-remove-judge-vance-day/79320770/

Not even a judge is above the law.

Jerry Baumchen

She has been banned from this forum for putting words to way we were all thinking.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[normiss 854]

What does that mean?

[turtlespeed 226]

It means she typed words in a reply and articulated what a lot of us were thinking.
For that she was banned.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[normiss 854]

I couldn't make sense of your first post, sorry.
I would have to disagree with your latter post though.

[turtlespeed 226]

normiss

I couldn't make sense of your first post, sorry.
I would have to disagree with your latter post though.

How so?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[normiss 854]

AFAIK, there's only one way:
"to differ in opinion; dissent".

[turtlespeed 226]

normiss

AFAIK, there's only one way:
"to differ in opinion; dissent".

That's confusing, you, yourself called them out as being a sock puppet.

Now you differ in opinion.

Interesting.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun