« Justice Thomas on Signaling in SSM Cases | Main | Measels--An Update and Some Constitutional Issues »
Monday, February 09, 2015
No contempt for you
Motion for Contempt denied--as expected and as appropriate. Judge Granade emphasized that Judge Davis is not a party. And she pointed out that her clarification order "noted that actions against Judge Davis or others who fail to follow the Constitution could be initiated by persons who are harmed by their failure to follow the law." In other words, plaintiffs' lawyers, pay attention to what the judge tells you.
Posted by Howard Wasserman on February 9, 2015 at 04:40 PM in Civil Procedure, Constitutional thoughts, Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink
Comments
No, because her interpretation of the Constitution does not serve as binding precedent. So if someone has a different interpretation of the Constitution, that is just as valid as Judge Granade's.
Posted by: Howard Wasserman | Feb 10, 2015 7:32:05 PM
In her earlier clarification order that same judge also told all of Alabama's probate judges they are, pursuant to her earlier order, obliged by the federal constitution to issue licenses to same-sex couples. I take it that you do not agree with her on this point of law.
Posted by: Anon | Feb 10, 2015 12:18:29 PM
No, because the issuance or non-issuance is an administrative rather than judicial function.
Posted by: Howard Wasserman | Feb 10, 2015 12:11:11 AM
They could also seek relief with the state appellate court with jurisdiction over Judge Davis.
Posted by: Michael Ejercito | Feb 10, 2015 12:04:31 AM
They could also seek relief with the state appellate court with jurisdiction over Judge Davis.
Posted by: Michael Ejercito | Feb 10, 2015 12:04:30 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.