Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court

[WorldWatcher]

hunting wasnt up for and issue with the court............handgun use was I believe. I presume they werent using handguns. But regardless that not of the same import.

it was still a national question in some form or another......he should have displayed decorum and stayed away from presiding..........


>>>>

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'

And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'

Article VI is not in dispute.

A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.

And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.

Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.

The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.

well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9. Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves. Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.

Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy. It is worth a read.

Third horseshit argument


There is no need for a constitutional amendment to legalize same sex marriage and this is why:

Although the U.S. Constitution (approved September 17, 1787) contains no direct references to slavery, it includes several indirect references to that "peculiar institution." The following are the references as well as translations of the legal language. http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/i/incidents-in-the-life-of-a-slave-girl/critical-essays/we-the-people----slavery-and-the-us-constitution

In addition, the states were not bound by the bill of rights until the passage of the 14th amendment, which precluded the courts from abolishing slavery

Women’s suffrage, as well as voting rights based on race draw a closer parallel to the same sex marriage issue. The issue of voting rights in the United States has been contentious throughout United States history. Eligibility to vote in the United States is relevant at both the federal and state levels. In the absence of a specific federal law or constitutional provision, each state is given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within its own respective jurisdiction.

Perhaps both of those issues concerning voting could have been resolved through the courts rather by amendment but it took a different trajectory. A court challenge was in fact mounted in 1872 which tried but failed to make the case that women had the right to vote under the 14th amendment. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/nineteentham.htm

That was then and this is now and it is not a reason to say that same sex marriage must be, or can only be resolved but an amendment.

It has been said that you can't use the Constitution to support gay marriage when the wording doesn't exist. The fact is that you can’t use the constitution to restrict marriage based on orientation because for the same reason. Many courts have agreed with that and have said that bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional.

Europe, long seen as more liberal on such issues, has, I believe , said marriage is not a fundamental right.

Europe is divided on the issue:

Same-sex marriage has been legalised in Belgium, Denmark, Finland (effective from 1 March 2017), France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (except Gibraltar and Northern Ireland). Same-sex civil unions have been legalised in Austria, Belgium, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia (effective from 1 January 2016), Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Slovenia and the United Kingdom. In Denmark and Sweden civil unions were legal from 1989 and 1995 to 2012 and 2009, respectively. However existing civil unions are still recognised.

Austria, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy and Slovenia are considering legalisation of same-sex marriage. Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Romania are considering the legalisation of some other form of registered partnership for same-sex couples. Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia have constitutionally defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. LGBT rights in the European Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In addition

UN Human Rights Council Votes to Support LGBT Rights http://www.dallasvoice.com/breaking-human-rights-council-votes-support-lgbt-rights-10180486.html

The United Nations Human Rights Council has approved a resolution condemning discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, a boost to supporting LGBT rights around the world.

The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission praised the vote, calling it an important step forward toward progress for equality and human rights for LGBT individuals.

“The Human Rights Council has taken a fundamental step forward by reaffirming one of the United Nations’ key principles — that everyone is equal in dignity and rights,” said Jessica Stern, executive director of IGLHRC. “This resolution puts the UN on a trajectory to address the discrimination and violence LGBT persons suffer daily across the world.”

The resolution — led by Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Uruguay — asks the UN Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights to gather and publish information on how best to overcome discrimination and violence.

The resolution passed by 21 votes in favor, including the United States, 16 against, and 7 abstentions.

UN passes historic resolution in support of LGBT equality http://www.dallasvoice.com/passes-historic-resolution-support-lgbt-equality-1080564.html

“This marks a significant milestone in the long struggle for equality, and the beginning of a universal recognition that (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) persons are endowed with the same inalienable rights — and entitled to the same protections — as all human beings.”

 

[paperview]

it is yet another reason why future generations will not look favorably on the decision.
....

You're talking out of your ass.

The only people who will look unfavorably upon this decision in the future are the occasional disparate homophobes and butthurt social conservatives who cry themselves to sleep every night and see monsters under their beds - some of the same ones who think an 1802 SCOTUS decision granting Judicial Review was ruled in error.

The world will move on and butthurts will learn to live with the awfullness of recognizing gay people as equal persons in the eyes of the law.

 

[dcraelin]

Article VI is not in dispute.

A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.

And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.

Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.

The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.

well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9. Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves. Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.

Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy. It is worth a read.

