|Judge Roy Moore|
Based on the Alabama Supreme Court's recent order to force Macon County Circuit Judge Thomas Young off the VictoryLand forfeiture matter, the reasonable person would be wrong on both counts. Roy Moore apparently believes Biblical strictures are for others to follow, but they do not apply to him.
How else to explain Moore signing off on an order that not only is contrary to legal precedent, but also includes a blatant misstatement of fact. To put it bluntly, the order includes an outright lie, which calls to mind Commandment No. 9--"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." This commonly is understood to mean that Christians are not to lie. Proverbs 6:16-19 builds on this idea:
There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.
That makes it mighty clear that the Lord isn't too keen on liars. So why did Roy Moore sign his name to a document that includes a bold-faced lie?
Well, let's consider the proof against "His Honor." From page 2 of the order removing Judge Young:
The game of "bingo" can constitute a lottery or gift enterprise under Art. I, Sec. 65. Barber v. Cornerstone Cmty. Outreach, Inc., 42 So. 3d 65 (Ala., 2009). There are, however, certain local amendments to the constitution that authorize "bingo" games and act as "exceptions to the lottery prohibition" of Sec. 65. In the Cornerstone decision, released on November 13, 2009 this court set forth a six-part test to determine whether certain gaming activity constituted legal "bingo" for the purposes of those local amendments.
Whoever wrote those sentences, especially the part highlighted in yellow, is a liar. And he is lying to the Alabama citizens who fund his job and his court with their taxpayer dollars. We don't know that Roy Moore wrote those words, but he signed off on them. So what does that say about Roy Moore. It says, to me, that he's a liar--that he does not take the Ten Commandments seriously. At the very least, it says he countenances liars and supports their work.
How do we know that Roy Moore and his colleagues on the high court are liars? We can start by looking at the Cornerstone decision ourselves. The "whole shootin' match" can be read at the following link:
Barber v. Cornerstone, 42 So. 3d 65 (Ala., 2009)
The Cornerstone ruling came after former Governor Bob Riley's anti-gambling task force seized property at an electronic-bingo facility in Lowndes County, and a trial court granted a preliminary injunction and ordered the task force to return all property. The Riley defendants appealed, and the Supreme Court's ultimate ruling describes the issues it considered:
On May 26, 2009, the Riley defendants filed their appellants' brief on the merits of their appeals of the trial court's preliminary injunction. On May 29, 2009, Cornerstone and FTV filed in both appeals a motion asking this Court to dissolve the preliminary injunction and to dismiss the appeals.
The highlighted words make it clear the Supreme Court was considering a narrow issue: Was the preliminary injunction in the Lowndes County court proper?
We invite readers to click on the link above and read the entire Cornerstone ruling. Taken as a whole, it states that the court was focusing narrowly on: (1) The electronic-bingo facility in Lowndes County; and (2) The lawfulness of the preliminary injunction against the Riley defendants.
That's it--nothing about any other bingo facility in Alabama, nothing beyond a right or wrong ruling on a preliminary injunction. For those who don't want to read the entire ruling, I've presented the key section below, which encompasses roughly the last six paragraphs of the ruling. That's where the rubber meets the road, and the section can be read at the end of this post.
What do we learn? The two highlighted sections below tell us exactly what the case was about. First, we have this:
Based on the foregoing, we must conclude that the term "bingo" as used in Amendment No. 674 was intended . . .
We see nothing unclear about that. The case is about Amendment No. 674, which governs bingo in Lowndes County.
Then, we have this:
On the basis of the foregoing, we cannot conclude that Cornerstone and FTV introduced sufficient evidence from which the trial court could have determined that Cornerstone and FTV had a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits. The trial court's order issuing a preliminary injunction therefore is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
This, again, is clear: The case is about two entities in Lowndes County (Cornerstone and FTV) and it's about a preliminary injunction they had obtained--nothing more, nothing less.
That brings us back to Roy Moore. Why did a judge who touts the Ten Commandments sign his name to a ruling that includes a clear lie?
As for Judge Moore's inability to see "the log in his own eye," we will address that in an upcoming post.
