Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court

[dcraelin]

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.


>>>>

saying that the SCOTUS would have done the right thing in slapping down the appeal.........when of course their mind was already made up ...........is kind of a circular argument. ...............

but as your 3rd link shows.............the other courts, when they did mention it......................got it wrong.

 

[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.

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

I see you missed the point too. God forgives all sin. Kim doesn't need YOUR forgiveness at all. I doubt she expects it. So your lack of forgiveness is meaningless.

 

[WorldWatcher]

saying that the SCOTUS would have done the right thing in slapping down the appeal.........when of course their mind was already made up ...........is kind of a circular argument. ...............

but as your 3rd link shows.............the other courts, when they did mention it......................got it wrong.

You said the lower courts didn't address Baker - I showed they did address Baker.

You said they were bound by Baker - I showed where there were developmental caused Baker not to apply.

You say the lower courts got it wrong - yet the SCOTUS upheld the lower courts and specifically declared Baker overturned.

And they "got it wrong".

Well at that point there is only one thing to say.

...................................

 

[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".

I see you missed the point too. God forgives all sin. Kim doesn't need YOUR forgiveness at all. I doubt she expects it. So your lack of forgiveness is meaningless.

..and yet, you posted the above words in bold.....

 

[asaratis]

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"...

Yes. I take a line up of tablets...one batch in the morning and another at night. I use quite a few drugs.

I didn't mean 'friend' literally. Were you not so small minded, you'd have realized that.

No rights were denied gays because of her refusal to issue licenses with her name on them. Licenses can be had in Kentucky. She was actually upholding Kentucky law in her refusal.

Those that continue to protest against her are simply seeking the comfort of being accepted as normal people. Got news for you.....you're abnormal.

 

[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.

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

I see you missed the point too. God forgives all sin. Kim doesn't need YOUR forgiveness at all. I doubt she expects it. So your lack of forgiveness is meaningless.

..and yet, you posted the above words in bold.....

Yes, I did. And that does not mean that I don't forgive hedonist Hollywood celebrities for multiple marriages. What is your point?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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[/QUOTE

A lie? Really? Such pathetic desperation! I almost feel sorry for you....almost....well not realy

 

[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"...

Yes. I take a line up of tablets...one batch in the morning and another at night. I use quite a few drugs.

I didn't mean 'friend' literally. Were you not so small minded, you'd have realized that.

No rights were denied gays because of her refusal to issue licenses with her name on them. Licenses can be had in Kentucky. She was actually upholding Kentucky law in her refusal.

Those that continue to protest against her are simply seeking the comfort of being accepted as normal people. Got news for you.....you're abnormal.

That is what you say I say different.

Left handed people are not normal...Right handed people are more the norm...so effing what...No you do not get to define someone as "abnormal" or "sinful" or any other label in order to deprive them of Constitutional Rights... NO...

..I am not lining up in support of the Bible over the Constitution...you are ...she went to jail for law breaking ...I see you as the small minded person not me... I define you as small minded from the word squat...Hey Kim Davis based on the authority granted to me by God I am suspending you from the Office of Clerk..........Yours in God Tyrone
Kim Davis -- Violence in Relationship with Baby Daddy

 

[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".

I see you missed the point too. God forgives all sin. Kim doesn't need YOUR forgiveness at all. I doubt she expects it. So your lack of forgiveness is meaningless.

..and yet, you posted the above words in bold.....

Yes, I did. And that does not mean that I don't forgive hedonist Hollywood celebrities for multiple marriages. What is your point?

Nothing in particular, other than to point out that, like so many other RW folks, you see no irony in posting one thing, and doing a 180 degree turn on the next post, which is exactly what you did. I find it amusing. Kind of like screaming that something Obama did is unconstitutional, while maintaining that the SC has acted unconstitutionally, when outlawing gay marriage prohibitions.

 

[asaratis]

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"...

Yes. I take a line up of tablets...one batch in the morning and another at night. I use quite a few drugs.

I didn't mean 'friend' literally. Were you not so small minded, you'd have realized that.

No rights were denied gays because of her refusal to issue licenses with her name on them. Licenses can be had in Kentucky. She was actually upholding Kentucky law in her refusal.

Those that continue to protest against her are simply seeking the comfort of being accepted as normal people. Got news for you.....you're abnormal.

That is what you say I say different.

Left handed people are not normal...Right handed people are more the norm...so effing what...No you do not get to define someone as "abnormal" or "sinful" or any other label in order to deprive them of Constitutional Rights... NO...

..I am not lining up in support of the Bible over the Constitution...you are ...she went to jail for law breaking ...I see you as the small minded person not me... I define you as small minded from the word squat...Hey Kim Davis based on the authority granted to me by God I am suspending you from the Office of Clerk..........Yours in God Tyrone
Kim Davis -- Violence in Relationship with Baby Daddy

I did not equate 'sinful' to 'abnormal'. You did that.

I am not supporting the Bible over the Constitution. I'm not really supporting Kim Davis. I'm saying the hoopla over her refusal to provide licenses with her name on them is nothing but political theatrics...and that criticism of her past (and her 'Jerry Springer' experiences) is childish.

 

[asaratis]

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".

I see you missed the point too. God forgives all sin. Kim doesn't need YOUR forgiveness at all. I doubt she expects it. So your lack of forgiveness is meaningless.

..and yet, you posted the above words in bold.....

Yes, I did. And that does not mean that I don't forgive hedonist Hollywood celebrities for multiple marriages. What is your point?