Third horseshit argument


There is no need for a constitutional amendment to legalize same sex marriage and this is why:

Although the U.S. Constitution (approved September 17, 1787) contains no direct references to slavery, it includes several indirect references to that "peculiar institution." The following are the references as well as translations of the legal language. http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/i/incidents-in-the-life-of-a-slave-girl/critical-essays/we-the-people----slavery-and-the-us-constitution

In addition, the states were not bound by the bill of rights until the passage of the 14th amendment, which precluded the courts from abolishing slavery

Women’s suffrage, as well as voting rights based on race draw a closer parallel to the same sex marriage issue. The issue of voting rights in the United States has been contentious throughout United States history. Eligibility to vote in the United States is relevant at both the federal and state levels. In the absence of a specific federal law or constitutional provision, each state is given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within its own respective jurisdiction.

Perhaps both of those issues concerning voting could have been resolved through the courts rather by amendment but it took a different trajectory. A court challenge was in fact mounted in 1872 which tried but failed to make the case that women had the right to vote under the 14th amendment. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/nineteentham.htm

That was then and this is now and it is not a reason to say that same sex marriage must be, or can only be resolved but an amendment.

It has been said that you can't use the Constitution to support gay marriage when the wording doesn't exist. The fact is that you can’t use the constitution to restrict marriage based on orientation because for the same reason. Many courts have agreed with that and have said that bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional.

Europe, long seen as more liberal on such issues, has, I believe , said marriage is not a fundamental right.

Europe is divided on the issue:

Same-sex marriage has been legalised in Belgium, Denmark, Finland (effective from 1 March 2017), France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (except Gibraltar and Northern Ireland). Same-sex civil unions have been legalised in Austria, Belgium, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia (effective from 1 January 2016), Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Slovenia and the United Kingdom. In Denmark and Sweden civil unions were legal from 1989 and 1995 to 2012 and 2009, respectively. However existing civil unions are still recognised.

Austria, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy and Slovenia are considering legalisation of same-sex marriage. Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Romania are considering the legalisation of some other form of registered partnership for same-sex couples. Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia have constitutionally defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. LGBT rights in the European Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In addition

UN Human Rights Council Votes to Support LGBT Rights http://www.dallasvoice.com/breaking-human-rights-council-votes-support-lgbt-rights-10180486.html

The United Nations Human Rights Council has approved a resolution condemning discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, a boost to supporting LGBT rights around the world.

The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission praised the vote, calling it an important step forward toward progress for equality and human rights for LGBT individuals.

“The Human Rights Council has taken a fundamental step forward by reaffirming one of the United Nations’ key principles — that everyone is equal in dignity and rights,” said Jessica Stern, executive director of IGLHRC. “This resolution puts the UN on a trajectory to address the discrimination and violence LGBT persons suffer daily across the world.”

The resolution — led by Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Uruguay — asks the UN Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights to gather and publish information on how best to overcome discrimination and violence.

The resolution passed by 21 votes in favor, including the United States, 16 against, and 7 abstentions.

UN passes historic resolution in support of LGBT equality http://www.dallasvoice.com/passes-historic-resolution-support-lgbt-equality-1080564.html

“This marks a significant milestone in the long struggle for equality, and the beginning of a universal recognition that (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) persons are endowed with the same inalienable rights — and entitled to the same protections — as all human beings.”

I know there was plenty of opposition in France, and I believe a court imposed it, may be wrong....but courts probably imposed it in some of those other countries too.

 

[dcraelin]

it is yet another reason why future generations will not look favorably on the decision.
....

You're talking out of your ass.

The only people who will look unfavorably upon this decision in the future are the occasional disparate homophobes and butthurt social conservatives who cry themselves to sleep every night and see monsters under their beds - some of the same ones who think an 1802 SCOTUS decision granting Judicial Review was ruled in error.

The world will move on and butthurts will learn to live with the awfullness of recognizing gay people as equal persons in the eyes of the law.

well Im talking about the play on the emotions that propelled the federal judiciary to ignore the Constitution and use verbal sophistry to pass what they had a warm and fuzzy feeling about.

The Valentine decision will forever be emblematic of this.

 

[Vandalshandle]

You can parse it anyway you like. The outcome remains unchanged. Marriage may not be denied by the government because the couple is the same sex. Therefor, Kim is in contempt of court, for doing so. Her application for martyrdom is pending.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'

And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'

Article VI is not in dispute.

A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.

And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.

Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.

The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.

well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9. Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves. Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.

Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy. It is worth a read.

Kegan and Ginsberg should have recused themselves? Why? because they were outspoken and demonstrable about their position on the issue? By that criteria, Thomas and Scalia should have also recused themselves. They have spewed a lot of anti gay crap. However, the fact is that no one had a personal interest in the outcome of the case, and no one was personally acquainted with any of the litigants. Therefore, it's a bullshit argument.

no yours is the bull shit argument...........the legality, constitutionality of gay marriage was in question...those justices displayed bad form in presiding over marriages. ....they should have done the honorable thing and stayed away until a decision was had.

