Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What are you blathering about now?? It's stupid to be discussing Baker at this late date. Before Obergefell, the bigots continued to cling to it as there last pathetic hope despite the questionable applicability. Then Justice Kennedy SPECIFICALLY stated in the majority opinion that Baker is overturned. If you don't know that, look it up. Get over it already
look it up?! I pointed it out to YOU, from your "list of cases cited in support"..... indicating you didnt even read your own cut and paste post, or if you did, didn't understand it.
It's lack of citation in numerous pre-obergefell lower federal court rulings however shows,....just as the Valentines Day ruling, that the lower courts were ruling out of emotion rather than law.
Equine excrement. You saidI don't recall it saying it overturned Baker v. Nelson though.............
The facts as of now
1. Obergefell rules
2. Baker is history
I have better things to do than to have this stupid ass and pointless discussion
precedent is there to keep the court in line.......perhaps in the future other courts will ignore obergefell like the lower courts ignored Baker the last few years. ...the courts attitude toward Baker shows what a joke the federal judiciary is.
my initial post here had to do with the hypocrisy of the judicial system, you led us down this "pointless discussion".
Ridiculous! They can't ignore Obergefell like they ignored Baker. Baker was not actually reviewed It was dismissed for "lack of a substantial federal question" That procedusre is not even used anymore
While it was considered a binding precedent at the time , when dealing with precedents like Baker, lower courts may have to guess at the meaning of these unexplained decisions.[18] The Supreme Court has laid out rules, however, to guide lower courts in narrowly applying these summary dispositions:[19]
- The facts in the potentially binding case must not bear any legally significant differences to the case under consideration.[20]
- The binding precedent encompasses only the issues presented to the Court, not the reasoning found in the lower court's decision.[21]
- Of the issues presented, only those necessarily decided by the Court in dismissing the case control.[22]
- Subsequent developments by the Court on the relevant doctrines may cast doubt on the continuing validity of a summary judgment.[23]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson
Im not sure what all the above lawyer speak means.....................but I suggest it is just a fancy way of giving an excuse for court laziness and desire for a different outcome.
the failure even to mention it in numerous lower court opinions shows however that the above guidelines weren't even considered.
look it up?! I pointed it out to YOU, from your "list of cases cited in support"..... indicating you didnt even read your own cut and paste post, or if you did, didn't understand it.
It's lack of citation in numerous pre-obergefell lower federal court rulings however shows,....just as the Valentines Day ruling, that the lower courts were ruling out of emotion rather than law.
Equine excrement. You saidI don't recall it saying it overturned Baker v. Nelson though.............
The facts as of now
1. Obergefell rules
2. Baker is history
I have better things to do than to have this stupid ass and pointless discussion
precedent is there to keep the court in line.......perhaps in the future other courts will ignore obergefell like the lower courts ignored Baker the last few years. ...the courts attitude toward Baker shows what a joke the federal judiciary is.
my initial post here had to do with the hypocrisy of the judicial system, you led us down this "pointless discussion".
Ridiculous! They can't ignore Obergefell like they ignored Baker. Baker was not actually reviewed It was dismissed for "lack of a substantial federal question" That procedusre is not even used anymore
While it was considered a binding precedent at the time , when dealing with precedents like Baker, lower courts may have to guess at the meaning of these unexplained decisions.[18] The Supreme Court has laid out rules, however, to guide lower courts in narrowly applying these summary dispositions:[19]
- The facts in the potentially binding case must not bear any legally significant differences to the case under consideration.[20]
- The binding precedent encompasses only the issues presented to the Court, not the reasoning found in the lower court's decision.[21]
- Of the issues presented, only those necessarily decided by the Court in dismissing the case control.[22]
- Subsequent developments by the Court on the relevant doctrines may cast doubt on the continuing validity of a summary judgment.[23]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson
Im not sure what all the above lawyer speak means.....................but I suggest it is just a fancy way of giving an excuse for court laziness and desire for a different outcome.
the failure even to mention it in numerous lower court opinions shows however that the above guidelines weren't even considered.
