Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court

[jon_berzerk]

Allowing her to render policy based on religious dogma

what if it wasnt because of "religious dogma"

would it be ok if she was just an asshole

In this instance, she is the government, and the government cannot deny legal rights for religious reasons. I am good with that as I don't want someone of another faith denying me my drvers license because it is against their religion for women to drive.

Government gets away with being an asshole all the time.

"Sorry, we are not issuing permits at this time. No, not then either. Keep checking back."

so as long as they are assholes it is okay then

is that what you are saying

No, it is not. Government needs to be checked. It is extremely difficult to sue the Fed to correct overreach or injustice, so their powers should be limited.

I think someone with standing (a victim) has finally filed suit against a sanctuary city.

there should be plenty of them

an illegal allowed to stay in Minnesota some time back

ran head on into a school bus killing four children

it happens over and over again

Illegal Immigrant Charged With Homicide in Deadly Minnesota School Bus Crash | Fox News

States do not have the authority to enforce federal laws.

liar

Federal Law Regarding State and Local Police Enforcement of Immigration Laws Legislative provisions relating to civil immigration law enforcement by state and local police were included in two 1996 laws, the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). AEDPA authorized state and local police to arrest and detain persons who are unlawfully present in the United States after being deported and who have “previously been convicted of a felony in the United States.” These persons would be deportable based on their criminal behavior, and their reentry into the U.S. is itself an immigration crime.


State and Local Laws With the failure of Congress to enact immigration reforms, states and localities are enacting their own laws to deal with illegal immigration. In 2007 alone, more than 1,400 pieces of legislation had been introduced by July in the 50 state legislatures Many more have been introduced at the local level as well. Much of the legislation targeting undocumented workers is punitive, but in 2006, about a third of the local ordinances were pro-immigrant. Of the 170 laws that had been enacted in the states, 11 concerned local law enforcement. Demands to have local police enforce immigration laws have pitted politicians against the police, who are stuck with the public safety fallout of having a segment of the community afraid to approach them to report crimes or serve as witnesses. In many of the jurisdictions that have adopted confidentiality policies, such policies have

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/EnforcementbyStateandLocalPolice-08-07.pdf

Express Authorization for State and Local Officers to Enforce Federal Immigration Law The enforcement of federal immigration law by state and local police is most clearly permissible when Congress has evidenced intent to authorize such activity.15 In exercising its power to


https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R41423.pdf

 

[Vandalshandle]

Jon,
Sorry, but you lost me at, "liar". After that, I didn't read anymore. I suggest that you send your post to the Supreme Court, who will, no doubt, see the manifest wisdom of your opinion, and instantly find all of these sanctuary cities in Contempt of Court...

 

[Tresha91203]

In this instance, she is the government, and the government cannot deny legal rights for religious reasons. I am good with that as I don't want someone of another faith denying me my drvers license because it is against their religion for women to drive.

Government gets away with being an asshole all the time.

"Sorry, we are not issuing permits at this time. No, not then either. Keep checking back."

so as long as they are assholes it is okay then

is that what you are saying

No, it is not. Government needs to be checked. It is extremely difficult to sue the Fed to correct overreach or injustice, so their powers should be limited.

I think someone with standing (a victim) has finally filed suit against a sanctuary city.

how about the city and state governments that break immigration laws is that cool

There are no city or state immigration laws. Only federal immigration laws.

which certain cities and states are not adhering to

Which is why we dont want individual to be able to make those decisions in their govt capacity. Government needs to follow the laws the people made. That goes for sanctuary cities and the CoC. Laws are supposed to come from the people through their congressmen. Not enforcing them is a big FU to us, the people.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Jon,
Sorry, but you lost me at, "liar". After that, I didn't read anymore. I suggest that you send your post to the Supreme Court, who will, no doubt, see the manifest wisdom of your opinion, and instantly find all of these sanctuary cities in Contempt of Court...

i dont frikking care if you read it or not others did

i didnt expect that you would change your mind

 

