I have cited specific examples where Roy has either said or was fired over being a Constitutional illiterate. Do you claim that none of that happened?
Roy Moore is a phony loudmouth and a stupid moron.....
Alabama voters restored Moore to the chief justiceship in 2012, but once again he would not finish his term. This time the issue was gay marriage. Like many, Moore feels Obergefell v. Hodges was wrongly decided, but he, further, believed that the Constitution does not require Alabama to recognize same-sex unions legalized by the decision. As in his fight over the Decalogue monument, Moore thought his opinions entitled him to disregard federal court orders. This time he went even further, publicly declaring his resistance to Obergefell and instructing state probate court judges to follow suit, even after federal courts issued orders against Alabama officials. Moore again denied the authority of federal courts, and again the Alabama judicial inquiry commission cut his term short.
@Frank Cannon ... You say Roy Moore is a "Constitutional illiterate" and offer a liberal version of the events on his second removal as proof. 3 arguments in your article you quote... I will address only one.
Lets just say even the liberal NYsLimes takes issue with it. Stupid classless jokes and articles that don't even scrape at truth are a waste of time to read in my opinion.
Try these two articles that at least somewhat honestly get to the constitutionality of Moore's position. There is better in depth articles, but I would have to dig through a lot of junk to find them (if they are even still valid URLs)..
The problem was, the plaintiffs sued only Luther Strange, the attorney general, who is an official of the executive branch. The attorney general doesn't issue marriage licenses and doesn't oversee marriages in the state. Elected probate judges in Alabama's counties do that, and they do not work for the attorney general. In other words, Granade ordered the wrong guy to start issuing marriage licenses.
Moore saw that instantly. As head of the judicial branch, he ordered probate judges not to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Moore's order noted that, "the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama has not issued an order directed to the Probate Judges of Alabama to issue marriage licenses that violate Alabama law." And indeed Judge Granade had not.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/no-the-1960s-havent-returned-to-alabama/article/2560096https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/magazine/in-sort-of-defense-of-roy-moore.html..........the objections Moore is raising are shared on the United States Supreme Court by Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia — and not only because the two conservatives have opposed same-sex marriage; they are fighting over a change in the definition of marriage, yes, but also over how that change is being made.
Roy Moore is right that on its face, Granade’s order doesn’t require state probate judges all over Alabama — who weren’t named in the case Granade heard — to issue marriage licenses. Granade merely instructed Alabama’s attorney general not to enforce the state’s same-sex-marriage ban.
But it’s not fair to say that Roy Moore is acting like George Wallace. When Alabama’s segregationist governor blocked the entrance of the University of Alabama in 1963, in defiance of court-ordered integration, he was standing in the way of the Supreme Court and its desegregation ruling in Brown v. Board of Education nine years earlier — as well as a federal injunction ordering the university to admit two black students. In that case, the Supreme Court absolutely had the power to tell Alabama what to do, because it is the Supreme Court. But Judge Granade is not. And so far, at least, her order doesn’t even clearly apply to all of Alabama’s (understandably confused) probate judges. If that changes — a hearing has been set to sort this out — then they’ll know for sure it’s time to start signing marriage licenses.
In the meantime, you might even argue that Moore has done the country a favor, by making us think about the various methods for changing the law, and which are better — or at least more orderly — than others.
Your disingenuous article claims "Moore thought his opinions entitled him to disregard federal court orders.".....
The truth is the federal judge left a loophole and Moore being a good Constitutional scholar used it to defend the Alabama constitution as he was elected to do. This of course pissed off a lot of folks, so they put forth the unelected lawyer group to dismiss him because he was too witty to pin down otherwise.
There is a saying in Alabama... Bo knows... (reference to Bo Jackson knows lots of stuff)... Well Roy knows how to fight and do it constitutionally... despite how liberal media tries to spin it later on.
__________
Ping to @bigum (and thanks)...