Oooh, the Schnauzer is taking on the Ten Commandments judge. This should be good. Arf!
You seem to be saying that Judge Moore is a phony.
If you don't like the outcome of the VictoryLand case, then it's time to attack Judge Moore?
I would suggest you actually read the post, @11:45, and see if the ruling by Judge Moore and his colleagues complies with the law. You also might compare it to the Cornerstone case and see if the ruling contains at least one blatant falsehood. Whether I like or dislike the outcome of the VictoryLand case matters not. What matters is that the Supreme Court violated its own precedent and made false statements in the process. I've provided the evidence, in black and white, for those who care to read it.
Moore is a hypocrite! When involved in litigation with federal court and state's attorney general involving removal of "The Ten Commandments", he was offered an opportunity to raise a defense which would have removed both from case, but to do so would have exposed party elite, choosing not to accept, not only in defense of his case, but as well for the betterment of the judiciary within
Alabama he too disqualified himself in any definition of being a judge. What will be required of for Alabamians to join together
even though against greater monetary/material odds and go forth in efforts establishing Alabama as a respectable functioning/operating form of
The Christians in America aren't practicing any such truth, Jesus' teachings and/or Moses'.
Moses' tribe was said to be allowed to stay in the "TEMPLE MOUNT" because they were following laws, but after Moses Pompeii RAZED 'them' those that degraded from the 'laws' practiced on the 10 Commandments - history according to the ancient texts not rewritten for our 'Jewry Politics' now running the USA.
Now in Syria, the leader protects a minority of CHRISTIANS, and yet we don't see the SUPREME COURT standing to make sure the Syrian Christians aren't slaughtered. In fact slaughtering of the Christians is a well known and automatically accepted fact.
GOVERNMENT? How did the criminals get to sell the majority of Americans that our government are a criminal racket of retirees that use wars globally to make home a terrorist concentration camp?
Do we really feel represented in the penis noses and others, those that go to government school or law school and then act like a real 'public servant' or worse, a member of what appears to be 'friend' or 'blogger' and gets close to destroy the core of trust that is central to being powerful.
Paid by the 'people' in support for real democracy.
FRAUD. The law you transparently provide to the people, LS, proves the journalist is a far greater keeper of the LAWS that are proof a governing civilized society is in charge.
The Alabama RICO 'government' has got to realize the 21 Century isn't going away and actually the transparency is only going to be greater in the mirror reflection of what we really need to see so we can be responsible grown up people and make the necessary changes so our CHILDREN aren't wearing penis noses to prove just how tragic an ego really is.
Thanks, LS, the government has to get that the government is all the people all the time, even the really and truly 'commoners' such as Schnauzers.
You deserve the Nobel Peace Prize and an International Law degree, plus a US JD too.
You are so correct on this one LS! Shameful. It is easy to believe that nothing fair or legal comes from this bought and paid for Supreme Court.
Thanks once again, LS, for analysis that we will not read in the MSM. I'm convinced most reporters read the first 1-2 paragraphs of a court ruling, and maybe the last 1-2 paragraphs, and that's it. They completely ignore everything in between.
I have several good-hearted friends who actually thought Moore was going to change the Al Sup Ct. for the better. Sadly, they were mistaken.
Did anyone seriously think Roy Moore was going to rule in favor of a gambling establishment?
Thank you, thank you for exposing the truth about the Cornerstone case. Luther Strange and his corrupt minions have used and abused that case as a "straw man" for raiding and closing lawful businesses.
Where are all of the Tea Party, libertarian Republicans who want to keep the government out of our lives? Where are they on this issue, where the government is invading and closing legal business establishments.
I just did some research at the UNLV Center for Gaming Research, and it says more than 30 states allow electronic bingo for charitable and commercial enterprises. Is Alabama the only state where so much tomfoolery goes on. From one report at the UNLV center involving a company called Gametech:
"Bingo is a legal enterprise in 47 states (excluding Arkansas, Hawaii, and Utah) and the District of Columbia. Nonprofit organizations sponsor bingo games for fundraising purposes, while Native American, commercial entities, and government-sponsored entities operate bingo games for profit. As of October 31, 2005, we had systems in approximately 25 of the more than 30 states that allow electronic bingo systems for use with charitable and commercial organizations. Under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, or IGRA, electronic bingo may be played on Native American lands in the 47 states where bingo is legal. We estimate that bingo currently is played on Native American lands in 30 states. As of October 31, 2005, we had terminals in operation in Native American bingo halls in 13 of those states. Collectively, as of October 31, 2005, we had products in 36 states and in five foreign countries."
