Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice named in complaint
The chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, named in a new complaint that is based on the testimony of a “professed transvestite, and other gay, lesbian and bisexual” individuals, says he expects to prevail in a fight over his management of the state’s judicial system.
It alleges Chief Justice Roy Moore acted improperly in his management orders regarding the state’s probate judges, who were caught up in the same-sex “marriage” fight in the state.
The allegations claim Moore was unwilling to apply the same-sex “marriage” law as created by a bare majority of five justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, including two who apparently violated common judicial ethics rules by advocating for a position while the case was pending before them, Elena Kagan and Ruth Ginbsburg.
The issue created controversy and confusion across the nation because the Supreme Court abrogated in its ruling the precedent it had set only two years earlier when it found that states have ultimate authority over marriage.
Bedsole complains that Moore “flagrantly disregarded a fundamental constitutional right guaranteed in all states, as declared by the United States Court (sic).”
Bedsole’s filing includes six charges, all related to the same single issue.
Moore, in a statement he released on Friday, said, “The Judicial Inquiry Commission has no authority over the administrative orders of the chief justice of Alabama or the legal injunction of the Alabama Supreme Court prohibiting probate judges from issuing same-sex marriage licenses. The JIC has chosen to listen to people like Ambrosia Starling, a professed transvestite, and other gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals, as well as organizations which support their agenda.
“We intend to fight this agenda vigorously and expect to prevail,” he said.
Complaints against Moore had been pursued by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which WND has reported has lost credibility, according to critics.
That’s because it blasts people and organizations who do not agree with its social agenda as “haters.” It has been linked to domestic terrorism.
“By falsely and recklessly labeling Christian ministries as ‘hate groups,’ the SPLC is directly responsible for the first conviction of a man who intended to commit mass murder targeted against a policy organization in Washington, D.C.,” Liberty Counsel has said.
“On August 15, 2012, Floyd Corkins went to the Family Research Council with a gun and a bag filled with ammunition and Chick-fil-A sandwiches. His stated purpose was to kill as many employees of the Family Research Council as possible and then to smear Chick-fil-A sandwiches in their faces (because the founder of the food chain said he believed in marriage as a man and a woman). Fortunately, Mr. Corkins was stopped by the security guard, who was shot in the process. Corkins is now serving time in prison. Mr. Corkins admitted to the court that he learned of the Family Research Council by reading the SPLC’s hate map.”
WND reported a video showed Corkins entering the FRC offices and confronting Leo Johnson.
Corkins later was sentenced to prison for domestic terrorism. It was during an interview with FBI officers when Corkins fingered the Southern Poverty Law Center for his inspiration.
Central to the case, according to the government’s document, was that Corkins “had identified the FRC as an anti-gay organization on the Southern Poverty Law Center website.”
FRC officials repeatedly have explained that they adhere to a biblical perspective on homosexuality, but are not “anti-gay.”
“Consistent with his statement to the FBI, a … search of Corkins’s family computer revealed that on the afternoon of Sunday, August 12, Corkins used the computer to visit the Southern Poverty Law Center’s website, as well as the websites for the FRC and the second organization on his handwritten list. The FBI later recovered from Corkins’s home several printed Mapquest and Google maps, dated August 12, 2012, for directions to the FRC and the second organization, as well as the pad of stationary paper used by Corkins to create his handwritten list of targets,” the government explained in its court case against Corkins.
The SPLC also just months ago had attacked GOP presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson with a “hate” label.
In Alabama’s procedures, the state’s court of the judiciary now will hold a hearing.
The dissenting U.S. Supreme Court justices in that ruling in Washington called it unconnected to the U.S. Constitution and multiple pockets of resistance to the mandate have erupted since then.
“Blatantly affronts Constitution’
Same-sex marriage was mandated in 2015 by the bare 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court majority of Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and the late Antonin Scalia opposed it.
Moore has noted: “Does an opinion of the United States Supreme Court, like Obergefell, which blatantly affronts the Constitution, automatically become the ‘rule of law’ and the ‘law of the land?’ Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England became the ‘manual of almost every student of law in the United States’ during this nation’s formative years. Blackstone stated that ‘the law, and the opinion of the judge are not always convertible terms, or one and the same thing; since it sometimes may happen that the judge may mistake the law.'”
