Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court

[Statistikhengst]

So, I read the entire thread.

Whew, someone throw me a sweat towel!

Now, there were tons of interesting responses, but one response kept NOT showing up, which is why I rotor-rooted my way through this epic thread. So, I am gonna throw this original thought out there:

There are literally thousands clerks of courts in the USA who issue marriage licenses. In fact, there have to be at least 3,143 of them total, if not many more, for many counties have more than one clerk who issues marriage licenses. But either way, we are talking about THOUSANDS of public officials who issue marriage licenses every week. If Kim Davis is so right, why is she is the only clerk doing this?

Also, "Christians" now have a choice. They can either apply the tactic that Kim Davis is just so totally right and all the other other clerks, the majority of which, I bet, are also Christian, are wrong, in which case, they should be condemning those clerks with all their might, right here and now - lol -

- or, they can take the tack that there are far fewer Christians out there processing and giving out marriage licenses than they are willing to admit -

- or, they can just claim that the other many thousands of clerks are all apostates.

Either way, no matter how you look at it, this does not look good for "Christianity", n'est ce pas?

Of course, the most sane answer is that possibly ex-Clerk, currently Jailbird Kim Clark comes from a backwater, insane hillbilly church where her pastor is probably pressuring her to go through all of this shit at no cost to himself but at a massive cost to her and that this actually has precious little to do with Christianity at all. It's politics, it's publicity and at the end of the day, it's part of the "Christian" $$$$-mill. This is a cottage industry thing, nothing less and nothing more.

-Stat

ABikerSailor
Luddly Neddite
AVG-JOE
ogibillm
westwall
bodecea
AvgGuyIA
Kondor3
jon_berzerk
Wry Catcher
C_Clayton_Jones
RodISHI
Dot Com
JOSweetHeart
mudwhistle
NYcarbineer
Coyote
BlueGin
AceRothstein
TheOldSchool
frigidweirdo
BlindBoo
Asclepias
David_42
HUGGY
EriktheRed
WinterBorn
Skylar
Faun
TheProgressivePatriot

Probably because she's batshit crazy. Why is that not one of your options. And that wasn't an original thought BTW.

Good point.

However, "batshit crazy" is no excuse for ignorance of the law, so I didn't include it.

Anything else you want on the menu, or are you now sated?

 

[Statistikhengst]

...Either way, no matter how you look at it, this does not look good for "Christianity", n'est ce pas?...

Why is only one Christian county-clerk in the entire country doing this?

3000 (3007, actually, but let's make it a nice, round number)...

3000 counties in the United States...

2100 Christian county clerks ( 3000 X 70% ) ( 70% Christian population in the US )

Narrow it down...

How many are 'Sunshine Patriot' -type Christians and rarely (if ever) exert any effort to adhere to the practices of their denomination? Ten percent?

2100 X 10% = 210 clerks who might even consider doing such a thing.

How many of those are scared of losing their jobs and pensions, to the point of paralysis and accommodation? Ninety-five percent?

210 X 5% = 11 ( 5% survivors of the 210 who aren't paralyzed by fear, and rounded up from 10.5)

Out of those 11, how many decided to wait until somebody else went first? 10 out of 11? Seems believable.

11 - 10 = 1

1 = Kim Davis

================================

You can throw rocks at the numbers until the cows come home, but, at least it's a first pass, at quantifying your inquiry, and introducing another concept or two (paralysis, due to fear over loss of job, pension, etc.) in a context that demonstrates just how overwhelmingly significant that particular element of the equation is.

There are 3,140+ counties in the USA....

 

[Silhouette]

Just saw on TV that she was married FOUR FUCKING TIMES and had TWINS out of wedlock. Is that true? I can smell the hypocrisy.

Yes, she is a sinner. And that's why she is a Christian. It's a requirement to walk through the door of a church. You don't approach Christianity from a perspective of perfection, you approach it saying "I am a flawed being, I'm struggling, I need help". That's how it works.

On the topic of adultery and the famous story in the Bible of the stoning incident with Jesus, he said "let any of you who is without sin cast the first stone". His point was twofold: 1. To save the poor stoning victim and 2. To really seat in the minds of the angry mob that we are all sinners and must not judge; judgment is for God.

