Kim Davis needs to go to jail

[TyroneSlothrop]

they insist that their opinions are the equal of actual court rulings ...its in reality behavior no different than Kim Davis except Kim Davis is going to have another thing coming to her ...

 

[easyt65]

Ok now get a court order saying Obama has refused to uphold DOMA etc and you are in business...

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Davis is not an Attorney General or Prosecutor with the Constitutional authority of Prosecutorial Discretion. The fact is the President through his Attorney General does have the right to pick and choose. If congress determines he is violating his oath to uphold the constitution and overstepping the right to Prosecutorial Discretion they have the option of impeachment.

Obama swore an oath to defend and up-hold the Constitution in our laws. So you are saying Obama and the DOJ DID - as I said - choose what laws to enforce and what laws not to enforce based on the fact that they did not agree with the law!

THANK YOU for finally admitting it!

You keep repeating your opinion as though it has legal weight...its nothing but an opinion...Kim Davis is facing real Legal rulings

 

[Camp]

Hey, Easy.......show me Obama's name on any contempt order. Its that simple.

Hey Skyler, explain to me again how Obama personally refusing to up-hold / enforce the existing DOMA Law and ordering his employees (the DOJ) not to do so is any way different than Davis personally refusing to up-hold / enforce the existing law regarding marriage and ordering her employees not to do so ....

Like I said, you're a 'special kind of stupid'...

It has been explained. It is called Prosecutorial Discretion. It give s the executive legal authority to prosecute or not prosecute and it is absolute. You are to lazy to look it up or just treating it the same way you have treated how contempt charges work all day. You just ignore facts and make shit up.

 

[easyt65]

You keep ....

 

[Seawytch]

Davis is not an Attorney General or Prosecutor with the Constitutional authority of Prosecutorial Discretion. The fact is the President through his Attorney General does have the right to pick and choose. If congress determines he is violating his oath to uphold the constitution and overstepping the right to Prosecutorial Discretion they have the option of impeachment.

Obama swore an oath to defend and up-hold the Constitution in our laws. So you are saying Obama and the DOJ DID - as I said - choose what laws to enforce and what laws not to enforce based on the fact that they did not agree with the law!

THANK YOU for finally admitting it!

You guys suck at analogies. First off, if the President violated the law, was sued, lost, appealed, lost again and then STILL continued to break the law, your analogy would be valid.

Secondly:

Precedent for Presidential Refusal to Defend Statutes the Administration Believes to be Unconstitutional - The Volokh Conspiracy

 

[easyt65]

There is no difference between the two, Easy, but Obama/Holder get to do it because they call it 'Prosecutorial Discretion' when they do it.

got it - thanks, Camp!

 

[easyt65]

ANYWAY, most of us seem to agree that Davis should step aside if she continues to refuse to do her job...

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Davis is not an Attorney General or Prosecutor with the Constitutional authority of Prosecutorial Discretion. The fact is the President through his Attorney General does have the right to pick and choose. If congress determines he is violating his oath to uphold the constitution and overstepping the right to Prosecutorial Discretion they have the option of impeachment.

Obama swore an oath to defend and up-hold the Constitution in our laws. So you are saying Obama and the DOJ DID - as I said - choose what laws to enforce and what laws not to enforce based on the fact that they did not agree with the law!

THANK YOU for finally admitting it!

You guys suck at analogies. First off, if the President violated the law, was sued, lost, appealed, lost again and then STILL continued to break the law, your analogy would be valid.

Secondly:

Precedent for Presidential Refusal to Defend Statutes the Administration Believes to be Unconstitutional - The Volokh Conspiracy

I tried to say the same thing and it made the posters bowels get in an uproar

 

[boilermaker55]

Until the law stays as it is and no one changes it. The SCOTUS interpreted the law as they saw it.

You can say it how you want and call it what you want.She is wrong, you are wrong.
SCOTUS has interpreted the law how they see it.
Bye!@

It interprets law.

The SCOTUS interprets the laws. They do not write them.

Not in this case.

The SCOTUS stepped outside its authority and rewrote laws.

With logic.....not with prejudice.

Two of the judges were nominated specifically because of a conflict of interest. Their support of socialized medicine and their belief in same-sex marriage.

Don't even try to say that Obama didn’t put a couple of gays on the Supreme Court.

And it can be overturned just as easily. All congress has to do is produce an amendment stating the 14th amendment is meant only for slaves after the Civil War.....as it was intended....and the recent decision would be rendered moot.

Fact is, the decision was faulty because it doesn't grant equal rights for every circumstance imaginable, including plural marriage, marriage among siblings, etc.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Until the law stays as it is and no one changes it. The SCOTUS interpreted the law as they saw it.

You can say it how you want and call it what you want.She is wrong, you are wrong.
SCOTUS has interpreted the law how they see it.
Bye!@

It interprets law.

Not in this case.

The SCOTUS stepped outside its authority and rewrote laws.

With logic.....not with prejudice.

Two of the judges were nominated specifically because of a conflict of interest. Their support of socialized medicine and their belief in same-sex marriage.

Don't even try to say that Obama didn’t put a couple of gays on the Supreme Court.

