On the redefinition of marriage in Alabama via federal district court order: "[T]his is not federal intervention. It's not federal intervention at all."

Instead of a torrent of criticism taking the Supreme Court to task for what Justice Thomas properly describes as the Court's "indecorous" pretension about the proper way to discharge their Article III responsibilities, we see a flurry of critical energy directed to Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore. A New York Times headline, for example, asserts "Alabama Judge Defies Gay Marriage Law." Putting aside the question of what "gay marriage law" Chief Justice Moore is defying, the legal issues here come down to the scope of the federal district court's judgment and order and the scope of Chief Justice Moore's administrative authority with respect to the state judiciary. Howard Wasserman has previously discussed these issues and others in multiple posts at Prawfsblawg: "Roy Moore Gets it Right" (in his earlier memorandum, that is); "Queued up"; "More from Alabama"; "Sue Moore?" It would be nice if sometime down the road lawyers could take a look back and sort this all out once the legal grandstanding on all sides settles down. For now, though, I thought I'd pass along a peculiarly unassertive assertion by a lawyer for the prevailing parties in the Alabama federal litigation:

“Unfortunately, sometimes it makes for very good politics here to be seen as opposing federal intervention, whether it’s from a court or a federal agency,” said David G. Kennedy, who represents two women involved in a case that prompted Judge Granade’s decision. “The situation here is that this is not federal intervention. It’s not federal intervention at all. What it is, is a federal court declaring what same-sex couples’ rights are under the federal Constitution.”

(Source: Last paragraph of NYTimes story linked above)