That being said, Jude 1 spells out that a Christian (who is also a sinner, remember) must reach out to homosexuals with compassion, "making a difference". But that to promote them as a group mentality into the fabric of any society is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN. This message exists in the New Testament and in Jesus' teachings as I recall, there are very few examples of of him saying "Oh yeah, you know that Old Testament law and the shit that went down then with God casting people into Hell for eternity? Yeah, this one's like that. It's for realsies." Yet that's what we find in Jude 1.

And it makes sense if you understand sociology. When it comes to human behaviors and mimickry in youth, trends have a way of catching fire in any society. And what do we see today after 30 years of nonstop campaigning by LGBT cult to the youth in media? That's right, hordes of "bi-curious" or "gay" youth popping up like a dandelion-epidemic in a lawn that used to be relatively weed free. God's OK with his lawn having occasional dandelions but not the whole lawn being taken over with time. God remembers Ancient Greece and you don't. So he is wiser than you. God remembers Sodom and you don't. So he is wiser than you.

God teaches us to love the sinner but hate the sin. And that's what Jude 1 is all about. Jesus also extended compassion to prostitutes, thieves and lepers. Does that mean that anyone against or refusing to participate in promoting prostitution, robbery or coming down with leprosy is a "hater"? NO! Of course not! So, Kim Davis is in God's favor. The Bible's New Testament isn't all roses and hippy love fest. There are some hard rules and one of the hardest is not to tamper with God's lawn by helping to seed it with weeds. Otherwise the good grass will be choked out and wouldn't have a chance to grow in that enviroment even if it wanted to desperately. THAT is why the punishment for promoting homosexuality using God's sacred vehicle of the family (marriage) is such a pisser for God. And you will get eternity in the slammer if you fail to heed Jude 1's warning.

 

[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".

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.

0:15-cv-00044 #84

The status report filed by counsel for the Plaintiffs states that the Clerks Office altered the marriage license forms to remove Ms. Davis's name.

 

[Vigilante]

So many truisms and anti- Constitution values stated in here... one wonders what the Founders would think....

 

[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.

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!

they perhaps knew the deck was rigged ,,yes.................and your "point" on Thomas and Scalia on guns was answered I believe

 

[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.

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)

gee, 4 of 9 justices disagreed. doesn't sound so cut and dried to me,.....

and my post was about how this will be remembered in the future...and the Valentine days ruling will be a lasting example of the emotional bases for these rulings, rather than a sober and logical look at the law.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Those supporting religious freedom are the sane.

You have the freedom to believe in what ever mythology suits you. Just stop imposing those superstitious beliefs on the rest of us.

I am not a christian nor do I believe in ANY spook in the sky,I still support religious freedom.

Sure you do. You worship at Hitler's cock, day in and day out. Why, I wouldn't be surprised if you had a swastika dildo up your ass. Really. I mean that quite seriously. Poor odious.

Still crying over spilled milk? Oh I mean 6 million.....burned to a crisp!

Showing glee on your part over millions of people who died is not going to injure me.
But it does expose you for the unbelievable anti-semitic, racist, bigoted asshole that you are.

So, thanks.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Ahhh, judge Bunning is now ordering her to be released from jail. So much for Ted Cruz' big day.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[boedicca]

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.

Right! They applied heightened scrutiny without actually saying so on the basis of their right under the 14th amendment being violated, not their being a protected class, although they could have taken that rout. Silouett just says whatever the voices in her head tell her to say.No actual thought process at work there

Why? Because she has the freedom of independent thought and belief....

...concepts with which you are obviously unacquainted.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Right! They applied heightened scrutiny without actually saying so on the basis of their right under the 14th amendment being violated, not their being a protected class, although they could have taken that rout. Silouett just says whatever the voices in her head tell her to say.No actual thought process at work there

Why? Because she has the freedom of independent thought and belief....

...concepts with which you are obviously unacquainted.

Right! Independent thought. Independent of reality and free of facts

 

[boedicca]

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.