I've heard it said that Roy Moore's main motivation for running again as chief justice was to pad his state pension and enhance his profile for national speaking engagements. I'm starting to think that's probably true. Not sure he gives a flip about addressing injustice.
George Orwell 1984 - justice is injustice and truth is lie, the words are not the words we can rely upon for our information to feed us appropriately to choose 'higher consciousness' about life.
It's a conundrum and the writers such as Legal Schnauzer, find the point where the problem is very bad and almost inconceivable to get the solution ...
However, as it is with great dogs on a scent of the vermin destroying the canines' 'job' to keep the nasty pests controlled ...
Writers write - Orwell did, too, and then we have to make our brains see the way to solve the writers' power in seeing the whole 'reality' and then writing so we can see too.
Not comfortable being in the real writers' words to solve the real problems that are not going away and need to be confronted before the vermin breed too many more.
Great writing just keeps getting greater and not what the low life lifestyles want to look at as the 'reality', but the too late is in technology's today and tomorrow even better words from LS no doubt, to keep the power of truth marching along in just US common canine brain curiosities.
So you're arguing that an opinion of the Alabama Supreme Court has no precedential value because it relates to injunctive relief? I don't know if you've read the full opinion, but the Court addresses exactly the issue that you're raising in footnote 9.
You know this may have you removed from the judge's christmas card list!
Great article, just laid it all out and the addition of the 10 commandments, excellent.
The problem with some of these "holy rollers" is they think the 10 commandments don't apply to them because they are so good.
Try reading my post, @4:29, and you will see that is not what I'm arguing. In fact, I'm not arguing anything; I'm a reporter, not a lawyer. I'm reporting exactly what the Cornerstone decision says, and yes, I have read the whole ruling. Therefore, I know footnote 9 does not address the issue that you claim--it addresses the preliminary injunction v. temporary injunction issue. I know you are desperate for Cornerstone to be seen as a broad ruling that applies beyond Lowndes County and beyond issues presented by injunctions. But I'm sorry, those of us who can read for ourselves know it isn't there.
In his book The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection: The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices, Historian Bruce Allen Murphy describes a covert arrangement in which the two men collaborated on numerous political activities. Zionism was one of them.
Murphy writes: "[I]n one of the most unique arrangements in the Court's history, Brandeis enlisted Frankfurter, then a professor at Harvard Law School, as his paid political lobbyist and lieutenant. Working together over a period of 25 years, they placed a network of disciples in positions of influence, and labored diligently for the enactment of their desired programs."
Murphy continues: "This adroit use of the politically skillful Frankfurter as an intermediary enabled Brandeis to keep his considerable political endeavors hidden from the public."
Brandeis only mentioned the arrangement to one other person, Murphy writes, "another Zionist lieutenant– Court of Appeals Judge Julian Mack."
Later, when Frankfurter himself became a Supreme Court Justice, he used similar methods, "placing his own network of disciples in various agencies and working through this network for the realizations of his own goals." These included both Zionist objectives and "Frankfurter's stewardship of FDR's programs to bring the U.S. into battle against Hitler."
Their activities, Murphy notes, were "part of a vast, carefully planned and orchestrated political crusade undertaken first by Brandeis through Frankfurter and then by Frankfurter on his own to accomplish extrajudicial political goals."
Frankfurter joined the Harvard faculty at the age of 31 in 1914 and, Murphy writes, "for the next 25 years, shaped the minds of generations of the nation's most elite law students."
It's a tough call, reading.
Most Americans since TV, reading is done for us listening to the TV.
A journalist is also a lawyer in some ways and then in other ways the great lawyer is the great journalist and writer, too. Can be a multi-task art form which is also a talented human being or gifted - in reading, writing, and the maths as well as the classics - of course the arts and other 'disciplines'.
