If Justice Kennedy Had Known A Christian Would Be Jailed Less Than 3 Months Later...

[Silhouette]

Well we don't really have to guess now about what Kennedy would say about Kim Davis being in jail for following her religious conscience.

From the actual June 15 "gay marriage mandate/Constitutional-revision" decision here are Kennedy's own words directly to the point:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons."
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

So if the 1st Amendment and a Christian being jailed for failing to play along with "gay marriage" comes before Kennedy next year, I think we can reasonably predict how Kennedy will lean on that question.... In fact, a Christian being jailed so soon after he wrote those words in the Opinion might even be seen by himself as contempt of Court...

You might find it that- but since the Supreme Court refused to hear her case- they don't agree with you...You history of correct predictions is 0.00%- so based upon your record- Kennedy will never agree with Ms. Davis...Kim Davis can hold to her religious beliefs that homosexuals should not marry- but as an elected official- she can no more deny homosexuals marriage licenses based upon her 'religious' beliefs than she can refuse to issue Jews marriages licences based upon her religious beliefs.

She refuses to have her name affixed to their "license". That's her right. Because if she did have her name affixed there, it would be the same as having it affixed to a permanent abode in the pit of fire. She can't be forced to promote homosexuality as normal within our culture. I'll stand by that and so will the 1st...So will Kennedy too, judging by what he said.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Well we don't really have to guess now about what Kennedy would say about Kim Davis being in jail for following her religious conscience.

And yet the SCOTUS denied the stay request of a government agent refusing to perform her duties.

So assuming that the 4 Justices that voted against SSCM (Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts) that means that at the very least the 5 other Justices voted to deny the stay. Kennedy would have been in that group.

If you think that Kennedy voted to issue the stay, then that means that either Alito, Scalia, Thomas, or Roberts voted to withhold the stay - which do you think it was?

>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Well we don't really have to guess now about what Kennedy would say about Kim Davis being in jail for following her religious conscience.

And yet the SCOTUS denied the stay request of a government agent refusing to perform her duties...So assuming that the 4 Justices that voted against SSCM (Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts) that means that at the very least the 5 other Justices voted to deny the stay. Kennedy would have been in that group....If you think that Kennedy voted to issue the stay, then that means that either Alito, Scalia, Thomas, or Roberts voted to withhold the stay - which do you think it was?

Did the stay-denial have merits or were none cited? Do you think this case won't make it to SCOTUS? And if it does, do you think that the attorneys for Kim Davis will neglect to bring up Kennedy's own words in June 2015's decision? And when they do bring up those words, how do you think Kennedy will walk them back?

 

[mdk]

Why isn't Sil gassing on about the results of this poll? Doesn't fit the narrative I suppose. I know how she takes poll results here so seriously. Too Funny.

 

[Silhouette]

Feel free to do so yourself. The only poll that matters is what Kennedy will say, since he is God Supreme in this country it seems.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The stay-denial had no merits.

The case will not make t to SCOTUS?

If it were, whether Kennedy's words from June 25 are used have no bearing on Kim's case.

Kennedy will say that they have no probative value in the Davis case.

That is, in fact, what he told the other justices when Davis' appeal reached the Court.

This is over.

 

[mdk]

Feel free to do so yourself. The only poll that matters is what Kennedy will say, since he is God Supreme in this country it seems.

Perhaps if you shed another sullen tear it will make the difference when it comes to gay getting married. I doubt it but there isn't any use in trying.

 

[Skylar]

Well we don't really have to guess now about what Kennedy would say about Kim Davis being in jail for following her religious conscience.

And yet the SCOTUS denied the stay request of a government agent refusing to perform her duties...So assuming that the 4 Justices that voted against SSCM (Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts) that means that at the very least the 5 other Justices voted to deny the stay. Kennedy would have been in that group....If you think that Kennedy voted to issue the stay, then that means that either Alito, Scalia, Thomas, or Roberts voted to withhold the stay - which do you think it was?

Did the stay-denial have merits or were none cited? Do you think this case won't make it to SCOTUS?

Nope. They've already rejected cert. Twice.

There's no constitutional issue for the court to address. You're arguing your imagination. Not the law. Kim Davis has rightly lost every federal court hearing she's ever had.

I'll give you a hint: its not because she's right.

 

[Silhouette]

There's no constitutional issue for the court to address. You're arguing your imagination. Not the law. Kim Davis has rightly lost every federal court hearing she's ever had.,.

1. The 1st Amendment IS a constitutional issue and

2. She has not had all the hearings she is entitled to yet...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There's no constitutional issue for the court to address. You're arguing your imagination. Not the law. Kim Davis has rightly lost every federal court hearing she's ever had.,.

1. The 1st Amendment IS a constitutional issue and

2. She has not had all the hearings she is entitled to yet...

Wrong.

The issue has nothing to do with the First Amendment, there are no Free Exercise Clause issues at stake. And Davis has been afforded full and comprehensive due process, up to and including the Supreme Court.

 

[Silhouette]

There's no constitutional issue for the court to address. You're arguing your imagination. Not the law. Kim Davis has rightly lost every federal court hearing she's ever had.,.

