Anti-SSM Kentucky clerk denied appeal by SCOTUS on refusal to issue marriage licenses

Actually the constitution is the rule of law.

Why? They aren't.

 

State and local governments can be taken to court for violating the constitution. It's happened multiple times.

 

You are living in a bubble. Your rights have been violated for many years, and blatantly violated - with the approval of your elected officials - in front of your nose for the past 7. This isn't grade school government class, its the real world.

 

As far as I know the constitution wasn't repealed. It's okay he is not going to be in office much longer

 

There is something about having to call the state legislature into session to fire her.. and the cost is 80K a day..

She should sit in jail.

 

Bunning [the judge] said he, too, was religious, but he explained that when he took his oath to become a judge, that oath trumped his personal beliefs, CNN affiliate WKYT-TV reported.

I would await your apology but I know your kind lacks that integrity.

 

While I support accommodation for religious belief (or any reasonable accomodation for any belief, religious or not), I have a hard time first of all understanding her belief. She is part of a denomination that supports a literal interpretation of the bible... Which is fine... But wouldn't that mean she believes she is in a adulterous marriage, since she is not with her first husband? Lying is also a sin, and she took an oath to uphold the law. When the law changed and she refused to resign when she could no longer uphold it, she is essentially lying under oath. She is not challenging the law, but asking for an exception from it. I just don't understand the line of reasoning.

It was also a little telling when she did not answer whether or not a clerk should be able to refuse to marry someone who was previously divorced if they believed that went against their religion. If we have to allow this exception, how many others must we allow? Ir why should we allow this one, but not others? I think that there is room for accommodation, but simply refusing a segment isnt one of them. Unfortunately it is more so in the hands of the state legislature than anyone else to provide that accommodation.

 

She is one of those people that believe that whatever it is they believe is what the National Standards and Laws should be based upon.

She is a cancer that needs to be removed.

AboveAlpha

 

This was a civil law matter.

Never before has any person - in or out of government - been imprisoned by a federal judge for a denial of civil rights concerning civil law.

Not for blacks. Not for Latinos. Not for Women. Not for Native Americans. Not for kids. Not about marriage. Not about any officials duties or oath of office. Often for matters far more extreme than denial of a marriage license. It is only a basis for imprisonment to civilly discriminate against gays.

 

And this isn't a real admission that you've got no argument left but it plays one on this forum.

 

Everything that exists began somewhere. Will you remember where you where on Sept 3rd, 2015 for the rest of your life when the wacky clerk lady fought the law...and lost.

 

I thought this was cute...

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/god...h-turns-on-kim-davis-for-causing-fg-marriage/


Westboro Baptist Church:
Addressing Davis, who has been married four times –twice to the same man — and reportedly had twins out of wedlock, Westboro tweeted: “‘Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me.’ -The LORD”

A quote from their twitter account says she should follow both Man's and God's law by resigning and moving out of her adulterous marriage.

Who would have thought I'd be making the same argument as the westboro baptist church.

 

Actually the Republican Judge was trying to give her a BREAK!!!

It is BREAKING FEDERAL LAW that any person holding a position to give out applicatons for any type of License be it a Marriage Licence or Registering to Vote...etc....well the Federal Law makes it clear that any person who purposely refused to either give out an application for any License to any American Citizen as well it is a Federal Law that no person can refuse a U.S. Citizen or Couple any License that they have filled out properly the application for and fufill the criteria necessary to recieve any License....IS BREAKING FEDERAL LAW.

Now depending upon what this woman could have been charged with she could be facing up to 5 years inprisonment and a $100,000.00 FINE!!!

So this JUDGE is DOING THIS WOMAN A FAVOR by holding her in contempt of court and placing her in Jail so as to allow her to THINK ABOUT WHAT SHE IS DOING!!!

If she goes and processes the Marriage License Application Davis will NOT BE SENT TO PRISON FOR 5 YEARS AND FINED $100,000.00!!!!

If she REFUSES.....then the Judge can fine her up to $100,000.00 as well as send her to prison for 5 years!!!

So this is NOT AN ACTIVIST JUDGE!!!

This is a REPUBLICAN JUDGE who does not think this woman has really THOUGHT OVER WHAT SHE IS DOING AND HAS NOT THOUGHT ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES!!!

The Judge could have rendered a GUILT VERDICT as Davis admits to doing what she did!!!

The Judge could have just said....OK....JUILTY!!! Sentensing will commense immediately...I sentence you to 5 years in FEDERAL PRISON and fine you $100,000.00!!!!

Instead the Judge is DOING THE RIGHT THING!!!

He is giving Mz. Davis a TASTE of what Prison would be like!!!