Nothing in particular, other than to point out that, like so many other RW folks, you see no irony in posting one thing, and doing a 180 degree turn on the next post, which is exactly what you did. I find it amusing. Kind of like screaming that something Obama did is unconstitutional, while maintaining that the SC has acted unconstitutionally, when outlawing gay marriage prohibitions.

Please describe the '180 degree turn' you say I made. At least give the two post numbers between which you claim it occurred.

I'll be waiting....in the wings.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.”

Jesus has paid for her sins. You will pay for your own.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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"...

Yes. I take a line up of tablets...one batch in the morning and another at night. I use quite a few drugs.

I didn't mean 'friend' literally. Were you not so small minded, you'd have realized that.

No rights were denied gays because of her refusal to issue licenses with her name on them. Licenses can be had in Kentucky. She was actually upholding Kentucky law in her refusal.

Those that continue to protest against her are simply seeking the comfort of being accepted as normal people. Got news for you.....you're abnormal.

Incorrect.

In Obergefell the Supreme Court held that for states and local jurisdictions to refuse same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment, denying same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law.

Davis in fact violated the rights of gay Americans by refusing to issue them marriage licenses to access state marriage law same-sex couples are eligible to participate in, she violated her oath of office to obey and defend the Constitution of the United States, and she was held in contempt as a consequence.

What is inane, ridiculous, and unwarranted is to seek to contrive and propagate the lie that Davis is some sort of 'victim,' or 'defender' of her faith – when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Vandalshandle]

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

I see you missed the point too. God forgives all sin. Kim doesn't need YOUR forgiveness at all. I doubt she expects it. So your lack of forgiveness is meaningless.

..and yet, you posted the above words in bold.....

Yes, I did. And that does not mean that I don't forgive hedonist Hollywood celebrities for multiple marriages. What is your point?

Nothing in particular, other than to point out that, like so many other RW folks, you see no irony in posting one thing, and doing a 180 degree turn on the next post, which is exactly what you did. I find it amusing. Kind of like screaming that something Obama did is unconstitutional, while maintaining that the SC has acted unconstitutionally, when outlawing gay marriage prohibitions.

Please describe the '180 degree turn' you say I made. At least give the two post numbers between which you claim it occurred.

I'll be waiting....in the wings.

There is really no point. you are blind to your own hypocrisy, and there is nothing I can do about it.

 

[Skylar]

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.


>>>>

saying that the SCOTUS would have done the right thing in slapping down the appeal.........when of course their mind was already made up ...........is kind of a circular argument. ...............

No, its a clear demonstration that you don't know what you're talking about. You're insisting that the lower courts were bound to Baker, when they weren't.

The lower court rulings overwhelmingly relied on more recent precedent, most relevantly tghe the precedent of Windsor. With its communication of the court's position on same sex marriage so clearly that even Scalia said it was 'beyond mistaking' and that the State same sex marriage bans being overturned using the logic of Windsor was 'inevitable.'

Scalia and the lower courts were right on how to interpret the Windsor ruling: the USSC did affirm same sex marriage and did overturn state marriage bans. The lower courts got it right. With the exception of the 6th which the USSC reviewed and overturned.

Your position that the lower courts should have ignored Windsor, Lawrence and Romer in favor of Baker was wrong. As the USSC demonstrated so elegantly in Obergefell.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I just gotta say it. That woman is as fugly as fugly gets. What man would ever want her?

Damn!

 

[Statistikhengst]

Her name is not off the licenses.

She is the Clerk of the Court... The Clerk's office issues the licenses... therefore everything that the Clerks office does, bears her name.

Here is one of the licenses issued while she was in custody.


>>>>

Both of those gentlemen are listed as "disabled"?!?!? At 45 and 42 years old, respectively?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Kim Davis is an idiotic Religionist mental midget ...God laughs at her outlandish claims to know what God's views are...God rejects Dixie flag Right wing slags ...

Brazenly speaking for the Almighty. Judgment day will be truly dreadful for you.

Only, it's not your job to be speaking for H-shem. No one is entitled to speak for G-d. G-d has made that ABUNDANTLY clear. To do so is to commit sacriledge. So, enjoy your crispy critters...

 

[Statistikhengst]

They actually think threats from their Gods are believable...OHHH I am scared the Christian God is going to torture me....aint no Christian God going to do Jack shit to me...

Who cares what scares you? Not me. Lefties are senseless, and totally irrelevant.

You, with your ugliness and a soul a dirty as soot, also have no place speaking in judgement of anyone or speaking for the Almighty. G-d is much, much, much bigger than either of us. Get over it and get over yourself.

In other words, go fuck yourself, witch.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Kim Davis is an idiotic Religionist mental midget ...God laughs at her outlandish claims to know what God's views are...God rejects Dixie flag Right wing slags ...

Brazenly speaking for the Almighty. Judgment day will be truly dreadful for you.

Here is someone who you can relate to....just as fucking bat shit crazy as you!

Kevin Swanson: All 50 Governors Are Going To Hell For Obeying Marriage Equality Ruling Submitted by Isabel on Wednesday, 9/9/2015 11:43 am

On his “Generations Radio” program yesterday, far-right Colorado pastor Kevin Swanson praised anti-gay Kentucky clerk Kim Davis for her “courage” in standing up to “the forces of darkness.” Swanson said he is thankful that Davis is upholding “the laws of God” by refusing to issue marriage licenses in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling on marriage equality. “Anybody that tries to approve of the absolute worst possible abomination on planet Earth and give a marriage license to homosexuals is violating the laws of God,” Swanson said. - See more at: Kevin Swanson: All 50 Governors Are Going To Hell For Obeying Marriage Equality Ruling