1. The 1st Amendment IS a constitutional issue and

2. She has not had all the hearings she is entitled to yet...

Wrong...The issue has nothing to do with the First Amendment, there are no Free Exercise Clause issues at stake. And Davis has been afforded full and comprehensive due process, up to and including the Supreme Court.

No, there can be a petition to the court to hear her case and only four Justices need approve that. Denial of services based on religious grounds, like a catholic hospital refusing to perform abortions, is in fact a Constitutional issue. Hobby Lobby paved the way. Religion cannot be required to cease if one holds a public office. That is patently absurd and a violation of the 1st.

As I've said before, it's going to be your cult's Johnny-come-lately PA laws vs the age-old 1st Amendment and the 9th Amendment affirming its power over PA laws. You would have to have a new Amendment added to the Constitution that says "all people must be forced to accomodate all behaviors" and even if you did that (good luck) it still wouldn't or couldn't water down the 1st Amendment because of what the 9th Amendment says..

The only hope you have is to declare the cult of LGBT an actual religion, and hope the Gov extends tax exempt status to you..

 

[2aguy]

Here's a question that came up on another thread which made me reflect a bit.

If Justice Kennedy had known in June of this year that before the leaves fell off the trees in the same year, that the LGBT cult would pressure a judge to jail a Christian for passively refusing to enable a "gay marriage"....would that have affected his vote?

Ostensibly, we can predict how that would've affected Ginsburg and Kagan's votes, since as the question was pending up to their Court of "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage", the two of them were openly presiding over states as The Supreme Federal Last Word by peforming gay weddings on public display. We can then extrapolate that if they are willing to violate the Constitution so flagrantly at that level that they would also "look away" as threats of jailing Christians for not playing along were bounced around in their presence.

But Kennedy, he's a different bloke. And also maybe Sotomayer and Breyer. But for the more senior and sensible one who at least has not displayed arrogant public bias while the case was pending (in violation of Massey Coal 2009), this topic is about Kennedy mainly. You can weigh in also on Sotomayor and Breyer too. But I think we're all 100% in agreement on Ginsburg and Kagan not changing their votes if they knew...


So, if Kennedy had a crystal ball and saw Kim Davis sitting in jail less than 3 months after he released the June Opinion, would he have voted differently?

Discuss.

No. He was all about gay marriage, over everything else.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Davis has no 1st Amendment issue, she has no cause for redress, and the issue is closed.

Sil's cult of anti-constitutional hate simply has no feet to carry it.

 

[Skylar]

There's no constitutional issue for the court to address. You're arguing your imagination. Not the law. Kim Davis has rightly lost every federal court hearing she's ever had.,.

1. The 1st Amendment IS a constitutional issue and

2. She has not had all the hearings she is entitled to yet...

Wrong...The issue has nothing to do with the First Amendment, there are no Free Exercise Clause issues at stake. And Davis has been afforded full and comprehensive due process, up to and including the Supreme Court.

No, there can be a petition to the court to hear her case and only four Justices need approve that.

And so far, no justices have approved it. Every petition to request a writ of certiorari by the court has been denied by the court. She's lost every federal ruling.

There's zero that indicates that the court wants to hear the case or that there are any constitutional issues to address. You're offering your feelings, your beliefs, your imagination as evidence.

And you're nobody. Your feelings, beliefs and imagination aren't legal evidence. Nor have any relevance to the law.

Which is why your record of predicting legal outcomes is perfectly wrong. The courts have never ruled in a fashion consistent with your beliefs. They've always contradicted you. Because you don't know what you're talking about. And confuse your desire.....for evidence.

They aren't the same thing.

 

[Silhouette]

"And so far...." Says Skylar. Yes... "and so far.."

No. He was all about gay marriage, over everything else.

Here's what he said about religious exemption though:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons." http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

 

[WorldWatcher]

Did the stay-denial have merits or were none cited?

Decided on the merits, her argument was without merit.

Just a reminder, the 6th Circuit is the court that upheld same-sex marriage bans resulting in Obergerfell reaching the SCOTUS.

No. 15-5880
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
APRIL MILLER, et al.,v. KIM DAVIS, in her individual and official capacity as Rowan County Clerk,
Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant Kim Davis appeals the August 12, 2015 preliminary injunction enjoining her, in her official capacity, “from applying her ‘no marriage licenses’ policy to future marriage license requests submitted by the Plaintiffs.” She moves for a stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal. The district court denied a similar motion for a stay pending appeal on August 17, 2015. The plaintiffs oppose the motion for a stay pending appeal. Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund (“Eagle Forum”) moves for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in support of the issuance of a stay pending appeal. We grant the motion to file the amicus brief, but deny the motion for a stay.

