The Criminal Defense Attorney To Call
When The Stakes Are High

Alabama Chief Justice Moore and Minnesota Chief Justice Gildea – Quite similar

| Mar 5, 2015 | Uncategorized |

Minnesotans are quick to condemn Chief Judge Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court for his single minded stance on the issue of gay marriage. He has steadfastly disobeyed, it would seem, the concept of Federal Supremacy in ordering clerks in Alabama counties to not issue marriage licenses for same sex couples. Despite federal edicts he won’t countenance such behavior. Judge Moore is not just being contrary for no reason. It is his firm belief that he is answering to higher law than federal. He sincerely believes that he must answer to God rather than man. I believe he is wrong but I also can see his sincerity. Besides that observation this writer has it on good authority that before he was removed from the trial court bench in Alabama for refusing to remove the ten commandments from his courthouse he was a pretty good and compassionate trial court judge. I would bring to the attention of many of our trial court judges the commandments themselves and suggest they guide their decisions by same. They really are beacons for guiding our lives no matter who the author was—man or God.

Now let us move on to Minnesota Chief Justice Gildea, who also refuses to follow Supreme Court edict. A reading of her decision in State v Bernard, issued on February 11 is written evidence of same. In Missouri v. McNeely the Supreme Court of the United States made it crystal clear that when a driver is detained for DUI, and a police officer can reasonably obtain a warrant for a blood draw, he must do so, or the draw of blood is unconstitutional without the defendant’s consent. It is easy to understand the case. It is written in English, which is our native language. Making it even more poignant is the fact that the United States Supreme Court pointed to the dissent, by retired Justice Meyer, in a earlier Minnesota Supreme Court decision, endorsing the position taken in McNeely by the United States Supreme Court. That is, of course, a pro tanto holding that the Minnesota Supreme Court’s position on the issue was clearly wrong. Apparently, the majority of our Court doesn’t like that direct a refutation of their position. In Bernard, as stated by Justices Page and Stras in their dissent, the majority, lead by Chief Gildea, just won’t accept the Supremacy of the Federal Law and acts as if it was never decided. Why, one might inquire? There is no mention in the opinion that God has spoken to the Chief and her four supporters so the sincerity of Judge Moore is not manifested.

The majority just made it up by a contrived and transparent result directed opinion where they apply Chiml v. California and make a claim that our Implied Consent Law is constitutionally saved under a doctrine of search incident to arrest that in the wildest dreams of the authors of Chiml could never be justified. Moore answers to a higher power, our Court just creates from whole cloth.