Interesting how you just gloss over the point that I made about Thomas and Scalia and just repeat the same crap over again.

You might consider the fact that there was a 25 day window of opportunity to file a motion to rehear the case without Kagan and Ginsberg, However, the AGs of the 4 states involved would not do so because they knew that it was a loosing proposition. So please give it a rest!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

it is yet another reason why future generations will not look favorably on the decision.
....

You're talking out of your ass.

The only people who will look unfavorably upon this decision in the future are the occasional disparate homophobes and butthurt social conservatives who cry themselves to sleep every night and see monsters under their beds - some of the same ones who think an 1802 SCOTUS decision granting Judicial Review was ruled in error.

The world will move on and butthurts will learn to live with the awfullness of recognizing gay people as equal persons in the eyes of the law.

well Im talking about the play on the emotions that propelled the federal judiciary to ignore the Constitution and use verbal sophistry to pass what they had a warm and fuzzy feeling about.

The Valentine decision will forever be emblematic of this.

No, you're talking about a ridiculous lie you've contrived and are trying to propagate.

The Obergefell Court followed the Constitution, it followed settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence, and it followed the rule of law.

The states may not seek to disadvantage through force of law a class of persons predicated solely on who they are, including gay Americans.

“The fourteenth amendment...prohibits any state legislation which has the effect of denying to any...class [of persons], or to any individual, the equal protection of the laws.”

Civil Rights Cases (1883)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

it is yet another reason why future generations will not look favorably on the decision.
....

You're talking out of your ass.

The only people who will look unfavorably upon this decision in the future are the occasional disparate homophobes and butthurt social conservatives who cry themselves to sleep every night and see monsters under their beds - some of the same ones who think an 1802 SCOTUS decision granting Judicial Review was ruled in error.

The world will move on and butthurts will learn to live with the awfullness of recognizing gay people as equal persons in the eyes of the law.

ROFLMNAO!

Now... isn't THAT precious?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Article VI is not in dispute.

A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.

And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.

Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.

The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.

well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9. Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves. Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.

Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy. It is worth a read.

Kegan and Ginsberg should have recused themselves? Why? because they were outspoken and demonstrable about their position on the issue? By that criteria, Thomas and Scalia should have also recused themselves. They have spewed a lot of anti gay crap. However, the fact is that no one had a personal interest in the outcome of the case, and no one was personally acquainted with any of the litigants. Therefore, it's a bullshit argument.

no yours is the bull shit argument...........the legality, constitutionality of gay marriage was in question...those justices displayed bad form in presiding over marriages. ....they should have done the honorable thing and stayed away until a decision was had.

Interesting how you just gloss over the point that I made about Thomas and Scalia and just repeat the same crap over again.

You might consider the fact that there was a 25 day window of opportunity to file a motion to rehear the case without Kagan and Ginsberg, However, the AGs of the 4 states involved would not do so because they knew that it was a loosing proposition. So please give it a rest!

It is a losing proposition.

The decision to license degeneracy indicates a severe collapse of the moral foundation of the culture. As a result, history shows that Western Civilization will soon collapse and a new culture will rise from it, sans the degenerates, as a more well centered people seek to do business, absent the idiots.

My guess is that 60-80% of the US population will be dead inside 10 years, as a result of the looming civil war.

At the end of that, you will not be able to start a poker game in the US with people who will admit to ever having an unclean thought... let alone that they've sexual feelings for people of the same gender.

Europe will of course be governed under Sharia Law... and shortly after we get our shit together here, we'll be forced to burn Europe to the ground, via nuclear means. With the goal being to eradicate every living thing on the continent.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Obergefell Court followed the Constitution...

ROFLMNAO!

OH GOD! THAT is hysterical! (In every sense of the word)

Reader, there is absolutely no kinship with the US Constitution and the recent decision by the newly formed Supreme Legislature to federally license Degeneracy.

The decision is barely lucid, and the authority of such would not be at all effected, if it had been issued in crayon.

 

[Kondor3]

...These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.

Source: Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356 (1886)[/QUOTE]
Not territorial jurisdiction... merely jurisdiction. Which could make a difference, if the 14th is re-evaluated to split 'jurisdiction' into its constituent parts.

 

[Kondor3]

What Davis is doing has nothing to do with 'civil disobedience.' It has to do with contempt for the rule of law, contempt for the Supreme Court, and contempt for the Constitution. Indeed, Davis isn't being held against her will, she could be home this week if she so desires. She's in jail as a result of her own free will, and she can leave any time she wants.