Davis “bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify” the exercise of discretion to grant a stay pending appeal. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433–34 (2009). Four factors guide our consideration of her motion for a stay: (1) whether Davis has a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether she will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a stay; (3) whether the requested injunctive relief will substantially injure other interested parties; and (4) where the public interest lies. Id. at 434; see also Ohio St. Conference of N.A.A.C.P. v. Husted, 769 F.3d 385, 387 (6th Cir. 2014); Serv. Emps. Int’l Union Local 1 v. Husted, 698 F.3d 341, 343 (6th Cir. 2012). “The first two factors of the traditional standard are the most critical.” Nken, 556 U.S. at 434. And the four “factors are not prerequisites that must be met, but are interrelated considerations that must be balanced together.” Husted, 698 F.3d at 343 (internal quotation marks omitted).

As the County Clerk for Rowan County, Kentucky, Davis’s official duties include the issuance of marriage licenses. In response to the Supreme Court’s holding in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2607 (2015), that a state is not permitted “to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex,” Davis unilaterally decided that her office would no longer issue any marriage licenses. According to Davis, the issuance of licenses to same-sex marriage couples infringes on her rights under the United States and Kentucky Constitutions as well as the Kentucky Freedom Restoration Act, KY. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 446.350. The Rowan County Clerk’s office has since refused to issue marriage licenses to the plaintiffs, and this action ensued.

The request for a stay pending appeal relates solely to an injunction against Davis in her official capacity. The injunction operates not against Davis personally, but against the holder of her office of Rowan County Clerk. In light of the binding holding of Obergefell, it cannot be defensibly argued that the holder of the Rowan County Clerk’s office, apart from who personally occupies that office, may decline to act in conformity with the United States Constitution as interpreted by a dispositive holding of the United States Supreme Court. There is thus little or no likelihood that the Clerk in her official capacity will prevail on appeal. Cf. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 421 (2006); Evans-Marshall v. Bd. of Educ. of Tipp City Exempted Vill. School Dist., 624 F.3d 332, 338 (6th Cir. 2010) (where a public employee’s speech is made pursuant to his duties, “the relevant speaker [is] the government entity, not the individual”). Eagle Forum’s motion for leave to file a brief in support of the motion for stay as amicus curiae is GRANTED. Davis’s motion for a stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal is DENIED.​

Do you think this case won't make it to SCOTUS?

It's already been to the SCOTUS, they denied the stay also.

And if it does, do you think that the attorneys for Kim Davis will neglect to bring up Kennedy's own words in June 2015's decision?

It's already been to the SCOTUS, they denied the stay also.

Kennedy did not say that an agent of the government could not only refuse to do their jobs but order their subordinates not to do their jobs either.

So assuming that the 4 Justices that voted against SSCM (Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts) that means that at the very least the 5 other Justices voted to deny the stay. Kennedy would have been in that group.

And when they do bring up those words, how do you think Kennedy will walk them back?

There is nothing to "walk-back".


>>>>

 

[Skylar]

Davis has no 1st Amendment issue, she has no cause for redress, and the issue is closed.

Sil's cult of anti-constitutional hate simply has no feet to carry it.

The only 1st amendment issue that exists is Davis' violation of the Establishment Clause. Using state authority to force people to obey her religion.

Thankfully, the lower courts took care of that.

 

[2aguy]

No. He was all about gay marriage, over everything else.

Here's what he said about religious exemption though:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons." http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Still....when the rubber meets the gay road.....I think he would have still voted for it.

 

[Skylar]

"And so far...." Says Skylar. Yes... "and so far.."

No. He was all about gay marriage, over everything else.

Here's what he said about religious exemption though:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons." http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Of course I said so far. Unlike you, I can only address what's actually happened. And so far, they've rejected every request for cert that Kim has made. Kim has lost every court case, every appeal, at every level, on every argument she's made.

Like you, her failure has been perfect.

 

[Skylar]

No. He was all about gay marriage, over everything else.

Here's what he said about religious exemption though:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons." http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Still....when the rubber meets the gay road.....I think he would have still voted for it.

Of course he would have. As christians are jailed alll the time when they break the law. They're held in contempt of court all the time when they violate court orders. There's nothing to indicate that Kim Davis is any different. Being Christian doesn't make you exempt from the law.

Its about a clerk that refuses to do her job. And Scalia laid it out nicely on what should happen if you can't do your job:

[W]hile my views on the morality of the death penalty have nothing to do with how I vote as a judge, they have a lot to do with whether I can or should be a judge at all. To put the point in the blunt terms employed by Justice Harold Blackmun towards the end of his career on the bench, when he announced that he would henceforth vote (as Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall had previously done) to overturn all death sentences, when I sit on a Court that reviews and affirms capital convictions, I am part of “the machinery of death.” My vote, when joined with at least four others, is, in most cases, the last step that permits an execution to proceed. I could not take part in that process if I believed what was being done to be immoral. . . .

n my view the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation, rather than simply ignoring duly enacted, constitutional laws and sabotaging death penalty cases. He has, after all, taken an oath to apply the laws and has been given no power to supplant them with rules of his own. Of course if he feels strongly enough he can go beyond mere resignation and lead a political campaign to abolish the death penalty” and if that fails, lead a revolution. But rewrite the laws he cannot do.

Justice Scalia explained why Kim Davis should issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples or find a new job

And Scalia is Davis' most sympathetic audience. Its highly unlikely that Kennedy is going to be more receptive.