Right! They applied heightened scrutiny without actually saying so on the basis of their right under the 14th amendment being violated, not their being a protected class, although they could have taken that rout. Silouett just says whatever the voices in her head tell her to say.No actual thought process at work there

Why? Because she has the freedom of independent thought and belief....

...concepts with which you are obviously unacquainted.

Right! Independent thought. Independent of reality and free of facts

Of course that's your understanding. You're an idiot.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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)

gee, 4 of 9 justices disagreed. doesn't sound so cut and dried to me,.....

and my post was about how this will be remembered in the future...and the Valentine days ruling will be a lasting example of the emotional bases for these rulings, rather than a sober and logical look at the law.

I'm willing to be that your another one who has not bothered to read the opinion but is , nevertheless willing to dismiss it as "emotional" and as not following the law. Here are selected excerpts for you convenience. While you read, count the number of earlier cases that were cited to support the decision....just in the portions that I provided and then tell us again how this is not based on solid case law :

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No. 14–556. Argued April 28, 2015—Decided June 26, 2015*



Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriagebetween two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28.



(1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486. Pg.2



(2) Four principles and traditions demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples. The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. Pg. 3



A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception, pg.3


A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguardschildren and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issuethus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. See Windsor, supra, at ___.Pg.3


Finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order. See Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211. States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle,yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that theStates have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instabilitymany opposite-sex couples would find intolerable. Pg.4



(4) The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. Baker v. Nelson is overruled. The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. Pp. 22–23. Pg.5




There may be an initial inclination to await further legislation, litigation, and debate, but referenda, legislative debates, and grassroots campaigns; studies and other writings; and extensive litigation in state and federal courts have led to an enhanced understanding of the issue. While the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, individuals who are harmed need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. Pg 5

 

[Lakhota]

We have plenty of factual proof that our founding fathers existed. We have zero proof of a supernatural God. Hence, the Constitution trumps delusional fantasy.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

lol. so the new law the supreme court made is the 14th amendment to the constitution?

You have a different 14th than I do. Mine says nothing about redefining marriage to please a special interest.

Oh Christ!! Not that idiocy again!! The 14th does not say ANYTHING about any specific right except for birthright citizenship, voting due process and equal protection under the law. Yet it has been used numerous times to secure other rights:


The 14th was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. However, it serves to protect against all other forms of discrimination as well.

The Fourteenth was intended by the framers of the Fourteenth to extend the jurisdiction and protection of federal courts to all rights recognized by the Constitution and Bill of Rights against actions by state government.

First, "any law" includes the state constitution, which is its supreme law, subject to the U.S. Constitution.

Second, for the framers of the 14th Amendment the term of art, "immunities", meant all those rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including those of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The framers of the Fourteenth used the word "immunities" because the rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are rights against action by government, which are "immunities", as distinct from contractual or tort rights. http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm

And consider this as well:

On Jan 12., 1866, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio began the drafting of the Fourteenth by a proposed amendment to the Joint Senate-House Committee of 15:

The Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all persons in every state within this Union equal protection in their rights of life, liberty and property.

On January 20 the Joint Committee's subcommittee considering drafts of constitutional amendments reported to the full Joint Committee an expanded form of the Bingham proposal that read as follows:

Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all citizens of the United States, in every State, the same political rights and privileges; and to all persons in every State equal protection in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property."[4]

On February 1, 1866, Senator Benjamin G. Brown of Missouri introduced, and the Senate adopted, a resolution that the Joint Committee consider an amendment to the Constitution

so as to declare with greater certainty the power of Congress to enforce and determine by appropriate legislation all the guarantees contained in that instrument[11] (emphasis added).

This resolution thus anticipated the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights.

It’s pretty clear what the intent was. It has been applied in a wide variety of cases that did not involve race

WASHINGTON — Oklahoma has presented the U.S. Supreme Court with some peculiar 14th Amendment cases.

In 1942, the high court ruled that an Oklahoma law allowing some “habitual criminals” to be sterilized violated the equal protection rights of an armed robber because the law didn’t subject white collar criminals to sterilization.

