Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It w

Interesting how you edit my post to make it look like my entire reply was just the word "horseshit" because you can't actually deal with the entirety of what I said.

No, it would not.

She's not advancing anything accept common sense and a healthy respect for REALITY.

That you and the cult need to pretend that Marriage is something other than The Joining of One Man and One Woman, doesn't change a dam' thing.

YOU are the oddball freak here, Chester... not the lady who recognizes marriage as nature defines it.

No, the homo Nazis are, as always, the extremist lunatic fringe.

The majority is firmly on Davis' side.

More of your delusional, moron horseshit

Most Americans Support Sending Kim Davis To Jail, Poll Shows
And even more people, including Republican born-again Christians, think she should quit.

Ariel Edwards-LevyReporter, The Huffington Post
Posted: 09/09/2015 01:00 PM EDT | Edited: 5 hours ago


Most Americans think that Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis should have been sent to jail for contempt of court, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll.


In the survey, which was conducted prior to Davis' release from jail on Tuesday, a 56 percent majority of respondents said they supported the judge's decision to jail her for contempt of court, although fewer wanted her to actually remain behind bars.


Most respondents also thought Davis should be required to issue same-sex marriage licenses, and an even greater majority said she should resign if she's unwilling to do so.

Lololol...a Huff Post poll. I'm sure it's wildly representative of the rest of the nation.

Get the fuck out of here, you driveling nitwit.

OK Nurse Rat Shit- I'm gone honney

It was a semi-literate attempt to bid you 'good-day'. (Bitch said 'she leavin'.')

 

[Debra K]

Most Americans Support Sending Kim Davis To Jail, Poll Shows

ROFLMNAO!

Isn't it cool when leftist try to count themselves as "Americans"?

I guess I will never tire of that... it cracks me up EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT.

It's fun to laugh. I've laughed a lot over your "rightist" hysteria.

What do you think about irony? does that get you laughing?

This is a laugh:

Supporters of Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples due to her religious beliefs, said on Wednesday that any of her deputies who provide the documents without her permission should be fired. . . .

Ante Pavkovic, one of the people who helped organize pro-Davis rallies outside the Grayson, Kentucky, detention center where Davis was jailed, lectured the deputy clerks not to violate their oaths of office. He criticized Bunning and the U.S. Supreme Court justices who backed gay marriage.

"Do not join them in this any further, and if you can't do that, then you should just quit," Pavkovic, 49, of North Carolina, said, standing in the clerk's office in Morehead, Kentucky.

He waved a sign in the faces of the deputy clerks that read, "Fire the cowardly clerks that are lawbreakers." He was asked to leave by a deputy sheriff.

Source: Defiant Kentucky clerk's backers: fire aides over gay marriage licenses

How ironic is that? ROFLMAO!

Or maybe that's not irony, maybe that's hypocrisy. Oh well ... I'll check the dictionary later. ROFL

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It's fun to laugh. ... (Americans reject the Ideological Left, call for the firing of Godless subordinates)

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[koshergrl]

It w

No, the homo Nazis are, as always, the extremist lunatic fringe.

The majority is firmly on Davis' side.

More of your delusional, moron horseshit

Most Americans Support Sending Kim Davis To Jail, Poll Shows
And even more people, including Republican born-again Christians, think she should quit.

Ariel Edwards-LevyReporter, The Huffington Post
Posted: 09/09/2015 01:00 PM EDT | Edited: 5 hours ago


Most Americans think that Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis should have been sent to jail for contempt of court, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll.


In the survey, which was conducted prior to Davis' release from jail on Tuesday, a 56 percent majority of respondents said they supported the judge's decision to jail her for contempt of court, although fewer wanted her to actually remain behind bars.


Most respondents also thought Davis should be required to issue same-sex marriage licenses, and an even greater majority said she should resign if she's unwilling to do so.

Lololol...a Huff Post poll. I'm sure it's wildly representative of the rest of the nation.

Get the fuck out of here, you driveling nitwit.

OK Nurse Rat Shit- I'm gone honney

It was a semi-literate attempt to bid you 'good-day'. (Bitch said 'she leavin'.')

Mentally ill and stupid. Great combo.

David just announced he likes anal, giving and receiving. I imagine all the statist/winterborn wackos are racing to be near him.

 

[koshergrl]

Most Americans Support Sending Kim Davis To Jail, Poll Shows

ROFLMNAO!

Isn't it cool when leftist try to count themselves as "Americans"?

I guess I will never tire of that... it cracks me up EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT.

It's fun to laugh. I've laughed a lot over your "rightist" hysteria.

