Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

BREAKING: Federal judge grants 14-day stay in Alabama marriage case

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

The federal judge who struck down Alabama’s same-sex marriage ban on Friday has put her decision on hold for 14 days.

State officials had requested a more permanent stay, but the judge found that they didn’t meet any of the factors warranting a stay.

In granting the temporary stay, the judge wrote: “In its discretion, however, the court recognizes the value of allowing the Eleventh Circuit an opportunity to determine whether a stay is appropriate. Accordingly, although no indefinite stay issues today, the court will allow the Attorney General time to present his arguments to the Eleventh Circuit so that the appeals court can decide whether to dissolve or continue the stay pending appeal (assuming there will be an appeal.) The preliminary injunction will be stayed for 14 days.”

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied a similar request in a Florida case.

The judge is expected to issue an order clarifying the scope of the injunction before the stay expires.

The order notes that if no further action is taken, it expires February 9.

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings


  • 1. brandall  |  January 25, 2015 at 5:02 pm

    URGH!…another (temporary) gay=stay. And at this point in the evolution of ME jurisprudence…there are NO goods reasons.

  • 2. DACiowan  |  January 25, 2015 at 5:14 pm

    If it takes a two week stay to get friggin' Alabama to behave, I'll gladly take it.

  • 3. VIRick  |  January 25, 2015 at 6:24 pm

    "…. a two-week stay to get friggin' Alabama to behave …."

    That,– and a VERY large stick

    You know, throughout all of this in Alabama, I can't help but wonder how all those "oppressed" bigots in South Alabama (aka, the Florida panhandle) are viewing their own miserable existential selves right about now. I can hear them quite loudly bewailing, "Oh praise the gods, the end is neigh, and we're all doomed, even here in the 'Heart of Dixie,' the last bastion of unbridled bigotry and hate, as they'll soon be having to marry all those icky gays on the other side of the state line, in 'Sweet Home Alabama,' just like we got stuck doing here in its beknighted underbelly."

  • 4. brandall  |  January 25, 2015 at 7:28 pm

    "I'll gladly take it."

    I know, I know. You are right. But, it still pisses me off big time there is even one day of delay. There is an Alabamian widow in Hard v. Bentle who is trying to collect his deceased husband's benefits. He should not have to wait 2 more weeks.

  • 5. VIRick  |  January 25, 2015 at 8:05 pm

    Paul Hard, the plaintiff in that "wrongful death" suit, also has an absolute ogre of a mother-in-law who won't even admit to the existence of any relationship between her dead son and some other man. Instead, she's claiming that "God commanded her to keep all the money."

    The only good part of this wretched case is the double-entendre innuendo inherent in its name, "Hard v. Bentley." Besides, I like Hard. Who doesn't?

  • 6. RnL2008  |  January 25, 2015 at 11:10 pm

    That woman makes the anti-gay folks almost look human……NEVER have I seen a more vindictive biotch who should get smacked by something in a very quick manner……..I know what it's like to lose your partner/spouse and then on top of that to deal with this biotch just ISN'T right!!!

  • 7. VIRick  |  January 25, 2015 at 11:54 pm

    Rose, here's the headline to a long rant I published on a different website in October 2014:

    "Alabama Mother: God Wants Me to Keep My Dead Son's Husband from Getting Any Money in Wrongful Death Suit"

    Paul Hard is willing to split the proceeds with her, 50/50, claiming only the "spousal share." But the hideous witch of a mother-in-law, Pat Fancher, wants it all, and won't settle for less.

    On 29 August 2014, the lawyers for the plaintiff in the case filed a motion for summary judgment with the court on the out-of-state marriage recognition aspects in the wrongful death suit, "Hard v. Bentley." If the court accepts this motion, then a judgment on the Alabama constitutional aspects in this suit could be rendered at any time.


    Given the very recent decision in "Searcy v. Strange," the Alabama constitutional aspects of this suit have just been decided. The judge in "Hard v. Bentley" can now rule in favor of Paul Hard, giving him 100% of the proceeds, and tell Pat Fancher to go console herself with her God.

  • 8. RnL2008  |  January 26, 2015 at 12:05 am

    That's so great…….that biotch DOESN'T deserve anything because in my opinion she COULDN'T have loved her son as much as she claims all the while causing her son's husband so much additional grief……..and trust me, grieving and trying to maintain everything else in your life is difficult enough without someone like that woman adding to that pain!!!