“Sterilization of those who have thrice committed grand larceny with immunity for those who are embezzlers is a clear, pointed, unmistakable discrimination,” the court said.

In 1976, the high court found another 14th Amendment violation with an Oklahoma law that allowed women who were 18 or older to buy 3.2 beer, but prohibited men younger than 21 from buying it.

“We conclude that the gender-based differential contained in (the Oklahoma law) constitutes a denial of the equal protection of the laws to males aged 18-20,” the court said. http://newsok.com/the-14th-amendment-does-it-protect-same-sex-marriage/article/3954825

You might also know that there were 14 Supreme Court Cases that established Marriage as a Fundamental Right http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

Here are some notable cases where race was not a factor and were decided on the 14th amendment. Does anyone think that these decisions were a liberal over reach??

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”


Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

There are more, but you get the idea. So get over it. You had better take a chill pill in June when SCOTUS rules that same sex marriage is in fact a right under the 14th amendment. Have a good evening.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

lol. so the new law the supreme court made is the 14th amendment to the constitution?

You have a different 14th than I do. Mine says nothing about redefining marriage to please a special interest.

You might also want to read this...get educated!


Penumbras of the Constitution:

charting the origins of the abolition of moral legislation http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/wilson/030702

Selected Excerpts

The Supreme Court's decision in the case of Lawrence v. Texas did not just invalidate laws against sodomy, it may have put an end to all legislation of sexual activity between consenting adults and opened the door to the end of traditional marriage.

This case was not just about the whether the Texas statute prohibiting sodomy between members of the same sex was constitutional. Though he probably could have successfully convinced the Court that the Texas law, which proscribed homosexual sodomy while leaving heterosexual sodomy legal, was unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, Mr. Smith, the lawyer for the petitioners, went above and beyond the call of duty and took advantage of the situation to ask the Court to overturn its 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick decision.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Just saw on TV that she was married FOUR FUCKING TIMES and had TWINS out of wedlock. Is that true? I can smell the hypocrisy.

You ought to be able to, since you are exuding it..

There is no prude quite like a Communist declaring the sins of others...

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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!

they perhaps knew the deck was rigged ,,yes.................and your "point" on Thomas and Scalia on guns was answered I believe

You really want to talk about Thomas and Scalia??

Kagan and Ginsburg were no more biased that Scalia and Thomas Here is Thomas on gay rights with Scalia also dissenting in both

In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Thomas issued a one-page dissent where he called the Texas anti-gay sodomy statute "uncommonly silly." He then said that if he were a member of the Texas legislature he would vote to repeal the law, as it was not a worthwhile use of "law enforcement resources" to police private sexual behavior. Since he was not a member of the state legislature, but instead a federal judge, and the Due Process Clause did not (in his view) touch on the subject, he could not vote to strike it down. Accordingly, Thomas saw the issue as a matter for the states to decide for themselves.[162]

He could not be bothered to join the majority because he though that it was sill. It's apparent that he also thought that gay rights don't matter much or that due process applies to them

In Romer v. Evans (1996), Thomas joined Scalia's dissenting opinion arguing that Amendment 2 to the Colorado State Constitution did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Colorado amendment forbade any judicial, legislative, or executive action designed to protect persons from discrimination based on "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships."[163] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas

As for Scalia:

Here Are the 7 Worst Things Antonin Scalia Has Said or Written About Homosexuality http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/scalia-worst-things-said-written-about-homosexuality-court

Tell us again how Kegan and Ginsberg are more biased than these guys. There is more:

The section also provides that a judge is disqualified "where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding"; when the judge has previously served as a lawyer or witness concerning the same case or has expressed an opinion concerning its outcome; or when the judge or a member of his or her immediate family has a financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding. Judicial disqualification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

None of this applies to Kagan and Ginsburg. None of it. However, Thomas did in fact have a personal stake in a number of cases. :

Virginia "Ginni" Thomas is no ordinary Supreme Court spouse. Unlike Maureen Scalia, mother of nine, or the late Martin Ginsburg, mild-mannered tax law professor who was good in the kitchen, Thomas came from the world of bare-knuckled partisan politics. Over the years, she has enmeshed herself ever more deeply in the world of political advocacy—all the while creating a heap of conflict of interest concerns surrounding her husband, Supreme Court Justice Clarence http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/ginni-thomas-groundswell-conflict-interest]

Tell us how many times Thomas recused himself from ANY CASE.