[Vandalshandle]

Jon,
Sorry, but you lost me at, "liar". After that, I didn't read anymore. I suggest that you send your post to the Supreme Court, who will, no doubt, see the manifest wisdom of your opinion, and instantly find all of these sanctuary cities in Contempt of Court...

i dont frikking care if you read it or not others did

i didnt expect that you would change your mind

Ah, but it is not my mind that matters, is it? It is the Supreme Court that matters, and they say that you are on the losing side. In fact, The republicans tried to pass a law penalizing cities for not enforcing federal laws, and Obama, rightly, said that he would veto it. Do you ever get tired of being on the losing side?

 

[Faun]

There is no 97% against 3%. The majority of this country support same sex marriage, and have for at least 5 years. Each year, for the past 5 years, support for same sex marriage has increased. I'm sorry, but you are delusional...

We'll see who is kidding themselves, after January 20, 2017.

As I said, you are on far shakier ground than you will allow yourself to believe.

Smug, arrogance complacency, as the inevitable and righteous Reaction grows just off your scope.

Delicious.

...And no, people don't become bigots once they've had children.

It is not bigotry to call-out and shun sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality).

Nobody wants their children and grandchildren exposed to such filth.

Who knows what magic you think will occur on that date? Even if Republicans were to win the White House and both chambers of the Congress, they can't reverse a U.S.S.C. ruling. They would have to amend the Constitution and there isn't enough support nationally for that to happen. You rightwingnuts live in a fantasy world.

After January 20, 2017, there will be a Republican-controlled Senate, House and Oval Office.

One or more of the five SCOTUS justices who served-up that (bare) majority decision can probably be swayed to take a second look at it.

Or one or more justices step-down or retire or die, and are replaced by more Conservative-leaning replacement(s), during the upcoming Conservative regime.

Once (either through 'sway-ing' or 'replacement') the balance has been tipped...

All it takes is a little imagination, a fresh submission to the Court, and a saner, more righteous outcome, and the earlier decision is overturned.

No Constitutional Amendment required.

Supreme Court justices aren't "swayed" to "take second look" at cases. A new case would have to be brought to their court. Who do your delusions tell you is going to file such a suit and upon what ground would it be based?

Same-sex marriage is here to stay. Deal with it already.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is no 97% against 3%. The majority of this country support same sex marriage, and have for at least 5 years. Each year, for the past 5 years, support for same sex marriage has increased. I'm sorry, but you are delusional...

We'll see who is kidding themselves, after January 20, 2017.

As I said, you are on far shakier ground than you will allow yourself to believe.

Smug, arrogance complacency, as the inevitable and righteous Reaction grows just off your scope.

Delicious.

...And no, people don't become bigots once they've had children.

It is not bigotry to call-out and shun sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality).

Nobody wants their children and grandchildren exposed to such filth.

Who knows what magic you think will occur on that date? Even if Republicans were to win the White House and both chambers of the Congress, they can't reverse a U.S.S.C. ruling. They would have to amend the Constitution and there isn't enough support nationally for that to happen. You rightwingnuts live in a fantasy world.

After January 20, 2017, there will be a Republican-controlled Senate, House and Oval Office.

One or more of the five SCOTUS justices who served-up that (bare) majority decision can probably be swayed to take a second look at it.

Or one or more justices step-down or retire or die, and are replaced by more Conservative-leaning replacement(s), during the upcoming Conservative regime.

Once (either through 'sway-ing' or 'replacement') the balance has been tipped...

All it takes is a little imagination, a fresh submission to the Court, and a saner, more righteous outcome, and the earlier decision is overturned.

No Constitutional Amendment required.

Supreme Court justices aren't "swayed" to "take second look" at cases. A new case would have to be brought to their court. Who do your delusions tell you is going to file such a suit and upon what ground would it be based?

Same-sex marriage is here to stay. Deal with it already.

Correct.