In many cases it was mentioned and the reasons why it was considered to be not controlling were spelled out. Give it a rest already. It is OVER
look it up?! I pointed it out to YOU, from your "list of cases cited in support"..... indicating you didnt even read your own cut and paste post, or if you did, didn't understand it.
It's lack of citation in numerous pre-obergefell lower federal court rulings however shows,....just as the Valentines Day ruling, that the lower courts were ruling out of emotion rather than law.
Equine excrement. You saidI don't recall it saying it overturned Baker v. Nelson though.............
The facts as of now
1. Obergefell rules
2. Baker is history
I have better things to do than to have this stupid ass and pointless discussion
precedent is there to keep the court in line.......perhaps in the future other courts will ignore obergefell like the lower courts ignored Baker the last few years. ...the courts attitude toward Baker shows what a joke the federal judiciary is.
my initial post here had to do with the hypocrisy of the judicial system, you led us down this "pointless discussion".
Ridiculous! They can't ignore Obergefell like they ignored Baker. Baker was not actually reviewed It was dismissed for "lack of a substantial federal question" That procedusre is not even used anymore
While it was considered a binding precedent at the time , when dealing with precedents like Baker, lower courts may have to guess at the meaning of these unexplained decisions.[18] The Supreme Court has laid out rules, however, to guide lower courts in narrowly applying these summary dispositions:[19]
- The facts in the potentially binding case must not bear any legally significant differences to the case under consideration.[20]
- The binding precedent encompasses only the issues presented to the Court, not the reasoning found in the lower court's decision.[21]
- Of the issues presented, only those necessarily decided by the Court in dismissing the case control.[22]
- Subsequent developments by the Court on the relevant doctrines may cast doubt on the continuing validity of a summary judgment.[23]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson
Im not sure what all the above lawyer speak means.....................but I suggest it is just a fancy way of giving an excuse for court laziness and desire for a different outcome.
the failure even to mention it in numerous lower court opinions shows however that the above guidelines weren't even considered.
The more recent rulings are more relevant. The lower courts would naturally cite the more recent rulings. With the most relevant before Obergefell being Windsor and Romer. These were actual rulings rather than merely a sentence.
Equine excrement. You said The facts as of now
1. Obergefell rules
2. Baker is history
I have better things to do than to have this stupid ass and pointless discussion
precedent is there to keep the court in line.......perhaps in the future other courts will ignore obergefell like the lower courts ignored Baker the last few years. ...the courts attitude toward Baker shows what a joke the federal judiciary is.
my initial post here had to do with the hypocrisy of the judicial system, you led us down this "pointless discussion".
Ridiculous! They can't ignore Obergefell like they ignored Baker. Baker was not actually reviewed It was dismissed for "lack of a substantial federal question" That procedusre is not even used anymore
While it was considered a binding precedent at the time , when dealing with precedents like Baker, lower courts may have to guess at the meaning of these unexplained decisions.[18] The Supreme Court has laid out rules, however, to guide lower courts in narrowly applying these summary dispositions:[19]
- The facts in the potentially binding case must not bear any legally significant differences to the case under consideration.[20]
- The binding precedent encompasses only the issues presented to the Court, not the reasoning found in the lower court's decision.[21]
- Of the issues presented, only those necessarily decided by the Court in dismissing the case control.[22]
- Subsequent developments by the Court on the relevant doctrines may cast doubt on the continuing validity of a summary judgment.[23]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson
Im not sure what all the above lawyer speak means.....................but I suggest it is just a fancy way of giving an excuse for court laziness and desire for a different outcome.
the failure even to mention it in numerous lower court opinions shows however that the above guidelines weren't even considered.
In many cases it was mentioned and the reasons why it was considered to be not controlling were spelled out. Give it a rest already. It is OVER
the arguments will never be over......as the obergefell decision and those leading to it are a joke.