    That's one of the MAIN reasons that marriage is so important……..this WOULDN'T have happen had the State just recognized the legal marriage of Paul and his husband.

    Here's another case were the couple wasn't married and this is what happened:

  • 9. VIRick  |  January 26, 2015 at 12:13 am

    On 7 August 2014, in "Hard v. Bentley," the state of Alabama filed a response brief, attributed to both Gov. Bentley and AG Strange, enumerating Alabama's official reasoning for the state ban on same-sex marriage. Here we have it (the notes in brackets are mine):

    1. Biological parents best candidates for "office" of mother and father

    "Alabama has an interest in preserving the legal rights of children to be connected to their biological parents, particularly fathers. Alabama's marriage law secures the rights of children by codifying the ancient, common-law offices of father and mother, and incentivizes biological fathers and mothers to step into those offices by privileging marriage with special rights and benefits." [Note: When did the positions of "father" and "mother" become "offices?" But if so, why would one candidate for the first position have to be male and the other candidate for the second position have to be female?]

    2. Gay married couples don't have extended families

    "In addition, Alabama has an interest in preserving the relationships between children and other kin, such as siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins. Kinship, with its concentric circles of altruism and self-sacrifice, plays an important role in rearing children and bringing them up into new generations of citizens. Alabama has an interest in encouraging extended family members to embrace those responsibilities." [Note: When did same-sex couples suddenly stop having extended families, as well?]

    3. Prevents marriages of "two or more"

    "Alabama has chosen a traditional, conjugal, opposite-sex definition of marriage, as opposed to a revisionist definition that includes all consent-based emotional relationships involving any two or more consenting persons." [Note: the "or more" portion of this response has no bearing on the issues at hand, as it is not being contested in the present suit.]

    4. Makes settling estates easier to handle

    "Alabama thus maintains the offices of father and mother, encourages kinship altruism, and maintains consistency with other aspects of law that promote biological relationships, such as presumptions of paternity, laws relating to child custody and the law of intestacy (dying without a will). [Note: Quite to the contrary, the very reason this lawsuit was originally filed was because Alabama's refusal to recognize an out-of-state marriage renders it impossible to properly settle Fancher's estate.]

    5. Altering social norms undermines a "civil society"

    "To change Alabama's definition of marriage by judicial fiat would undermine the integrity of the courts and would alter society's understanding of marital norms and responsibilities, to the detriment of children and civil society." [Note: Courts issue judicial fiats. That's what they do. Their integrity when doing so is never undermined].

    I suspect we'll see more of this amateur gibberish re-cycled and re-filed in the up-coming stay requests in "Searcy v. Strange."

  • 10. RnL2008  |  January 25, 2015 at 9:03 pm

    Though this is NOT a total surprise……it still is a bit of a disappointment….now let's hope the 11th DOESN'T grant a stay nor does SCOTUS.

  • 11. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 25, 2015 at 10:48 pm

    The 11th has no reason to grant a stay… not really. So it will be very interesting to see what SCOTUS does when the AG Appeals to them. If SCOTUS says no, and I don's think they have 5 votes to grant one…it's ALL over….though it's been All Over since October 6th.
    I'm glad it's an AUTO Expiring stay…so we won't be here for months.

  • 12. RnL2008  |  January 25, 2015 at 11:08 pm

    I do agree with ya……I already believe SCOTUS has shown it's hand by deny cert back in October and basically denying stay requests……hopefully they continue that trend now.

  • 13. VIRick  |  January 25, 2015 at 11:13 pm

    "…. an AUTO Expiring stay …."

    Exactly. Plus, without any further alteration or extension, it gives us the start-up date of Monday, 9 Febraury 2015, for Alabama same-sex couples to begin marrying.

  • 14. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 25, 2015 at 11:20 pm

    And the judge has promised to issue a clarification to her original order b4 the stay is up!

    Alabama just went to turquoise on the wiki map. Here's to back to dark blue in 2 weeks!