Need to be the ancient Chinese leaders, they had to be taught in every possible human 'power' in order to qualify as 'leader'.
Our so called leaders watch TV and Hollywood and go to government schools or the manufactured law schools and then do exactly as a good zombie is programmed.
If you honestly can't understand FN 9, you really have no business writing about the opinion. @4:29 is correct that FN9, in conjunction with the rest of the opinion, makes clear that the opinion encompasses the meaning of "bingo" in all the local amendments, not just the Lowndes County amendment.
Sorry, but I can read plain English and neither FN 9 nor any other part of Cornerstone ruling says what you want it to say. That's a tough break for you, I know, but you will get over it.
I knew a few anonymous readers would try to pull this con game, and you didn't disappoint. You are a predictable bunch.
Jesus, dude. It's not a con game. You're just wrong. You don't understand legal analysis, you get it horribly wrong, you accuse Roy Moore (of whom I'm no fan) of lying for correctly citing the law, and then you call people con artists for pointing out those things? Your thin skin, inability to admit that you're wrong, and belief that people you disagree with always have bad motives is a truly alarming combination.
Nothing thin about my skin on this. I knew this con game was coming. You are probably the same individual (or group of individuals) who shows up whenever I report the truth about Cornerstone. You clearly have a vested interest in this matter, and that's fine. Too bad you aren't honest enough to admit. And I already know you aren't brave enough to tell us who you are. Again, you are predictable.
I forgot your paranoia when I was listing your qualities. I have no interest whatsoever in this. That said, I would probably be more inclined to post under my actual name if your blog wasn't dedicated to character assassination.
Ah, there you go, back to your old tricks. I knew the insults were coming next, and by golly, here comes one--right on cue. I know it drives you crazy that I can't be bought or bullied like the mainstream media. And it must drive you even crazier that this is one of the top 50 law blogs in North America, which reflects the breadth and influence of our reporting. Fire a few more insults my way, please. Can't wait to hear more creativity from a mind that is running on empty.
Legal Schnauzer you committed to character assassination, that is your blog is?
Obama was to be the most transparent government too, ever to be in USA.
The anons write very well, I notice when the CIA-NSA-DHS-PISS on US by way of propaganda from the Soviets, or brainwashed communist Asian directives, definitely not a free and open, liberal and democratic republic speaking in the deceptive 'posts'.
Your American Spirit must drive the toad stools slithering the planet earth since antiquity, dripping into melted puddles.
Lots of unemployed in the USA to be very fine mushrooms to eat all the garbage fed by those that actually don't have money.
Amazing what 'human beings' can be convinced to do as though 'real'.
You would, well we all would - HOPE - the focus might get excited about truth in justice and the honest brokering of due process law. Can the anons talk about what happened to the rule of law?
How do all the words get put into papers that then make up rules, regulations, and 'laws' and yet the proof of corruption and fraud is so glaring.
What about words that are lies and laws that are words to make US subjects? Do we resurrect all the extraordinary writs, such as for people in US to file for Habeas Corpus so we can find home in the real America?
Can all the anons whom post talk about the true state of our union?
Is there any such idea anymore, the United States of America!
Please was there ever?!
'Indians' are not going to surrender anymore than Palestinians have.
What old tricks am I supposedly up to? You're apparently convinced that I'm affiliated with one of your "enemies" based on nothing more than the fact that I'm pointing out that your legal analysis is wrong. You can call it reporting if you want (as thought that somehow forecloses the possibility that it's also something else), but when you're stating that the Alabama Supreme Court is incorrectly citing a case (and, worse, doing so in a way that's a "blatant falsehood") YOU'RE ENGAGING IN LEGAL ANALYSIS. And you got it pretty woefully wrong here, and an ethical journalist would realize that and make some effort to ensure that his readers aren't misled.