Equine excrement. You said The facts as of now
1. Obergefell rules
2. Baker is history
I have better things to do than to have this stupid ass and pointless discussion
precedent is there to keep the court in line.......perhaps in the future other courts will ignore obergefell like the lower courts ignored Baker the last few years. ...the courts attitude toward Baker shows what a joke the federal judiciary is.
my initial post here had to do with the hypocrisy of the judicial system, you led us down this "pointless discussion".
Ridiculous! They can't ignore Obergefell like they ignored Baker. Baker was not actually reviewed It was dismissed for "lack of a substantial federal question" That procedusre is not even used anymore
While it was considered a binding precedent at the time , when dealing with precedents like Baker, lower courts may have to guess at the meaning of these unexplained decisions.[18] The Supreme Court has laid out rules, however, to guide lower courts in narrowly applying these summary dispositions:[19]
- The facts in the potentially binding case must not bear any legally significant differences to the case under consideration.[20]
- The binding precedent encompasses only the issues presented to the Court, not the reasoning found in the lower court's decision.[21]
- Of the issues presented, only those necessarily decided by the Court in dismissing the case control.[22]
- Subsequent developments by the Court on the relevant doctrines may cast doubt on the continuing validity of a summary judgment.[23]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson
Im not sure what all the above lawyer speak means.....................but I suggest it is just a fancy way of giving an excuse for court laziness and desire for a different outcome.
the failure even to mention it in numerous lower court opinions shows however that the above guidelines weren't even considered.
In many cases it was mentioned and the reasons why it was considered to be not controlling were spelled out. Give it a rest already. It is OVER
the arguments will never be over......as the obergefell decision and those leading to it are a joke.
the failure even to mention it in numerous lower court opinions shows however that the above guidelines weren't even considered.
Equine excrement. You said The facts as of now
1. Obergefell rules
2. Baker is history
I have better things to do than to have this stupid ass and pointless discussion
precedent is there to keep the court in line.......perhaps in the future other courts will ignore obergefell like the lower courts ignored Baker the last few years. ...the courts attitude toward Baker shows what a joke the federal judiciary is.
my initial post here had to do with the hypocrisy of the judicial system, you led us down this "pointless discussion".
Ridiculous! They can't ignore Obergefell like they ignored Baker. Baker was not actually reviewed It was dismissed for "lack of a substantial federal question" That procedusre is not even used anymore
While it was considered a binding precedent at the time , when dealing with precedents like Baker, lower courts may have to guess at the meaning of these unexplained decisions.[18] The Supreme Court has laid out rules, however, to guide lower courts in narrowly applying these summary dispositions:[19]
- The facts in the potentially binding case must not bear any legally significant differences to the case under consideration.[20]
- The binding precedent encompasses only the issues presented to the Court, not the reasoning found in the lower court's decision.[21]
- Of the issues presented, only those necessarily decided by the Court in dismissing the case control.[22]
- Subsequent developments by the Court on the relevant doctrines may cast doubt on the continuing validity of a summary judgment.[23]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson
Im not sure what all the above lawyer speak means.....................but I suggest it is just a fancy way of giving an excuse for court laziness and desire for a different outcome.
the failure even to mention it in numerous lower court opinions shows however that the above guidelines weren't even considered.
In many cases it was mentioned and the reasons why it was considered to be not controlling were spelled out. Give it a rest already. It is OVER
the arguments will never be over......as the obergefell decision and those leading to it are a joke.
Kim Davis's office is obligated to perform the state function of issuing marriage licenses. She disagrees that marriage can exist between two people of the same sex. However, the state of Kentucky has little choice other than to respect the ruling of the Supreme Court. Davis's opinion is completely irrelevant to performance of her job. If she will not allow her office to preform their function, then she has to go just like any employee who finds their conscience will not allow them to do their job.And there, apparently, is the gist of the difference in positions....Again -- she IS the government. The government does not act out in civil disobedience, which is an act against the government. That's why you're wrong and she sits in a cell.
