Monday, December 12, 2016

In defending Roy Moore hate group leader says that Obergefell doesn't count

Eugene Delgaudio
In a press release, hate group leader Eugene Delgaudio (Public Advocate of the United States) claims: “Anti-God Zealots Shocked by Public Advocate's Amicus Brief Defending Alabama Hero Chief Judge Roy Moore.” Presumably I am one of these zealots. Delgaudio and his third-rate lawyers filed a brief that makes no sense whatsoever. Rather than shocked it is about what I expected.

Among the claims in the amicus brief is this:
Throughout its final judgment, the COTJ {Alabama Court of the Judiciary) accepted with- out question the JIC’s “premise that the United States Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the United States Constitution” and that its decision in Obergefell nullified and abrogated the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court upholding the Alabama Constitution and marriage laws defining marriage as only a union of one man and one woman. Every effort made by Chief Justice Moore to counter this view was met with skepticism and disbelief.
That observation is correct. Most high school civics courses cover Marbury v. Madison. For over 200 years we have accepted the established fact that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the United States Constitution. Mr. Moore was in no position to offer an alternative view of the settled law of the land so, yes, an effort to do so would be met with skepticism and disbelief. You can add “ridicule” to that reaction.

The press release has some interesting stuff as well. 
Neither the Judicial Inquiry Commission which prosecuted the case, nor the Court of the Judiciary that suspended the Chief Justice, saw any problem with a bare 5 to 4 majority on the U.S. Supreme Court requiring Alabama to ignore its own Constitution and statutes and impose same sex marriage on the people. However, the Supreme Court's opinion was a lawless act of political will, and as one Supreme Court Justice said, had nothing to do with the Constitution.
So according to Mr. Delgaudio a 5 to 4 ruling by the Supreme Court is less authoritative on the law of the land then, say, a 6 to 3 ruling. Apparently the fact that Delgaudio doesn't like the ruling in Obergefell makes it a “lawless act.“ The fact that a justice in dissent claimed that the ruling “had nothing to do with the Constitution” simply recited one of the losing arguments that failed to persuade a majority of the justices. More importantly that dissenting justice would never countenance Moore's abuse of authority.
So in fact and in logic, Chief Judge Roy Moore is guilty of nothing. Yet he was removed from office as the elected Chief Justice of Alabama," said Delgaudio.
I think that Delgaudio admits that Moore defied the Supreme Court. That, according to American jurisprudence, is the lawless act (in contrast to anything that the Supreme Court did). The Constitution provides a remedy for Supreme Court rulings that one is opposed to in the form of a constitutional amendment. Defiance is not a lawful option.

Delgaudio can be amusing:
As early as October 2, Public Advocate supporters were alerted to the illegal assault and removal of Judge Roy Moore and the actions by a lawless tribunal in Alabama being similar to a lynch mob. I promised and filed a lengthy 55 page legal brief Dec. 7, 2016.

The liberal fake news sites are now in shock and reeling from our explosive legal brief.
So let's see:
  • The actions of a lawfully constituted court  are neither illegal nor an assault because Eugene Delagaudio doesn't like the outcome.
  • Similarly a court is not a “lawless tribunal” simply because Delgaudio doesn't like its conclusions.
  • Nor does that constitute a lynch mob. A court of law is not a lynch mob, just the opposite.
Obergefell v. Hodges concluded an exhaustive process that was many years in the making. The issue has been settled.

Related Content:




No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.