Incidentally, sorry to burst YOUR bubble, but I have nothing to do with Cornerstone or anyone associated with it. I probably don't even have one of the six-degrees-of-separation connections that you're so fond of making to anyone associated with Cornerstone or any of the people that you believe are persecuting you. I'm a Democrat; I voted for Obama twice. I think that the state of Alabama devotes entirely too much time and money to bingo and gambling suppression. I probably agree with you on just about every substantive political issue you can think of. But none of that matters to you because of your weird idea that anyone who objects to your reporting--not necessarily on the subject matter, but on the conclusions that you draw--is affiliated with someone who's out to get you. And that shows in things like your obsession with Lee Garrison's personal life; there's an actual, legitimate story about the improprieties (and probable illegalities) involved in the Tuscaloosa County school board elections, but you ignore that actual, legitimate story in favor of tabloid reporting.
So, to recap: your legal analysis is wrong and you should acknowledge that. I have nothing to do with any of the parties involved in this case, nor any of the parties you allege are out to get you. And I sincerely wish you'd focus on the numerous legitimate controversies that exist instead of mudslinging about possible affairs that people are having and/or penis noses that people wore at Halloween parties.
Roy Moore is a very bias judge. He made known his personal stance on gambling when Victoryland was raided in Feb. So how fair is it when a judge uses his personal opinion to rule and not the rule of law.
OK, you've gone from insults to putting words in my mouth, and then back to insults. Again, your pattern is familiar. First, I've never said you are affiliated with my "enemies," whoever that might be. In fact, I don't recall even claiming to have "enemies." Second, my analysis is not wrong. It's on target because I can read simple, declarative sentences. So can my readers. When someone tries to tell me that a few sentences say one thing, and I can read and see that they say no such thing . . . well, I would call that a con. If you have no associations or connections to this case, then I see no reason you shouldn't reveal your identity, so my readers can determine whether you have any credibility. (I already know you have no credibility, but my readers are entitled to know who you are since you claim to be knowledgeable about legal matters raised by this case.) Oh wait, you can't identify yourself because I engage in "character assassination." This comes from someone who claims I'm afflicted with "paranoia" and "obsession." Tried looking in the mirror, bub?
I've given you a little rope here, and as expected, you used it to hang yourself. No more rope for you until you ID yourself. I look forward to hearing from you at firstname.lastname@example.org.
We all know, of course, that you are too big a coward to engage in discussion under your real name. You like to hide behind the bushes and lob spitballs at people, like a typical bully. You really expect to be taken seriously?
Have a good one, and I look forward to hearing more of your nonsense when I write about anything related to Cornerstone.
I'll tell you what: if you assure me that you won't publish information about me on your blog UNLESS you can find some connection to Cornerstone, I will happily email you from my personal email address and reveal my identity to you.
I don't see any reason to publish anything about you. To my knowledge, you are not part of the story. You only would be part of the story, best I can tell, if you are affiliated with any organization that has benefited from the Supreme Court's ruling in Cornerstone and/or affiliated cases. Even then, I'm not sure it's a story I would want to publish. I've got no shortage of material, so I'm not looking to make you a story.
Whether you choose to ID yourself is up to you. I would be glad to speak with you via phone or in person. I don't know that I'm going to endlessly publish your comments when I can read, and I know what the decision says.
I've allowed you to say your piece, but I'm not interested in a never-ending "yes it does/no it doesn't" exchange here in the comments section.
On the other hand, I hear almost daily from readers and have personal communications with many of them. I don't mind including you in that group.
I cant help but think that the 10 Commandments debacle was intended to be some sort of deterrant for the future we are now witnessing with intentions far greater than once thought.
LS, your "Jesus dude" anon commenter must be a young one. With that said, he may actually truly believe what he/she/ it is saying to be correct. We must all remember that our law schools are now endoctrinating contrary to law. Zombified little fools they become!
You're a top notch paid character assassin - but a pretty crummy legal analyst. This is directly from the case, but of course not anything you bothered to point out to your gentle readers. Your credibility (or lack thereof) is showing!
Based on the foregoing, we must conclude that the term "bingo" as used in Amendment No. 674 was intended to reference the game commonly or traditionally known as bingo. The characteristics of that game include the following:
1. Each player uses one or more cards with spaces arranged in five columns and five rows, with an alphanumeric or similar designation assigned to each space.