  • 15. flyerguy77  |  January 25, 2015 at 5:10 pm

    This is a GOOD THING IN Reality.. its 2 weeks stay.. 11th Circuit will deny the stay.. I don't know what SCOTUS will do after they accepted 6th Circuit appeals.. in my honesty opinion,SCOTUS has been a showing their hands of a future decision with past actions since October.. I believe the way the SCOTUS wrote the questions it means it will be 6 to 3 or 7 to 2 decision for pro ssm I will change my opinion after the oral arguments..

  • 16. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 25, 2015 at 10:50 pm

    I'm hopeful for a 6-3 or 7-2 decision, but I'll take a 5-4.

    My prediction though 6-3

  • 17. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  January 26, 2015 at 4:17 am

    I can't in good conscious believe it will be anything more than the same makeup of thenWindsor decison: 5-4 with Justice Kennedy writing for the majority. The only change from Windsor will be who writes the dissent, as Scalia will return in a way he did for Lawrence.

  • 18. JayJonson  |  January 26, 2015 at 7:37 am

    Yes, it will be 5-4, with Kennedy writing the controlling decision. Scalia will write an ugly, bitter, hysterical dissent, which will be joined by Thomas. Roberts will write a more moderate dissent, echoing Sutton and joined by Alito. Ginsburg may write a concurrence arguing for strict scrutiny on the basis of sexual orientation and raising the issue of whether the refusal to grant same-sex licences is discrimination on the basis of sex, and may be joined by Kagan and Sotomayor.

    The idea that Roberts and Alito might join a majority in favor of declaring bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional defies credulity. You really cannot go from thinking that a federal DOMA is constitutional to thinking that a state DOMA is unconstitutional.

  • 19. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  January 26, 2015 at 11:07 am

    Wholeheartedly agree. I only saw the opposite as feasible, in which possibly Roberts and an iota of a chance that Alito would side on civil liberties and at least in the vote (concurring opinion using states' rights as the reason) to strike down the Federal DOMA law for Section III in Windsor, and then come back and not vote with the majority in this case now before them for marriage equality at the state level.

    Once I saw the 5-4 in Windsor, I knew that only those five Justices would be on the winning side for this case now before them. Not a chance Alito votes after that dissent in Windsor, and highly doubtful for Roberts either given that additional dissent he wrote. OBERGEFELL will be 5-4… Count on it.

  • 20. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 26, 2015 at 12:09 pm

    While a 5-4 ruling is the most likely scenario, lets not forget the Affordable Care Act, which left the pundits with their jaws gaping open. And then there was the shock here at EoT and around the nation when SCOTUS denied cert in 7 cases last October. And more shock when a "dubya" appointee knocks down the most conservative state's DOMA in 10 pages and tells the defendant he's unlikely to win in the courts above. Alito is unlikely, he's just too mean, but who knows, he may like to go along with the herd. Roberts may want to control the issue and the scope of the opinion. He may want to bring more acceptance to the decision by having a closer vote instead of a split court. He may want to show the nation that the court isn't simply a partisan tool. He may want to show that he is fair he is not a partisan tool. I'm sure this court is getting tired of every state running to SCOTUS every five minutes for issues involving marriage between TWO people of the same sex. Many of the justices just want to move on and put this behind them. The issue has finished percolating and it's time to serve and then clean up.

    There are those on other boards, not here on EoT, who would have said it defies credulity that an African American could win the White House once, much less twice. And those who would now say (in certain other forums) it defies credulity that a woman could win the white house. Some people's credulity defying moments are others Audacity of Hope.

    Things are only impossible – until they are NOT.
    – J L Picard.

  • 21. weaverbear  |  January 25, 2015 at 5:17 pm

    Well, the state did request it and the judge granted one just long enough for the state to go to the 11th circuit, WHICH denied a similar request from Florida, so I suspect weddings WILL start in Alabama in time for Valentine's Day.

    I'm tired of these bloody stays like the rest of us here, but I can't say it's unexpected. While it may sound like heresy here, it's not completely outlandish. I allows the state to go through its motions, and they are legally entitled to do so; however, given what the 11th did when Florida tried this, and SCOTUS' declining to issue a stay either, The handwriting is on the wall in Alabama – and yes folks, hell has indeed frozen over.