What do you think about irony? does that get you laughing?

This is a laugh:

Supporters of Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples due to her religious beliefs, said on Wednesday that any of her deputies who provide the documents without her permission should be fired. . . .

Ante Pavkovic, one of the people who helped organize pro-Davis rallies outside the Grayson, Kentucky, detention center where Davis was jailed, lectured the deputy clerks not to violate their oaths of office. He criticized Bunning and the U.S. Supreme Court justices who backed gay marriage.

"Do not join them in this any further, and if you can't do that, then you should just quit," Pavkovic, 49, of North Carolina, said, standing in the clerk's office in Morehead, Kentucky.

He waved a sign in the faces of the deputy clerks that read, "Fire the cowardly clerks that are lawbreakers." He was asked to leave by a deputy sheriff.

Source: Defiant Kentucky clerk's backers: fire aides over gay marriage licenses

How ironic is that? ROFLMAO!

Or maybe that's not irony, maybe that's hypocrisy. Oh well ... I'll check the dictionary later. ROFL

Actually, it's neither. You should probably have checked the dictionary first, illiterate.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Even compulsive shoppers ain't buying Kim Davis Holly Roller BS..........

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Luke 16:18? Here it is. “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

 

[HenryBHough]

I'm still laughing, several pages on, about the words: "God fearing Democrats".

What nonsense....not a single one of them fears Comrade Obama....well, maybe Mrs. Rodham-Clinton/Lewinsky might be a lone exception.....

 

[WorldWatcher]

More fiat power? Amazing how you people think politicians can just say something and it becomes true. There is a legal process for issuing legal marriage licenses that must include the clerk's approval and no governor, AG, or Mr. Hanky the Chrismas Poo can make something valid by fiat.

So Ms. Davis goes no vacation, they call her every time someone gets a Civil Marriage license to do they review the couples application against requirements for legal marriage and if the couple is qualified, the issue the license.

Please don't try to say that Ms. Davis's office requires that she personally review and approve each and every license issued - we all know that isn't true and Kentucky law allows that the Deputy Clerk can sign the license.



>>>>>

 

[asaratis]

Are you Serious,...you all think this person "Speaks for God" and that her opinions should Over Rule the US Constitution...are you all crazy on drugs or drunk ?
Kim Davis' Marriage History In One Handy Flowchart

You show little understanding of Christianity as it relates to forgiveness. I suspect that liberals are more likely to forgive hedonistic Hollywood celebrities for multiple failed marriages than to forgive a homely Christian 'church lady' for the same.

Small minded people do not often make intelligent conversation. You, my friend, have no chance.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Are you Serious,...you all think this person "Speaks for God" and that her opinions should Over Rule the US Constitution...are you all crazy on drugs or drunk ?
Kim Davis' Marriage History In One Handy Flowchart

You show little understanding of Christianity as it relates to forgiveness. I suspect that liberals are more likely to forgive hedonistic Hollywood celebrities for multiple failed marriages than to forgive a homely Christian 'church lady' for the same.

Small minded people do not often make intelligent conversation. You, my friend, have no chance.

Does Kim need our forgiveness? To put it in her words, "Then she is going to have a long day".

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Small minded people do not often make intelligent conversation. You, my friend, have no chance.

Are you on drugs ? I am not your friend by the way...small minded is denying gays constitutional Rights because Kim Davis "feels like it" based on "God's authority" by her own words. God does not sign the woman's paycheck ...Caesar signs her paychecks and she needs to "govern herself accordingly"...

 

[Vandalshandle]

God told me that Kim is batsdhit crazy. In fact, he feels that most of Kentucky has left their baggage at the station.

 

[Lakhota]

Kim Davis -- Violence in Relationship with Baby Daddy

Kim Davis may have a fundamental problem with marriage between same-sex couples, but she's certainly not saying all relationships between men and women are good, because she's had an incident violent enough that the courts got involved.

The now-famous county clerk had 2 children out of wedlock with Thomas McIntyre. According to court docs obtained by TMZ, on May 14, 1996, McIntyre went to Davis' home to visit the kids. He saw a bouquet of flowers on her kitchen table, and he got jealous.

According to the docs, McIntyre called Davis a "whore," and she slapped him and ordered him to leave. He challenged her to hit him again, and she said she didn't want to strike him and then picked up the phone to call the cops. She says he then ripped the phone cord out of the wall.

Davis says they began arguing and she slapped him again after he refused to leave the house.

When he finally left he said, "I see you in jail," and she responded, "No, in jail's where you'll be."

Davis went to court and got a restraining order, prohibiting McIntyre from coming within 1,000 feet of her and the kids.