2. Alphanumeric or similar designations are randomly drawn and announced one by one.
3. In order to play, each player must pay attention to the values announced; if one of the values matches a value on one or more of the player's cards, the player must physically act by marking his or her card accordingly.
4. A player can fail to pay proper attention or to properly mark his or her card, and thereby miss an opportunity to be declared a winner.
5. A player must recognize that his or her card has a "bingo," i.e., a predetermined pattern of matching values, and in turn announce to the other players and the announcer that this is the case before any other player does so.
6. The game of bingo contemplates a group activity in which multiple players compete against each other to be the first to properly mark a card with the predetermined winning pattern and announce that fact.
You apparently have poor reading comprehension skills. You are reciting information that is in my post and is even highlighted in yellow, if you bothered to look. In your own words, the ruling says it is about the word bingo "as used in Amendment No. 674." I also have cited language, which you conveniently ignore, that the case is about a preliminary injunction at the facility in Lowndes County.
Unlike you, my regular readers have solid comprehension skills, but I will provide this primer just for you. Based on highlighted passages in my post, which you apparently didn't read, and based on your own information, we know that the Cornerstone ruling was about:
1. Amendment 674 and no other. No other is mentioned.
2. A preliminary injunction, nothing more and nothing less.
3. The bingo facility in Lowndes County.
So, in essence, the passage you cite confirms exactly what I've said all along in my post. Thanks for helping to show that my reporting is on target--not that I need your help.
Also, I notice that you bailed out on your claim that you would identify yourself when I hinted that I would need to speak with you for confirmation of who you really are. Ah, the slippery games of the con man. You always think regular folks aren't smart enough to see through you.
Thanks for playing the game, and no more nonsensical comments for you.
Uh, as the person who said that I would email you with my identity IF you confirmed that you would not publish information about me, I am happy to report that I did not post the comment at 7:20. Not everyone who disagrees with you is, well, the same person. But I would also note that you left yourself an awful lot of wiggle room about posting my information and did NOT actually assure me that you wouldn't post about me if I wasn't affiliated with Cornerstone, which is what I asked for. So I didn't renege on anything; you simply didn't do the thing that I asked you to do as a precondition for the thing I said that I would do.
If you are familiar with the law, you should know a thing or two about the art of negotiation. You want it to be a one-sided deal, but that's not the way it works. You have conditions, and I have conditions. Mine pretty much boil down to this: (1) I want to speak with you so I truly know who you are; (2) I want to know if you or your organization have benefited in any way from Cornerstone. My terms are more stringent than yours, but it's my blog and my audience, so my terms matter. If we don't agree, then so be it. I don't care who you are--I'm busy and don't need to spend the time on this issue--but you aren't going to have a platform in the comment sections to muddy the waters with inaccurate statements that might be self-serving. I've already given you more space than you probably deserve.
I don't care about those who disagree with me. I do care about those who intentionally misstate facts and law in a way that might benefit them personally.
Yea I'm not the same guy as the other anonymous. I'm just another person who sees you for what you are - a paid character assassin.
Your obvious ax grinding endeavors on behalf of the people who write your checks aside, aren't these local bingo amendments worded the same so that the analysis that would apply to one applies to others. But then again you aren't a lawyer as you say, so maybe you don't know or possess the ability to extend this logical analysis.
A. Paid by whom?
B. Who is this person who writes checks to me?
C. Whose character have I "assassinated"?
D. Someone who reports about legal news in a way that displeases you is a "character assassin"? That makes a lot of sense.
E. No, the bingo amendments are not worded the same.
F. Even if they were, an appellate ruling does not apply to the others when it specifically states it is about only one and about only the issue of a preliminary injunction.
G. If my blog primarily is about "character assassination," why do you read it? Won't hurt my feelings if you take your readership elsewhere.
I think what the other commenters are talking about with footnote 9 is the language I've highlighted:
"As noted, one of the elements that must be shown in order to obtain a preliminary injunction is "the likelihood of success on the merits." In order to address this element in the present case, we must first ascribe meaning to the term "bingo," the term that is used in the constitutional amendment at issue here and similar amendments applicable to other locales. It is only against this meaning that we then can measure the facts shown by Cornerstone and FTV at the hearing on the preliminary injunction to determine if Cornerstone and FTV met their factual burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits (i.e., demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that the machines have the characteristics of a "bingo game").