  • 22. 1grod  |  January 25, 2015 at 6:19 pm

    The State did not meet any factors used to warrant a stay, and the scope of the injunction would be addressed before the stay expires. State lost on all counts! Yet the judge granted a stay so the Circuit Appeals Court could affirm or deny her order. Very adroit move, in defusing resistance. Indeed might act to encourage other courts to declare their position. Could 39 be reached before May? G

  • 23. bythesea66  |  January 25, 2015 at 7:18 pm

    And if the Fifth rules before SCOTUS, it will mean three more equality states before it's nationwide. 😀

  • 24. josejoram  |  January 26, 2015 at 4:20 am

    Do you think the 5th will rule for us?

  • 25. Rick55845  |  January 26, 2015 at 5:19 am

    Based on the 3 judge panel that was chosen and based on the oral arguments, yes. It'll most likely be a 2-1 decision in favor of ME, with Judges Patrick Higginbotham (Reagan appointee) and James Graves (Obama appointee) expected to rule in favor, and Jerry Smith (Reagan appointee) expected to rule against.

    Most people think that the State defendants will request an en banc rehearing by the full 5th circuit if they lose the panel decision. If that were to occur before SCOTUS rules in June, then based on the makeup of the 5th circuit, the thought is that the ruling would go against us. But if the 3-judge panel rules before SCOTUS does, it's unlikely there will be enough time to schedule an en banc rehearing before the end of June.

  • 26. RobW303  |  January 26, 2015 at 6:06 am

    Nevertheless, I'd expect that the panel would issue a stay of its own accord, knowing the full bench would strongly disapprove of the status quo being disturbed before they (or SCOTUS) could reverse the ruling. I assume there is some mechanism whereby a majority of the bench could, of its own accord or upon a request from the states, impose an emergency stay to allow the states time to petition for an en banc review—and if this is possible, the bench would waste no time doing so.

    Can someone please tell me whether I'm right or wrong about such a procedural possibility?

  • 27. RnL2008  |  January 25, 2015 at 9:06 pm

    No State has met the factors that would grant a stay, but those guidelines OBVIOUSLY don't matter……I seriously doubt the 11th and SCOTUS will probably not do much before the stay is expires……but they may hold this up until June……we will have to wait and see.

  • 28. josejoram  |  January 26, 2015 at 4:14 am

    I think this case opens a new and interesting post cert path to SCOTUS, in case they deny stay. Denying stay could be a concession to Kennedy on the issue of Federalism.

  • 29. VIRick  |  January 25, 2015 at 5:23 pm

    Here's a wonderful editorial from as to what Alabamans ought to be doing right now in order to remain on the right side of history:

  • 30. RnL2008  |  January 25, 2015 at 11:23 pm

    The one thing that I find rather annoying from the anti-gay folks is their insistence that the "WILL" of the voters matters…….yet NONE of those same anti-gay folks get upset when countless ballot initiatives are OVERTURNED because there was NO Constitutional review done… here in California for example……when Proposition 63 was placed on our ballot to make the language of the State English…..the WILL of the voters was tossed, yet NO one was upset about it, or when the State passed Proposition 187 regarding ALL illegal immigration, NOT just Hispanics……NO one cared about the WILL of the voters……but damn go to hell, when the voters voted for these Unconstitutional bans that have been in place for YEARS, now people get upset and start screaming about the "WILL" of the voters…….just like when the Judge rules the way these anti-gay folks like or agree with….the Judge is DOING his job, but when the Judge rules in a way that the anti-gay folks don't like… He/She is an ACTIVIST Judge OVERREACHING his/her authority……, these idiots will even call Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia ACTIVIST justices because they DIDN'T stop the ruling that's coming in June…….and then you REALLY have Stupid idiots like Huckabee who now is screaming that the States DON'T have to follow the ruling…….these idiots CAN'T have it both ways……..and don't realize that most wouldn't call DOMA being signed as ANIMUS towards Gays and Lesbians, but what will the Courts say when more lawsuits are filed over these Religious Freedom Exemptions…….those bills will CLEARLY be in place because the anti-gay folks just CAN'T help themselves and CAN'T focus on their jobs…….just like those idiots who believe that a Constitutional Amendment to place discrimination in our Constitution will have a chance of succeeding…… WON'T change the fact that our marriages will still be legal and recognized.

  • 31. josejoram  |  January 26, 2015 at 4:16 am

    These are the same folks who would agree with nonsense of Scalia saying that "women's rights are not protected in Constitution" just because they are not written there.