The Supreme Court is the final appellate Court of the Federal judiciary; it for the most part addresses conflicts among the lower Federal courts and state supreme courts.

A given jurisdiction would need to enact and enforce a measure intended to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, or begin enforcing such a measure already in existence.

The adversely effected couples would then file suit in Federal court to seek relief, and that court, per Obergefell, would invalidate that measure hostile to gay Americans.

The jurisdiction would then appeal the lower court's decision to the appropriate appellate court which would in turn uphold the lower court's ruling – again, per Obergefell.

And there it would end.

Even if the Supreme Court were to be packed with seven justices hostile to the due process rights and equal protection rights of gay Americans, there would be nothing they could do about Obergefell unless states start denying same-sex couples access to marriage law, which isn't going to happen.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

There is no 97% against 3%. The majority of this country support same sex marriage, and have for at least 5 years. Each year, for the past 5 years, support for same sex marriage has increased. I'm sorry, but you are delusional...

We'll see who is kidding themselves, after January 20, 2017.

As I said, you are on far shakier ground than you will allow yourself to believe.

Smug, arrogance complacency, as the inevitable and righteous Reaction grows just off your scope.

Delicious.

...And no, people don't become bigots once they've had children.

It is not bigotry to call-out and shun sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality).

Nobody wants their children and grandchildren exposed to such filth.

Who knows what magic you think will occur on that date? Even if Republicans were to win the White House and both chambers of the Congress, they can't reverse a U.S.S.C. ruling. They would have to amend the Constitution and there isn't enough support nationally for that to happen. You rightwingnuts live in a fantasy world.

After January 20, 2017, there will be a Republican-controlled Senate, House and Oval Office.

One or more of the five SCOTUS justices who served-up that (bare) majority decision can probably be swayed to take a second look at it.

Or one or more justices step-down or retire or die, and are replaced by more Conservative-leaning replacement(s), during the upcoming Conservative regime.

Once (either through 'sway-ing' or 'replacement') the balance has been tipped...

All it takes is a little imagination, a fresh submission to the Court, and a saner, more righteous outcome, and the earlier decision is overturned.

No Constitutional Amendment required.

Why is that so important to you?

How would it make this country a better place for anyone?

Do you also support the re-criminalizing of homosexuality ? Would a conservative court do that??

 

[jon_berzerk]

Jon,
Sorry, but you lost me at, "liar". After that, I didn't read anymore. I suggest that you send your post to the Supreme Court, who will, no doubt, see the manifest wisdom of your opinion, and instantly find all of these sanctuary cities in Contempt of Court...

i dont frikking care if you read it or not others did

i didnt expect that you would change your mind

Ah, but it is not my mind that matters, is it? It is the Supreme Court that matters, and they say that you are on the losing side. In fact, The republicans tried to pass a law penalizing cities for not enforcing federal laws, and Obama, rightly, said that he would veto it. Do you ever get tired of being on the losing side?

so the SC is always right is that where you are at

 

[Carla_Danger]

Jon,
Sorry, but you lost me at, "liar". After that, I didn't read anymore. I suggest that you send your post to the Supreme Court, who will, no doubt, see the manifest wisdom of your opinion, and instantly find all of these sanctuary cities in Contempt of Court...

i dont frikking care if you read it or not others did

i didnt expect that you would change your mind

Ah, but it is not my mind that matters, is it? It is the Supreme Court that matters, and they say that you are on the losing side. In fact, The republicans tried to pass a law penalizing cities for not enforcing federal laws, and Obama, rightly, said that he would veto it. Do you ever get tired of being on the losing side?

so the SC is always right is that where you are at

In this case, they are.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Jon,
Sorry, but you lost me at, "liar". After that, I didn't read anymore. I suggest that you send your post to the Supreme Court, who will, no doubt, see the manifest wisdom of your opinion, and instantly find all of these sanctuary cities in Contempt of Court...

i dont frikking care if you read it or not others did

i didnt expect that you would change your mind

Ah, but it is not my mind that matters, is it? It is the Supreme Court that matters, and they say that you are on the losing side. In fact, The republicans tried to pass a law penalizing cities for not enforcing federal laws, and Obama, rightly, said that he would veto it. Do you ever get tired of being on the losing side?

so the SC is always right is that where you are at

In this case, they are.