The underlying case that was part of the dispute in Alabama was brought on behalf of the Alabama Policy Institute and others. It came after U.S. District Judge Callie Granada, prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling, ordered the establishment of same-sex marriage in the state.
Then Moore ordered probate judges to follow the state constitution, which recognizes marriages only between a man and a woman. The state court’s order eventually replaced Moore’s order. That ruled that the state’s constitutional limit of marriage to one man and one woman is valid in the state.
After the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision came later, the state court “invited the parties … to address the ‘effect of the Supreme Court’s decision on this court’s existing orders in this case.'” It eventually dismissed all of the petitions, leaving the affirmation of the state constitutional provision standing.
Moore was not the only justice unhappy with the U.S. Supreme Court.
Alabama Associate Justice Michael Bolin wrote that the opinion was “without any constitutional basis” but said the “Supremacy Clause forbids state courts to dissociate themselves from federal law because of disagreement with its content or a refusal to recognize the superior authority of its source.”
Bolin said it is “without dispute that the concept of same-sex marriage is not deeply rooted in either this nation’s or this state’s history and tradition – or frankly anywhere.”
“To the contrary, from its earliest days, circa 1800s, Alabama has, with little modification, provided a statutory scheme for the formal licensing and recognition of marriages as being between a man and a woman.”
He said in 1998 and 2006, the legislature and the people “recommitted expressly to the vital nature of the meaning of marriage in our present statutory scheme.”
Not only did the state exercise its sovereign authority to define marriage, as permitted under the Ninth and 10th Amendments, the U.S. Supreme Court majority, just a few years earlier, even acknowledged that authority, in the Windsor case.
Then, abruptly, “without comment concerning, or apology regarding, those words, only two years later the same Justice Kennedy … reversed course and decreed that all states are now required by the Constitution to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples,” he wrote.
The reversal, he noted, was not based on any fundamental right, but “rather on … self-declared beliefs that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.”
Rule of law is dead
And Alabama Justice Tom Parker said the U.S. Supreme Court’s marriage decision “conclusively demonstrates that the rule of law is dead.”
Further, the U.S. Supreme Court is damaging itself, he said.
“In marching this country ‘forward’ to their moral ideal, the ‘five lawyers’ comprising the majority in Obergefell have trampled into the dust the last vestiges of the legitimacy of the United States Supreme Court,” he wrote. “There appears to be no restraint on the judiciary, because ‘five lawyers’ believe that they may simply decide, with no legal support whatsoever, that a particular fundamental right be created because they think it fair.
“This is not the rule of law, this is despotism and tyranny.”
Critics also have raised a number of other concerns about the U.S. Supreme Court opinion.
For one, two of the justices in the majority, Kagan and Ginsburg, were asked to recuse themselves from the case because they had openly advocated for same-sex marriage, apparently violating standards to preserve judicial impartiality. Without their votes, the case would have gone the other way.
Then there was the U.S. Supreme Court’s own opinion just two years earlier, in the Defense of Marriage Act case, in which the court said states have exclusive power over marriage.
And there also are those who point out that the Constitution doesn’t mention marriage but does dictate that everything not mentioned in the document is left to the states and the people.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is calling “same-sex marriage” an “intrinsic evil.”
And officials from several counties in Tennessee have adopted statements opposing the Supreme Court.
WND also reported when dozens of top legal scholars from the likes of Washington & Lee, Boston College, Kansas State, Notre Dame, University of Texas, Villanova, Vanderbilt, Hillsdale, University of Nebraska, Catholic University and Regent University issued a statement encouraging all state and federal officials to treat the Supreme Court’s recent creation of “same-sex marriage” as “anti-constitutional and illegitimate.”
“It cannot … be taken to have settled the law of the United States,” said the statement from the American Principles Project.
“We call on all federal and state officeholders: To refuse to accept Obergefell as binding precedent for all but the specific plaintiffs in that case. To recognize the authority of states to define marriage, and the right of federal and state officeholders to act in accordance with those definitions. To pledge full and mutual legal and political assistance to anyone who refuses to follow Obergefell for constitutionally protected reasons. To open forthwith a broad and honest conversation on the means by which Americans may constitutionally resist and overturn the judicial usurpations evidence in Obergefell.”
( Source )