You do not see it as Civil Disobedience. I do, as do a great many others. Impasse.

 

[Lakhota]

What Davis is doing has nothing to do with 'civil disobedience.' It has to do with contempt for the rule of law, contempt for the Supreme Court, and contempt for the Constitution. Indeed, Davis isn't being held against her will, she could be home this week if she so desires. She's in jail as a result of her own free will, and she can leave any time she wants.

You do not see it as Civil Disobedience. I do, as do a great many others. Impasse.

Civil disobedience is not the same as willfully breaking a federal law.

 

[Kondor3]

What Davis is doing has nothing to do with 'civil disobedience.' It has to do with contempt for the rule of law, contempt for the Supreme Court, and contempt for the Constitution. Indeed, Davis isn't being held against her will, she could be home this week if she so desires. She's in jail as a result of her own free will, and she can leave any time she wants.

You do not see it as Civil Disobedience. I do, as do a great many others. Impasse.

Civil disobedience is not the same as willfully breaking a federal law.

No?

Are you sure about that?

I suggest you consult three or four online dictionaries, and an online encyclopedia or two, and 'take the average' of what you find.

 

[Lakhota]

What Davis is doing has nothing to do with 'civil disobedience.' It has to do with contempt for the rule of law, contempt for the Supreme Court, and contempt for the Constitution. Indeed, Davis isn't being held against her will, she could be home this week if she so desires. She's in jail as a result of her own free will, and she can leave any time she wants.

You do not see it as Civil Disobedience. I do, as do a great many others. Impasse.

Civil disobedience is not the same as willfully breaking a federal law.

No?

Are you sure about that?

I suggest you consult three or four online dictionaries, and an online encyclopedia or two, and 'take the average' of what you find.

One elected public servant who refuses to obey a recently decided federal law by the U.S. Supreme Court for personal religious reasons to deny the freedoms of others is far beyond civil disobedience.

In other words, as a government employee, Davis has a duty to the American people. She has a duty to help those in need. She has a duty to comply with the law. Once Davis took on that responsibility, she forfeited her license to infringe on the rights of others in the name of religious freedom. If Davis no longer wished to accept her duties as a government employee, she simply should have quit.

EDITORIAL: Kim Davis and the separation of church and state - The Daily Free Press

 

[Silhouette]

Civil disobedience is not the same as willfully breaking a federal law.

Yes it is when the law was arrived at outside the Constitutional provisions. SCOTUS isn't allowed to create a new protected class. Where in the Constitution does it grant rights to deviant sex behaviors erroneously calling themselves "a race of people"?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Civil disobedience is not the same as willfully breaking a federal law.

Yes it is when the law was arrived at outside the Constitutional provisions. SCOTUS isn't allowed to create a new protected class. Where in the Constitution does it grant rights to deviant sex behaviors erroneously calling themselves "a race of people"?

Wrong.

The Supreme Court didn't 'create' a 'new protected class,' the notion is ignorant idiocy.

 

[Debra K]

The deputy clerks might be in trouble.

On the day the judge sent Kim Davis to jail, he later offered to release her from jail if she promised not to interfere with her deputy clerks who stated under oath that they would issue marriage licenses. Kim Davis refused the offer and chose to stay in jail.

The deputy clerks, however, unilaterally removed Kim Davis's name from the marriage licenses. In the place where her name is supposed to typed, they substituted "Rowan County".

The Equality Case Files reports that the judge asked for a status report and copies of the marriage licenses issued by the deputy clerks.

0:15-cv-00044 #80

If it was lawful to remove the county clerk's name and substitute the name of the county, wouldn't Kim Davis have done that herself? Her objection was that her name as the county clerk was required to be on the licenses.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The deputy clerks might be in trouble.

On the day the judge sent Kim Davis to jail, he later offered to release her from jail if she promised not to interfere with her deputy clerks who stated under oath that they would issue marriage licenses. Kim Davis refused the offer and chose to stay in jail.

The deputy clerks, however, unilaterally removed Kim Davis's name from the marriage licenses. In the place where her name is supposed to typed, they substituted "Rowan County".

View attachment 49591

The Equality Case Files reports that the judge asked for a status report and copies of the marriage licenses issued by the deputy clerks.

0:15-cv-00044 #80

If it was lawful to remove the county clerk's name and substitute the name of the county, wouldn't Kim Davis have done that herself? Her objection was that her name as the county clerk was required to be on the licenses.

Interesting. VERRRRRYY interesting.....

 

[ConCrusher]