Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court

[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

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."

until replaced

 

[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."

until replaced

Well, until that happens, Kim can obey the law, or rot in jail, just like everybody else. It is her choice. I'm just glad that none of my taxes are paying her salary while she sits there reading her Bible.

 

[Debra K]

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??

If our goal in this country is to satisfy conservatives' animus toward liberty and justice for all, why should a conservative court stop at rolling back progress to pre-Obergefell days? Why not roll things back to the nineteenth century? let them enforce "traditional marriage" when a woman's place was in the home; when women were treated as incompetents (the same as children and mentally disabled persons) and had no right to vote, when negros still worked in the cotton fields for their masters, and when homosexuality was a crime. Would the conservatives be happy then?

 

[Kondor3]

...If our goal in this country is to satisfy conservatives' animus toward liberty and justice for all...

You mistake Conservative -style hostility to sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality) with animus towards liberty and justice for all.

...why should a conservative court stop at rolling back progress to pre-Obergefell days?...

Irrelevant melodrama.

 

[Kondor3]

Well, until that happens, Kim can obey the law, or rot in jail, just like everybody else. It is her choice. I'm just glad that none of my taxes are paying her salary while she sits there reading her Bible.

Civil Disobedience to immoral laws (and rulings) is a time-honored tradition, worldwide.

 

[Debra K]

...If our goal in this country is to satisfy conservatives' animus toward liberty and justice for all...

You mistake Conservative -style hostility to sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality) with animus towards liberty and justice for all.

...why should a conservative court stop at rolling back progress to pre-Obergefell days?...

Irrelevant melodrama.

This entire subject matter is centered on conservatives' melodrama, i.e., the sky is falling because liberty has yet again been extended to another class of people who were historically oppressed.

 

[Kondor3]

...liberty has yet again been extended...

You confuse Liberty with the empowering and legitimizing and mainstreaming of licentiousness and deviancy and degeneracy and perversion (homosexuality).

 

[WorldWatcher]

Dumb logic 101

A government employee treating citizens equally under the law by issuing them a marriage license...

Is equal to Nazi's shooting, gassing, and burning Jews.




And I'm not even a "liberal" and I can see the failure.


>>>>

 

[Kondor3]

Dumb logic 101

A government employee treating citizens equally under the law by issuing them a marriage license...

Is equal to Nazi's shooting, gassing, and burning Jews.




And I'm not even a "liberal" and I can see the failure.


>>>>

The sound-byte effectively conveys the equivalency on the macro-level, of abandoning morals.

The sound-byte fails, miserably, in resorting to melodramatics and overplaying its hand, by citing this example.

Just as pro-Gay advocates injure themselves with melodramatic phrases like Christian Sharia and Christian Taliban...

So to, do anti-Gay advocates inure themselves, by playing the Drama Queen, in overdoing it, with examples like this...

They chose a visceral example - Nazi genocide - that disgusts people of goodwill all across the political and issue-specific spectrum.

Dumb.

 

[Silhouette]

They are a bit like nazis, yes.

 

[Silhouette]

Well, until that happens, Kim can obey the law, or rot in jail, just like everybody else. It is her choice. I'm just glad that none of my taxes are paying her salary while she sits there reading her Bible.

I'm trying to think of an example where someone was jailed for hurting someone else's feelings? Gays aren't a race of people. They are just people doing something different than others sexually. So when a woman objects to their behaviors, it may hurt their feelings, but behaviors don't have legal protections like race. So this woman sits in jail under a mistaken premise. Of which she will sue and win her job back and her right to passively object ot participate in the gay sex cult hijacking American culture without its permission..

 

[Debra K]

...liberty has yet again been extended...

You confuse Liberty with the empowering and legitimizing and mainstreaming of licentiousness and deviancy degeneracy and perversion (homosexuality).

Your mindset is no different than the mindset of narrow-minded persons in the past who believed it was deviant and a perversion of God's law for a woman to be licensed to practice law. In 1872, Justice Bradley wrote the following:

Man is, or should be, woman's protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life. The Constitution of the family organization, which is founded in the divine ordinance as well as in the nature of things, indicates the domestic sphere as that which properly belongs to the domain and functions of womanhood. The harmony, not to say identity, of interest and views which belong, or should belong, to the family institution is repugnant to the idea of a woman adopting a distinct and independent career from that of her husband. So firmly fixed was this sentiment in the founders of the common law that it became a maxim of that system of jurisprudence that a woman had no legal existence separate from her husband, who was regarded as her head and representative in the social state, and, notwithstanding some recent modifications of this civil status, many of the special rules of law flowing from and dependent upon this cardinal principle still exist in full force in most states. One of these is that a married woman is incapable, without her husband's consent, of making contracts which shall be binding on her or him. This very incapacity was one circumstance which the Supreme Court of Illinois deemed important in rendering a married woman incompetent fully to perform the duties and trusts that belong to the office of an attorney and counselor.

It is true that many women are unmarried and not affected by any of the duties, complications, and incapacities arising out of the married state, but these are exceptions to the general rule. The paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator. And the rules of civil society must be adapted to the general constitution of things, and cannot be based upon exceptional cases.