P.S. She married McIntyre in 2007, but divorced him a year later.

Read more: Kim Davis -- Violence in Relationship with Baby Daddy

Oh my, oh dear. They remind me of the hicks I used to watch on Hee Haw.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

If I have to chose between Religious leaders I am going with the Pope not "Kim"
The Pope Is Ready to Trash Capitalism to Money-Loving Americans

As the U.S. presidential campaign exposes contempt for elites and angst over the future, Pope Francis arrives for his first visit with plans to denounce gross inequality and planetary neglect.

 

[Silhouette]

If I have to chose between Religious leaders I am going with the Pope not "Kim"
The Pope Is Ready to Trash Capitalism to Money-Loving Americans

As the U.S. presidential campaign exposes contempt for elites and angst over the future, Pope Francis arrives for his first visit with plans to denounce gross inequality and planetary neglect.

I'm sure that John Boehner, who invited the Pope to speak at Congress, was well aware of the Pope's leanings when the invitation was extended by the GOP house leader.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

Yes the guidelines were considered and found to be lacking.

If the United States Supreme Court held precedence and the lower courts were wrong, then would have remained the cases back to the lower court with instructions to apply backer but they didn't. In fact the SCOTUS said: (Obergerfell v. Hodges) "Baker v. Nelson must be and now is overruled, and the State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite sex couples." http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Below is where the lower courts DID address Baker in their rulings:

2nd Circuit Marriage decision (Windsor), Baker is discussed beginning on PDF PDF Page 15 -->> http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141167.P.pdf

4th Circuit Marriage decision, Baker is discussed beginning on PDF PDF Page 33 -->> http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141167.P.pdf

5th Circuit Marriage decision, Baker is discussed beginning on PDF Page 12 -->> http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0275p-06.pdf

7th Circuit Marriage decision, Baker is discussed beginning on PDF page 14 -->> http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-b...4/C:14-2526:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1412339:S:0

9th Circuit Marriage decision, Baker is discussed beginning on PDF 9 -->> http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/10/07/14-35420 opinion.pdf​

>>>>

your link for the 2nd circuit is the same link for the 4th......so one of these links, at least, is a lie..........regardless they did not have the right to avoid that precedent

 

[dcraelin]

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.

Yes the guidelines were considered and found to be lacking.

If the United States Supreme Court held precedence and the lower courts were wrong, then would have remained the cases back to the lower court with instructions to apply backer but they didn't. In fact the SCOTUS said: (Obergerfell v. Hodges) "Baker v. Nelson must be and now is overruled, and the State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite sex couples." http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Below is where the lower courts DID address Baker in their rulings:

2nd Circuit Marriage decision (Windsor), Baker is discussed beginning on PDF PDF Page 15 -->> http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141167.P.pdf

4th Circuit Marriage decision, Baker is discussed beginning on PDF PDF Page 33 -->> http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141167.P.pdf

5th Circuit Marriage decision, Baker is discussed beginning on PDF Page 12 -->> http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0275p-06.pdf

7th Circuit Marriage decision, Baker is discussed beginning on PDF page 14 -->> http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-b...4/C:14-2526:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1412339:S:0

9th Circuit Marriage decision, Baker is discussed beginning on PDF 9 -->> http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/10/07/14-35420 opinion.pdf​

>>>>

your link for the 5th is actually against the glossing over of Baker...it says among other things..

"But this reading of “doctrinal developments” would be a groundbreaking development of its own."

you should read your own link on that one, it puts the lie to the other courts ignorance.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

wrong...........see my numerous posts in other threads on this

 

[WorldWatcher]

your link for the 2nd circuit is the same link for the 4th......so one of these links, at least, is a lie..........regardless they did not have the right to avoid that precedent

A mistake in copying a link incorrectly is not a lie. Here is the corrected link -->>
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisio...6-98fa59ffb645/1/doc/12-2335_complete_opn.pdf

They didn't "avoid" the precedent. Avoiding the precedent would have been not mentioning it. But they did mention it.

Precedent's are not inviolate such when the conditions under which the precedent are not the same or when the SCOTUS indicates that the previous conditions no longer apply. Which of course exactly what happened with Roamer v. Evans, Lawrence overturned Bowers and when they issued the Windsor decision, all showing that homosexual have due process and equal protection rights.

If the SCOTUS had thought that Baker was still applicable, then they would have slapped down the first appeal that reached them concerning SSCM. But they didn't. In the end the District and Circuit Court Judges got the correct read from the SCOTUS as they specifically overturned Baker as part of Obergefell.


>>>>