And it can be overturned just as easily. All congress has to do is produce an amendment stating the 14th amendment is meant only for slaves after the Civil War.....as it was intended....and the recent decision would be rendered moot.

Fact is, the decision was faulty because it doesn't grant equal rights for every circumstance imaginable, including plural marriage, marriage among siblings, etc.

They do not accept the authority of the Constitution...they want their own authority regardless ...

 

[Camp]

Easy65 is leaving out something very important. Kim Davis went through a long series of appeals and hearings. While doing so she was allowed to refuse issuing marriage licences. The case was bounced upwards through the system until finally the Supreme Court of The United States sent it back to the original federal court in a show of support for the original court. It was then and only then that the court made the contempt order when Davis refused to follow the order of the court.
In the cases Easy65 has tried to make against Obama and his administration, the cases were resolved before it came to the point of the court making a final decision at the SCOTUS level. No actions were taken against Davis until her case was rejected by SCOTUS and returned to the original Federal Court.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I dont agree Obama has done the same thing but more importantly no legal authority agrees ...The legal authority says to Kim Davis do the job or resign or face jail...she wants the solution to be that the Gays do not get licenses its not gonna fly

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. All a Gay Male needs to get married, is a Female willing to marry it.

 

[boilermaker55]

Your opinion.

I dont agree Obama has done the same thing but more importantly no legal authority agrees ...The legal authority says to Kim Davis do the job or resign or face jail...she wants the solution to be that the Gays do not get licenses its not gonna fly

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. All a Gay Male needs to get married, is a Female willing to marry it.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. All a Gay Male needs to get married, is a Female willing to marry it.

That applies to a Church ..the Govt legalized same sex marriages...

 

[easyt65]

Easy65 is leaving out something very important. Kim Davis went through a long series of appeals and hearings. While doing so she was allowed to refuse issuing marriage licences. The case was bounced upwards through the system until finally the Supreme Court of The United States sent it back to the original federal court in a show of support for the original court. It was then and only then that the court made the contempt order when Davis refused to follow the order of the court.
In the cases Easy65 has tried to make against Obama and his administration, the cases were resolved before it came to the point of the court making a final decision at the SCOTUS level. No actions were taken against Davis until her case was rejected by SCOTUS and returned to the original Federal Court.

Actually this not true as the Obama administration is still in defiance of a court order demanding his e-mails - all of them - regarding F&F be turned over. Obama continues to drag this scandal - which began his 1st year in office - out

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

They seek to impose their opinions over and above the Law itself.......

 

[bodecea]

you can tap dance...

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Your post does not mean what you think it means.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Davis is not an Attorney General or Prosecutor with the Constitutional authority of Prosecutorial Discretion. The fact is the President through his Attorney General does have the right to pick and choose. If congress determines he is violating his oath to uphold the constitution and overstepping the right to Prosecutorial Discretion they have the option of impeachment.

Obama swore an oath to defend and up-hold the Constitution in our laws. So you are saying Obama and the DOJ DID - as I said - choose what laws to enforce and what laws not to enforce based on the fact that they did not agree with the law!

THANK YOU for finally admitting it!

You guys suck at analogies. First off, if the President violated the law, was sued, lost, appealed, lost again and then STILL continued to break the law, your analogy would be valid.

Secondly:

Precedent for Presidential Refusal to Defend Statutes the Administration Believes to be Unconstitutional - The Volokh Conspiracy

The Administration; which is to say the obama Cult, decided not to defend DOMA, because the obama Cult is a subversion insurgency, intent upon destroying the US Culture and in so doing to separate the Citizenry of the United States from the Principles that define and sustain America. It is comprised of seditionists, and traitors; which is to say those who are US Citizens, but who have been trained to reject American Principle in favor of Foreign Ideas Hostile to those principles, OKA: EVIL.

And that is truly all there is to this... and all anyone needs to know, to know what they should do in terms of cooperating with obama and it's government.

 

[bodecea]

Go get you an attorney make the legal case and go forward

No attorney is needed. The fact that Obama 1st declared he would NOT enforce / defend the Defense of Marriage Act is documented HISTORY!

The FACT that he has refused to enforce certain aspects of our existing Immigration laws is documented history.

The fact that his administration on numerous occasions violated the law / court orders to do what HE wants rather than what the law states / stated is documented FACT.

And these things ARE - very inconveniently to Liberals, I might add - pertinent to this discussion because it exposes Liberal Hypocrisy and Double Standards. When Conservatives follow the precedence established by the President and decides on THEIR own what laws not to enforce they go to jail and are condemned by Liberals, while the President and administration that set the precedence is given a 'pass'.

Look, I agree that Davis should either step down or be 'recall-voted' out of office, but the fact that the basic thing she did - refuse to enforce the law - is the same EXACT thing Obama has done...no matter how much you may claim otherwise. And the bottom line is either EVERYONE is held accountable to the law - everyone must adhere to the law equally, or we do not truly have equal justice.

Kim Davis would win a recall by a landslide. To believe otherwise is a massive misread of the situation.

A significant majority of US Citizens and 100% of Americans reject the SCOTUS decision... and the Americans recognize that the SCOTUS does not duly posses the power to simply pull decisions out of their collective ass, which is what the Relativists on the Court did.

Do you have a crystal ball?