Source: Bradwell v. The State 83 U.S. 130 (1872)

As you can see from the above passage from an old case, the institution of marriage has been undergoing modifications for a very long time as the people adapted to more enlightened notions of liberty and justice for all. In other words, progress in this country is not embracing "perversion" as you claim. Oppressed people from every generation have fought for liberty and equal rights under the law, and our country has moved forward. As we progress as a society, we are forever reminded of this basic principle:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

Source: LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'm trying to think of an example where someone was jailed for hurting someone else's feelings? Gays aren't a race of people. They are just people doing something different than others sexually. So when a woman objects to their behaviors, it may hurt their feelings, but behaviors don't have legal protections like race. So this woman sits in jail under a mistaken premise. Of which she will sue and win her job back and her right to passively object ot participate in the gay sex cult hijacking American culture without its permission..

1. She wasn't jailed for hurting someone's feelings, she was jailed for refusing a court order to do her job as a government agent.

2. She hasn't been fired. She is still the County Clerk and draws her paycheck.

3. She didn't "passively object" she actively refused to do her duty and ordered her Deputy Clerks not to do theirs.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

1. She wasn't jailed for hurting someone's feelings, she was jailed for refusing a court order to do her job as a government agent.

2. She hasn't been fired. She is still the County Clerk and draws her paycheck.

3. She didn't "passively object" she actively refused to do her duty and ordered her Deputy Clerks not to do theirs.

Damn straight she hasn't been fired. Employers wouldn't dare strip someone of their civil rights and risk such a lawsuit.

A court order cannot force someone to abdicate strong religious edicts in favor of another cult. The "Law" is in error and as you may have noticed, people are civilly rebelling against it. And well they should. I can't think of a recent point in history where a such a blatant coup was attempted on self-governance in the US.

Behaviors cannot "legally" force a religious person to play along. So the "law" is in error and must be disobeyed. It wasn't arrived at by a legitimate legal process prescribed by the US Constitution, for many reasons. Two of which are Ginsburg and Kagan conspicuously presiding over and "blessing" (as federal entities charged with the very last leg of unbiased justice) gay marriages while the question of "should they receive the federal blessing" was making its way up to them on appeal.

 

[J.E.D]

The people of this community should punish the ones directly responsible. The gay couples themselves should get some community involvement.

True. The RW never can seem to round up vigilantes when they really need them.....

Somebody get Clive Bundy on the phone.

Real vigilantes work quite differently. However, the law has failed. The only thing left is covert vigilanteism.

You seem to be advocating for violence against gay people because you lost in the courts. You're as dangerous as ISIS, you psycho bitch. I expect to be seeing you on the news very soon. Hopefully, you're taken out before you harm others.

 

[Flopper]

I stand corrected the deputy can sign the license. However, according to the news report those handed out on Friday didn’t have any signature which does make them invalid.

Jailed Kentucky clerk says issued marriage licenses to gay couples void

(Good show.)

Ms. Davis's own marriage license from 2009 doesn't have a signature either.


>>>>

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

You do realize what a very small percentage of undocumented immigrants have been previously deported and who have “previously been convicted of a felony in the United States and who returned and been arrested. The vast majority of "sanctuary" cities actually do cooperate with ICE when they arrest undocumented immigrants on felony charges. What they do not do is spend local tax payer dollars arresting and detaining people they suspect may be illegal aliens. That is not their job.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Well, until that happens, Kim can obey the law, or rot in jail, just like everybody else. It is her choice. I'm just glad that none of my taxes are paying her salary while she sits there reading her Bible.

Civil Disobedience to immoral laws (and rulings) is a time-honored tradition, worldwide.

Well, then, by all means, put a statue of her next to your church parking lot!

 

[Vandalshandle]

Well, until that happens, Kim can obey the law, or rot in jail, just like everybody else. It is her choice. I'm just glad that none of my taxes are paying her salary while she sits there reading her Bible.

I'm trying to think of an example where someone was jailed for hurting someone else's feelings? Gays aren't a race of people. They are just people doing something different than others sexually. So when a woman objects to their behaviors, it may hurt their feelings, but behaviors don't have legal protections like race. So this woman sits in jail under a mistaken premise. Of which she will sue and win her job back and her right to passively object ot participate in the gay sex cult hijacking American culture without its permission..

Not even worthy of a rebuttal......

 

[Flopper]

1. She wasn't jailed for hurting someone's feelings, she was jailed for refusing a court order to do her job as a government agent.

2. She hasn't been fired. She is still the County Clerk and draws her paycheck.

3. She didn't "passively object" she actively refused to do her duty and ordered her Deputy Clerks not to do theirs.

Damn straight she hasn't been fired. Employers wouldn't dare strip someone of their civil rights and risk such a lawsuit.

A court order cannot force someone to abdicate strong religious edicts in favor of another cult. The "Law" is in error and as you may have noticed, people are civilly rebelling against it. And well they should. I can't think of a recent point in history where a such a blatant coup was attempted on self-governance in the US.

Behaviors cannot "legally" force a religious person to play along. So the "law" is in error and must be disobeyed. It wasn't arrived at by a legitimate legal process prescribed by the US Constitution, for many reasons. Two of which are Ginsburg and Kagan conspicuously presiding over and "blessing" (as federal entities charged with the very last leg of unbiased justice) gay marriages while the question of "should they receive the federal blessing" was making its way up to them on appeal.

The point is she knowingly disobeyed a federal court order and she has made it quite clear that she will continue to do. The court had no other option but to jail her. People simply can't be allowed to violate the law because they believe it is contrary to God's law.

 

[Asclepias]

Well, until that happens, Kim can obey the law, or rot in jail, just like everybody else. It is her choice. I'm just glad that none of my taxes are paying her salary while she sits there reading her Bible.

Civil Disobedience to immoral laws (and rulings) is a time-honored tradition, worldwide.

Getting put in jail for breaking the law is also a time honored tradition.