Finally……

The general rule is that, to warrant recusal, a judge's expression of an opinion about the merits of a case, or his familiarity with the facts or the parties, must have originated in a source outside the case itself. This is referred to in the United States as the "extra-judicial source rule" and was recognized as a general presumption, although not an invariable one, in the 1994 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Liteky v. United States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification

Now lets cut the crap. It's over!

 

[Uncensored2008]

lol. so the new law the supreme court made is the 14th amendment to the constitution?

You have a different 14th than I do. Mine says nothing about redefining marriage to please a special interest.

Oh Christ!! Not that idiocy again!! The 14th does not say ANYTHING about any specific right except for birthright citizenship, voting due process and equal protection under the law. Yet it has been used numerous times to secure other rights:


The 14th was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. However, it serves to protect against all other forms of discrimination as well.

The Fourteenth was intended by the framers of the Fourteenth to extend the jurisdiction and protection of federal courts to all rights recognized by the Constitution and Bill of Rights against actions by state government.

First, "any law" includes the state constitution, which is its supreme law, subject to the U.S. Constitution.

Second, for the framers of the 14th Amendment the term of art, "immunities", meant all those rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including those of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The framers of the Fourteenth used the word "immunities" because the rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are rights against action by government, which are "immunities", as distinct from contractual or tort rights. http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm

And consider this as well:

On Jan 12., 1866, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio began the drafting of the Fourteenth by a proposed amendment to the Joint Senate-House Committee of 15:

The Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all persons in every state within this Union equal protection in their rights of life, liberty and property.

On January 20 the Joint Committee's subcommittee considering drafts of constitutional amendments reported to the full Joint Committee an expanded form of the Bingham proposal that read as follows:

Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all citizens of the United States, in every State, the same political rights and privileges; and to all persons in every State equal protection in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property."[4]

On February 1, 1866, Senator Benjamin G. Brown of Missouri introduced, and the Senate adopted, a resolution that the Joint Committee consider an amendment to the Constitution

so as to declare with greater certainty the power of Congress to enforce and determine by appropriate legislation all the guarantees contained in that instrument[11] (emphasis added).

This resolution thus anticipated the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights.

It’s pretty clear what the intent was. It has been applied in a wide variety of cases that did not involve race

WASHINGTON — Oklahoma has presented the U.S. Supreme Court with some peculiar 14th Amendment cases.

In 1942, the high court ruled that an Oklahoma law allowing some “habitual criminals” to be sterilized violated the equal protection rights of an armed robber because the law didn’t subject white collar criminals to sterilization.

“Sterilization of those who have thrice committed grand larceny with immunity for those who are embezzlers is a clear, pointed, unmistakable discrimination,” the court said.

In 1976, the high court found another 14th Amendment violation with an Oklahoma law that allowed women who were 18 or older to buy 3.2 beer, but prohibited men younger than 21 from buying it.

“We conclude that the gender-based differential contained in (the Oklahoma law) constitutes a denial of the equal protection of the laws to males aged 18-20,” the court said. http://newsok.com/the-14th-amendment-does-it-protect-same-sex-marriage/article/3954825

You might also know that there were 14 Supreme Court Cases that established Marriage as a Fundamental Right http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

Here are some notable cases where race was not a factor and were decided on the 14th amendment. Does anyone think that these decisions were a liberal over reach??

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”


Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

There are more, but you get the idea. So get over it. You had better take a chill pill in June when SCOTUS rules that same sex marriage is in fact a right under the 14th amendment. Have a good evening.

Again, sexual preference is not something the 14th has ever protected. Suddenly the SCOTUS has discovered a brand new right....

Bottom line, this is political payola to a special interest in exchange for support of the party,

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Again, sexual preference is not something the 14th has ever protected. Suddenly the SCOTUS has discovered a brand new right....

The brand new right is equality before the law. It's been around for a while now...