You (apparently) believe that it is impossible for a member of the government to engage in Civil Disobedience while on-duty.
I believe that is it possible for a member of the government to refuse to conform to an immoral law, while on-duty, and that, in doing so, she is engaged in an act of Civil Disobedience.
I believe that Davis is in jail because - member of the government or no - she is engaged in an act of Civil Disobedience.
Doesn't mean she's right.
Doesn't mean that she can't be charged with a failure to execute or for contempt.
It's just the label that we hang on her actions.
You (and others less sympathetic) label it as Simple Lawbreaking.
I (and others more sympathetic) label it as Civil Disobedience - which has much the same effect, at-law, but which suggests a nobler purpose and self-sacrifice.
An appellation that you-and-yours are desperate to try to suppress, for fear that it will gain enough traction to become irreversible in the collective public psyche.
And, if that's the case, I think you're already too late.
She's already been awarded the mantle of hero and martyr.
Sucks, eh?
The State of Kentucky has every choice to reject the irrational, irrefutably unconstitutional decree by the newly formed Supreme Legislature.
Davis's Job is to follow Kentucky law.
Kentucky Law defines Marriage as the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
the failure even to mention it in numerous lower court opinions shows however that the above guidelines weren't even considered.
As a previous post shows, "precedent" can be overcome by events as the legal landscape changes. In the early 1970's there was no Federal question for the Federal government to address because there were (a) no states that recognized SSCM and (b) no SSCM recognition at the federal level. Over the years that landscape changed. States passed SSCM, the Federal governemnt enacted DOMA to prevent federal recognition of SSCM and that was found to be unconstitutional.
The State of Kentucky has every choice to reject the irrational, irrefutably unconstitutional decree by the newly formed Supreme Legislature.
Davis's Job is to follow Kentucky law.
Kentucky Law defines Marriage as the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
Kentucky doesn't have a valid law that defines marriage as only a man and a woman.
>>>>
Exactly. The ability to reproduce is not a requirement.
precedent is there to keep the court in line.......perhaps in the future other courts will ignore obergefell like the lower courts ignored Baker the last few years. ...the courts attitude toward Baker shows what a joke the federal judiciary is.
my initial post here had to do with the hypocrisy of the judicial system, you led us down this "pointless discussion".
Ridiculous! They can't ignore Obergefell like they ignored Baker. Baker was not actually reviewed It was dismissed for "lack of a substantial federal question" That procedusre is not even used anymore
While it was considered a binding precedent at the time , when dealing with precedents like Baker, lower courts may have to guess at the meaning of these unexplained decisions.[18] The Supreme Court has laid out rules, however, to guide lower courts in narrowly applying these summary dispositions:[19]
- The facts in the potentially binding case must not bear any legally significant differences to the case under consideration.[20]
- The binding precedent encompasses only the issues presented to the Court, not the reasoning found in the lower court's decision.[21]
- Of the issues presented, only those necessarily decided by the Court in dismissing the case control.[22]
- Subsequent developments by the Court on the relevant doctrines may cast doubt on the continuing validity of a summary judgment.[23]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson
Im not sure what all the above lawyer speak means.....................but I suggest it is just a fancy way of giving an excuse for court laziness and desire for a different outcome.
the failure even to mention it in numerous lower court opinions shows however that the above guidelines weren't even considered.
In many cases it was mentioned and the reasons why it was considered to be not controlling were spelled out. Give it a rest already. It is OVER
the arguments will never be over......as the obergefell decision and those leading to it are a joke.
.... meaning, you simply disagree that people you dislike should have the same rights and protection under the law that you enjoy.
Kentucky exists in reality. In reality, Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman... as God created humanity with two distinct, but complimenting genders; each designed SPECIFICALLY to JOIN WITH the OTHER... Forming ONE SUSTAINABLE BODY... from two... and Kentucky's CONSTITUTION recognizes the right of the citizen to exercise their religion, ABOVE ALL OTHER CONSIDERATION... INCLUDING: THE LAW!