  • 32. RQO  |  January 26, 2015 at 6:02 am

    Did you see Huckabee on the Sunday news shows? Through lengthening, obfuscation, and sleight of reasoning he managed to dress up, for the mainstream media and viewers, his prior pronouncement governors should pay no attention to judges. It went by too fast for me to catch it all, but I think his point was the judges should rule and then the legislatures act to change the law. It sounded reasonable, unless you know that state legislatures often refuse to ever change their old, unconstitutional laws. Last year, even in Colorado, Republicans blocked removing adultery-is-a-crime statute left over from Territorial days.

  • 33. DACiowan  |  January 25, 2015 at 5:24 pm

    Random observation: Right now, the shortest gap in equality for a same-sex couple driving coast to coast and staying in the US, is the 165 miles from the Indiana border by Cincinnati to the corner of West Virginia, passing along the Ohio River.

    If we get the Fifth Circuit and Alabama, the new shortest gap would be the roughly 115 miles of I-95 passing along the Georgia coast between Florida and South Carolina.

  • 34. montezuma58  |  January 25, 2015 at 5:49 pm

    Will the same panel that handled the request for Florida handle the request from AL?

  • 35. Zack12  |  January 25, 2015 at 6:05 pm

    I don't know, I'm hoping so.
    The wrong panel could really ruin our whole day.

  • 36. DrBriCA  |  January 25, 2015 at 6:20 pm

    IANAL, but from what I've seen posted on here for other similar situations, the panels looking at such stay requests rotate monthly, so it would likely be different from the panel that denied the stay over a month ago for Florida. But hopefully the current panel follows suit and sees the writing on the wall!

  • 37. ebohlman  |  January 25, 2015 at 7:05 pm

    The Escambia County (Pensacola, FL) court clerk's office must be happy about this, since they stood to lose a fair amount of business if AL residents didn't need to go there to marry.

  • 38. VIRick  |  January 25, 2015 at 10:08 pm

    Ebohlman, that's a cute, but accurate observation. However, she may still be able to pull in some business from Mississippi and Louisiana, even Arkansas, Texas, and the Memphis area, given the current winter tourist trade and couples' previously-arranged wedding plans.

  • 39. Mistahtom  |  January 25, 2015 at 8:20 pm

    I just don't see anything really spectacular coming out of SCOTUS. Yeah they're finally taking up the case on 14th Amendment merits but they're gonna find the most piss-poor way to go about it. Something like states rights and not having to recognize out of state marriages.

    The Hobby Lobby ruling really made me dislike this current SCOTUS' method of ruling on cases, I am very skeptical. Even their ObamaCare ruling found a way to let states opt out of the Medicaid expansion.

  • 40. flyerguy77  |  January 25, 2015 at 9:34 pm

    Please explain, why they didn't stop or take cases from 4th, 7th, and 10th Circuit of Appeals and keep on denying stays from other cases? That explains that with this court, they are showing their hands to public and lower court you must rule this way.. They are taking CASES from 6th Circuit of Appeals bad decision, not other pro ssm decisions,.. They didn't hold on these cases from 4th, 7th, and 10th

  • 41. Mistahtom  |  January 27, 2015 at 11:11 pm

    I did explain, you didn't comprehend my rationale for their crappy rulings.

  • 42. bythesea66  |  January 25, 2015 at 9:44 pm

    Sorry to disabuse your cynicism (which is not skepticism btw) but that is not likely at all and it;s silly to be needlessly negative about it. We do have to worry about a less than ideal but positive ruling that is more limited than we'd like, but their actions and the reality of the sitution pretty clearly indicate that they will not do what you suggest.

  • 43. flyerguy77  |  January 25, 2015 at 9:51 pm

    I agreed!!!!!!!! I believe that they wanted lower courts rule in one way with their actions back in October, but 6th Circuit ignored that memo, but 5th Circuit got memo As now I'm, seeing a pro decision 5 to4, 6 to 3, or 7-2 by their questions they wrote.. They didn't mentioned any "voters rights": or anything like.