We reject Justice Woodall's assertion in his dissenting opinion that our holding today is somehow not "authoritative." Under our rules, preliminary injunctions are a proper subject of appeals to this Court, and this Court is obligated to decide such appeals, no less than we are obligated to decide appeals of permanent injunctions. If, in deciding such an appeal, this Court finds it necessary to decide some legal question, our decision as to that legal question is no less authoritative than if that legal question was presented to us in an appeal from a permanent injunction."
So there the court's addressing both its authority to rule on the preliminary injunction and the authoritativeness (and precedential value) of that ruling.
And while you're right that the Cornerstone case relates to Amendment 674, the court is going to interpret similar language (i.e, the definition of bingo) in a similar manner and is going to rely on its earlier definition unless there are substantive differences. It's going to do that because there's nothing specific about bingo in Lowndes County that makes it different from bingo in Macon County: they're both bingo. The court even alludes to that when it talks about "similar amendments applicable to other locales," such as Macon County.
None of that means that there's nothing fishy going on, but the language in the order isn't a lie. I'm interested in your thoughts on this.
For those of you who don't like Legal S.'s comments, anylsis, etc.; just a suggestion, but perhaps you'd be happier reading another blog and commenting there. Many of us read this blog for the comments L.S. makes and his anylsis.
Why should L.S. or his readers, who enjoy this blog, be side tracked by comments such as yours. You take away from the perspective offered here, not add to it.
For those who don't want to be confused by all being Annonymous, try using a set of initials if you don't want your name in print. Works for me. It makes it easier for everyone else to follow the comments.
Different anon here. If the blog is about legal news and not character assassination, I don't understand why the other fella's identity matters. Even assuming that he did benefit somehow from Cofrnerstone, the merit of his legal argument is not related to his motivations for making it.
My thoughts are expressed in the post. I've highlighted portions of the opinion that state it is about only Amendment 674, only about Lowndes County, and only about a preliminary injunction.
You have highlighted a segment of FN 9 that you interpret to mean that the opinion applies to other local amendments.
I think we agree on a couple of things:
(1) The language in the order isn't a lie. In your view, that applies to a certain reading of FN 9. In my view, that applies to key segments in the body of the opinion.
(2) The Cornerstone ruling is both poorly thought out and very poorly written.
If the justices on the Alabama Supreme Court can't produce documents better than this one, perhaps they should step down. The notion that certain businesses, which have operated legally for years, would be shut down based on the sloppy work in Cornerstone . . . well, it's absurd.
I don't read FN 9 the way you do, but even if your reading is correct, it's clearly in conflict with sections in the body of the opinion. This is what qualifies as "legal analysis" from our high court?
Finally, I'm sure you are aware that I'm hardly alone in my reading of Cornerstone. Any number of lawyers--Joe Espy is one who comes to mind--have argued this position in multiple cases.
I don't know what you think of Joe Espy, but he's a veteran lawyer who has been involved with a number of high-profile cases, and I'm pretty sure he's quite capable of conducting "legal analysis."
Anon at @2:01--
Are you joking? It's precisely because this site is about legal news that the commenter's identity matters. My readers and I have no way to evaluate what he's saying if we don't know who he is--and with whom he is affiliated.
His identify particularly becomes a factor when his assertions conflict with the language in Cornerstone that we all can read for ourselves.
I'm taking the guy seriously and giving him credit for possibly adding something to the discussion here. But we need to be able to evaluate his credentials. He is trying to discredit my work, but everyone here knows exactly who I am, they know about my professional background, and they know how to get in touch with me. In the interest of fairness, we need the same information from someone who is trying to counter what I have reported.
The "character assassination" language is a red herring you have concocted to avoid being held accountable for what you write. You can't provide one example of "character assassination" on this site because that's not what it's about--and even you probably are smart enough to know that. Why else would you come her to read the material?
Post a Comment