--LOL@U

 

[Kondor3]

...Supreme Court justices aren't "swayed" to "take second look" at cases. A new case would have to be brought to their court...

Really? No shit, buckwheat. Go back and look at the entire sequence, and you'll see that that's a precursor step, to submitting a case again. Missed that, didja?

...Who do your delusions tell you is going to file such a suit and upon what ground would it be based?...

How the hell should I know? With an entire nation of legal minds to choose from, and backed with conservative money, somebody or another will conjure one up, soon enough.

...Same-sex marriage is here to stay. Deal with it already.

Feel free to continue believing that.

 

[Faun]

...Supreme Court justices aren't "swayed" to "take second look" at cases. A new case would have to be brought to their court...

Really? No shit, buckwheat. Go back and look at the entire sequence, and you'll see that that's a precursor step, to submitting a case again. Missed that, didja?

...Who do your delusions tell you is going to file such a suit and upon what ground would it be based?...

How the hell should I know? With an entire nation of legal minds to choose from, and backed with conservative money, somebody or another will conjure on up, soon enough.

...Same-sex marriage is here to stay. Deal with it already.

Feel free to continue believing that.

You can't even dream up a case that could overturn Obergefell, but you still delude yourself into believing it's going to happen



Yeah, sure. From your keyboard to G-d's monitor, right?

 

[Carla_Danger]

Jon,
Sorry, but you lost me at, "liar". After that, I didn't read anymore. I suggest that you send your post to the Supreme Court, who will, no doubt, see the manifest wisdom of your opinion, and instantly find all of these sanctuary cities in Contempt of Court...

i dont frikking care if you read it or not others did

i didnt expect that you would change your mind

Ah, but it is not my mind that matters, is it? It is the Supreme Court that matters, and they say that you are on the losing side. In fact, The republicans tried to pass a law penalizing cities for not enforcing federal laws, and Obama, rightly, said that he would veto it. Do you ever get tired of being on the losing side?

so the SC is always right is that where you are at

In this case, they are.

--LOL@U

SC, LOL, right back at you!

 

[jon_berzerk]

i dont frikking care if you read it or not others did

i didnt expect that you would change your mind

Ah, but it is not my mind that matters, is it? It is the Supreme Court that matters, and they say that you are on the losing side. In fact, The republicans tried to pass a law penalizing cities for not enforcing federal laws, and Obama, rightly, said that he would veto it. Do you ever get tired of being on the losing side?

so the SC is always right is that where you are at

In this case, they are.

--LOL@U

SC, LOL, right back at you!

yeah ok

--LOL

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Kondor3]

...You can't even dream up a case that could overturn Obergefell, but you still delude yourself into believing it's going to happen Yeah, sure. From your keyboard to G-d's monitor, right?

I'm not well-versed in Constitutional Law, and don't pretend otherwise, but you don't have to be a Constitutional scholar, nor even a lawyer, to understand and appreciate the highly charged political situation, and to appreciate the old maxim: "Where there's a will, there's a way."

What will it take?

A changed court composition, in this context; either one of the five, willing to revisit their decision, or a replacement. And, a test case of some kind that warrants another review; either of the original decision or requiring a new ruling sufficiently distinctive to conduct that review, while sufficiently similar to overturn the original, when finalized.

The details of that case? Hell, I don't know. Haven't got a clue. And I'm happy to admit it, without reservation. Skilled and imaginative and motivated lawyers who are so inclined, would be far better equipped to answer that question than an amateur hack like myself.

