Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Liberty Counsel continues to insist that Roy Moore simply followed the Constitution

Harry Mihet - Liberty Counsel
Harry Mihet — Liberty Counsel
For some reason Roy Moore, former Chief Justice of Alabama is being defended by American Family Association's Charlie Butts and Liberty Counsel's Harry (Horatio Gabriel) Mihet. American Family Association and Liberty Counsel are both designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Butts writes:
A well-known Christian jurist has been recognized for refusing to cave to political correctness and instead standing on principle.
“Principle,” in this instance, means frustrating the constitutional rights of gay citizens to marry.
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalized same-sex “marriage” in June 2015, and Alabama probate judges requested an opinion from Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore, asking if they were required to issue licenses for same-sex “marriages.” Moore's answer was not politically correct, and the Alabama Court of the Judiciary suspended him for the remainder of his term.
At some point even Mr. Butts must realize how petty and idiotic it is to continue to put quotes around the word marriage when it pertains to betrothals that he does not approve of for religious reasons. Those marriage are the constitutional right of gay citizens and are the legal equal of any other marriages. Not politically correct? Here is the conclusion of that January 6, 2016 Administrative Order:
Roy Moore
IT IS ORDERED AND DIRECTED THAT:

Until further decision by the Alabama Supreme Court, the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court that Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment or the Alabama Marriage Protection Act remain in full force and effect.
“Instead, he stood for the principle that the Supreme Court does not make law for the state,” says Harry Mihet, an attorney with Liberty Counsel.

Mihet tells OneNewsNow, “The Supreme Court only issues decisions on cases that arise and that are pending before the Supreme Court. That has been black letter law for as long as the republic has been constituted, and yet now [Judge Moore] has been taken off the bench, suspended for the rest of his term because he wanted to follow the law and the Constitution.”
Mr. Mihet is a graduate of a fine law school (Duke) and he has been in practice for more than ten years. Mr. Moore has been in practice for decades and was Alabama's highest judicial authority. It is, or at least it should be, safe to assume that both of these gentlemen are familiar with two applicable Supreme Court cases; Marbury v. Madison and Cooper v. Aaron.

Marbury was decided in 1803. It has been accepted as precedence for more than 200 years that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution.

Cooper v. Aaron was decided in 1958 in the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education whereby the Court ordered the desegregation of public schools. In an effort to sustain segregation of the schools, the Arkansas legislature amended the state's constitution opposing integration.  In a unanimous ruling and a very rare unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that the Supremacy Clause of Article VI made the US Constitution the supreme law of the land and Marbury v. Madison made the Supreme Court the final interpreter of the Constitution. Therefore, the states are bound by Supreme Court rulings.

In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Court explicitly ruled that state constitutional bans of same-sex marriage were unconstitutional. To suggest that Moore was merely following the law and the Constitution is preposterous. Moore was not only legally wrong but he was acting unlawfully. The circumstances were nearly identical to those in Cooper v. Aaron. Butts' assertion that Moore was sanctioned for not being politically correct is simply imbecilic.

The intent is to make Mr. Moore a victim, perhaps to enhance Moore's future political ambitions. Moore's judicial suspension is currently on appeal and he has little or no chance of prevailing. It seems unlikely that articles published to AFA's “news” blog will have any effect on the outcome.

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.