  • 44. Mistahtom  |  January 27, 2015 at 11:09 pm

    We'll see what happens. But this SCOTUS is a bunch of slime balls (minus the 4 good justices)

  • 45. Tony MinasTirith  |  January 25, 2015 at 11:36 pm

    I hope the 11th issues a quick two word reply:

    Request Denied

  • 46. josejoram  |  January 26, 2015 at 4:25 am

    Technical opinions, please:

  • 47. montezuma58  |  January 26, 2015 at 4:37 am

    Equality Alabama (EA), Human Rights Campaign (HRC), The American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama (ACLU) and The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC):

    Birmingham, AL – – On Friday, January 23, 2015, Federal District Court Judge Callie Granade, ruled that Alabama’s marriage laws prohibiting marriage of same-sex couples violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
    Judge Granade’s order is immediate and applies statewide in Alabama. Absent a stay, Alabama Constitution Article I, 36.03 and Alabama Code 30-1-19, which prohibit same-sex marriage are no longer valid.

    The Alabama Probate Judges Association is a private organization whose legal advice is non- binding. Simply put, the non-binding legal opinion of the Probate Association cannot and does not preempt a Federal Order. Probate judges should comply with their constitutional obligations as declared by a federal court rather than the desires of the leaders of a private professional organization.

  • 48. montezuma58  |  January 26, 2015 at 4:44 am

    There is really little difference between the probate judges association's advice and the advice given out by the clerks association in florida. On a very base level the statements are technically true in that only the parties directly involved in the case are immediately bound by the judges order. But both ignore the underlying ruling that the laws are unconstitutional for everyone everywhere in the state, not just in a context unique to the parties in the case. The "advice" also ignores the relative ease with which officials still enforcing the law can be made party to the suit. So from a practical standpoint it doesn't really matter if the order directly applies to an official.

  • 49. Sagesse  |  January 26, 2015 at 5:01 am

    So the scenario now is that the state has two weeks to appeal to the 11th Circuit, presumably using stay arguments that are stronger than the ones they used with Judge Grenade, and stronger than the ones from Florida that the 11th found unpersuasive, and if that doesn't take, to appeal to SCOTUS and receive a ruling. Or, if the 11th grants a stay, the plaintiffs could appeal the stay to SCOTUS… now that could be interesting, with Thomas being the gatekeeper to SCOTUS.

  • 50. guitaristbl  |  January 26, 2015 at 5:44 am

    Hmmm..This should get interesting really soon. I am having my money on the 11th denying the stay and SCOTUS granting it pending resolution in Obergfell et al. v. Hodges et al. If SCOTUS denies the stay here as well, then they add to their responsibility the same-sex couples in Alabama as well on top of all the others that got married in all these states after Oct.6. And that's a great responsibility to take on, its families we are talking about.

  • 51. Rick55845  |  January 26, 2015 at 5:52 am

    No one can be sure what the 11th will do without knowing the composition of the panel that reviews the expected request for a stay from the State of Alabama defendants. But I can think of no reason why SCOTUS would grant a stay request after having consistently denied every one of them since October 6th. So if it makes it to SCOTUS, I very much doubt it will grant a stay.

  • 52. hopalongcassidy  |  January 26, 2015 at 6:11 am

    It actually wouldn't surprise (or please) me if the 11th were to grant a stay pending SC arguments/decision on some sort of "don't rock the boat so close to port" basis. We shall see.
    Not being negative, just thinking about possibilities, it's always better to be pleasantly surprised than vice versa.

  • 53. Zack12  |  January 26, 2015 at 6:12 am

    Indeed, the ballgame has changed now that SCOTUS has granted cert in the 6th circuit cases.
    I'm hoping they won't grant a stay but won't be shocked if they do.

  • 54. Decided_Voter  |  January 28, 2015 at 12:19 am

    Does anyone know how to find out the composition of the 11th's panel for stays? For example, the one who will decide on Alabama. I tried looking on their website but didn't see that info.

  • 55. hopalongcassidy  |  January 26, 2015 at 6:25 am

    It's really pretty frustrating that the judge having effectively dismantled all 4 prongs of the test for a stay felt constrained to issue it anyway…it probably was a legally intelligent thing to do but it sure is maddening that it needed to be.

  • 56. Zack12  |  January 26, 2015 at 6:49 am

    Oh I agree but on the other hand, if things do go our way this will help it not be a mess like Kansas.

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!