But even an amateur hack can confidently observe that unpopular laws - and judicial rulings - are oftentimes hammered-at, year after year, and even decade after decade, until a weak-spot in the armor is detected, and then quickly exploited. It's more about politics than law, with law taking a back seat. Lord knows, we've seen that often enough, eh?

Is it going to happen? I dunno. But the Smart Vegas Money is on it being tried - repeatedly - until the proper 'angle' is stumbled upon.

There is a harsh Reaction coming against this recent ruling, as Conservatives prepare to take back the reins of power.

And, if you thought that Conservatives, once in power, were all hot-and-bothered about Abortion - you ain't seen nuthin' yet.

That's my prediction, and I'm sticking to it.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Jon,
Sorry, but you lost me at, "liar". After that, I didn't read anymore. I suggest that you send your post to the Supreme Court, who will, no doubt, see the manifest wisdom of your opinion, and instantly find all of these sanctuary cities in Contempt of Court...

i dont frikking care if you read it or not others did

i didnt expect that you would change your mind

Ah, but it is not my mind that matters, is it? It is the Supreme Court that matters, and they say that you are on the losing side. In fact, The republicans tried to pass a law penalizing cities for not enforcing federal laws, and Obama, rightly, said that he would veto it. Do you ever get tired of being on the losing side?

so the SC is always right is that where you are at

I used to work for the insurance commissioner of a certain state. A question came up, regarding an issue in which it was not clear as to how the commissioner should rule. While it was clear that it would be in the best interest of the citizens, she was not sure that she had the clear cut authority to rule. The two of us visited with an attorney for the state, and asked him. His answer was concise. He said, and I quote, "The Insurance Commissioner may sometimes be right, or may sometimes be wrong, but she is always the Insurance Commissioner."

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

...You can't even dream up a case that could overturn Obergefell, but you still delude yourself into believing it's going to happen Yeah, sure. From your keyboard to G-d's monitor, right?

I'm not well-versed in Constitutional Law, and don't pretend otherwise, but you don't have to be a Constitutional scholar, nor even a lawyer, to understand and appreciate the highly charged political situation, and to appreciate the old maxim: "Where there's a will, there's a way."

What will it take?

A changed court composition, in this context; either one of the five, willing to revisit their decision, or a replacement. And, a test case of some kind that warrants another review; either of the original decision or requiring a new ruling sufficiently distinctive to conduct that review, while sufficiently similar to overturn the original, when finalized.

The details of that case? Hell, I don't know. Haven't got a clue. And I'm happy to admit it, without reservation. Skilled and imaginative and motivated lawyers who are so inclined, would be far better equipped to answer that question than an amateur hack like myself.

But even an amateur hack can confidently observe that unpopular laws - and judicial rulings - are oftentimes hammered-at, year after year, and even decade after decade, until a weak-spot in the armor is detected, and then quickly exploited. It's more about politics than law, with law taking a back seat. Lord knows, we've seen that often enough, eh?

Is it going to happen? I dunno. But the Smart Vegas Money is on it being tried - repeatedly - until the proper 'angle' is stumbled upon.

There is a harsh Reaction coming against this recent ruling, as Conservatives prepare to take back the reins of power.

And, if you thought that Conservatives, once in power, were all hot-and-bothered about Abortion - you ain't seen nuthin' yet.

That's my prediction, and I'm sticking to it.

Nothing of substance to see here folks......move along now.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

...Supreme Court justices aren't "swayed" to "take second look" at cases. A new case would have to be brought to their court...

Really? No shit, buckwheat. Go back and look at the entire sequence, and you'll see that that's a precursor step, to submitting a case again. Missed that, didja?

...Who do your delusions tell you is going to file such a suit and upon what ground would it be based?...

How the hell should I know? With an entire nation of legal minds to choose from, and backed with conservative money, somebody or another will conjure one up, soon enough.

...Same-sex marriage is here to stay. Deal with it already.

Feel free to continue believing that.

Translation....I don't know squat but I'm going to continue to bloviate and blather about what I desperately want to have happen anyway