AboveAlpha

 

Hmm, not sure if I quite agree. Federal and Kentucky law do carve out exemptions for religious accommodation, although my understanding is that it's less applicable to elected officials. But generally speaking, while the legal requirement to perform duties can apply to individual persons, each individual person does not necessarily need to perform them... so long as the reasonable accommodation made does not cause undue hardship.

With that said, it may be reasonable that she herself does not need to participate in giving the license, but that she must allow (and make sure) that other staff on duty are able to do so. And that's why she was held in contempt, because she stated that she would not allow it.

With regard to imprisonment, I also don't believe that the judge as the power to sentence her to the 5 years... That would require a conviction by a jury and consideration for the seriousness of the contempt. But she can still be held as is for quite some time until she voluntarily complies, or until she no longer has the power to comply i.e. if she's impeached, or when she loses her next election, or if the point is made moot... like if the state legislate changes the law such that her name no longer appears on the licenses and she agrees to allow her office to issue the licenses as a consequence of that.

I'm kinda thinking the last option is what will happen here. When the legislature is back in session early next year, they'll have the ability to make any changes required. I don't think she or the judge will give up before then.

edit: oh, and just so you all know, I found out while reading up on county clerks in Kentucky that they are automatically disqualified if they ever participated in a duel: "All persons who have participated in a duel are disqualified from holding county offices
(Ky. Const., secs. 228 and 239). "

 

Funny, the things that are still on the books. Wonder if someone characterize Davis showdown with the Judge Bunning as a duel.

(jk)​

​

 

What law are you talking about? Cite it. I think you don't know what you're talking about.

No one ever was sent to jail for 1 second for refusing to issue an Interracial marriage license.

 

Did anyone refuse to do so after the supreme court made the Loving decisions? From what I can gather, there were in fact judges in Alabama that refused to implement the decision, but this ended after a federal district judge officially enjoined the enforcement of the law following the Loving decision: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4101369272554922509&. And that's kinda what happened here... A clerk refused to implement the decision, so the plaintiffs went to federal court to get an injunction. In response, the clerk was ordered to comply and make licenses available. The difference is that she continues to refuse.... hence, jail.

That all said, I'm not sure if it really means much comparing to the historical time period anyway... I mean we're talking about a time and place where white people got away with murder against black people with faux trials and all white juries. Doesn't surprise me much about anything that went on.

 

I agree. The government should have no involvement in marriage, but this is her fault for accepting the job.

Why do bigots have to make their points in such completely inept ways?

 

No, because the ever-expanding take over of all other branches of government by the federal courts is nothing new - and acting diametrically oppose of the Constitution and Bill Of Rights to do so. As you stated, this is the next step.

 

The courts are out of control, abuse their power, and repeatedly nullify the rule of law. The 1st Amendment exists to protect individuals like Davis and her religious liberty from the Federal Government, which includes district courts.

Here's my take and to those screaming for Davis to be fired. Let's first have clown Obama resign or be fired after years of ignoring our immigration laws! That idiot has been doing the exact same thing....ignoring the law. So once that takes place, then we can have a legitimate debate about Kim Davis.

 

This isn't a first amendment issue. She is an elected official and acting in that capacity, religious beliefs are not a consideration.

I know it's hard for you righties to not mindlessly obsess over Obama, but he has nothing to do with this issue.

what court order is Obama refusing, like Kim Davis?

 

As for your first paragraph, so far not one person can give ANY instance of ANY local, county, state or federal official EVER being summarily sent to federal prison for not doing what a federal judge ordered regarding "doing their job" or any civil law matter.

As for your second paragraph, apparently you believe that Davis was given a jury trial. She was not. She was not allowed a jury. She was not allowed bond. This was not direct contempt of the court even it was contempt.

Notably, the Ky county judge of that county ALSO can issue marriage licenses, and Ky law requires the county judge to do so if the county doesn't. Did the county judge issue a marriage license to that couple? No. Did the federal judge order the country judge to issue the gay couple a marriage license? No.

Why? Clearly, ,the federal judge has no interest in getting the gay couple a marriage license. Rather, the judge stated he was jailing her because people financing her appeals and protesting him. This was the judge's personal retaliation against people protesting him and nothing about the gay couple's rights to a marriage license.

NOT ONE PERSON has given ANY example of any official - ever - "refusing to do their job" in American judicial history being imprisoned. Not ONE PERSON has given any reason why the Federal JUDGE has ignored the COUNTY JUDGE not issuing the gay couple a marriage license as provided for in Kentucky law. It isn't about federal law, not about the Supreme Court and not about doing anything for the gay couple. It is about personally hating Kim Davis and people protesting on her behalf.

- - - Updated - - -

 

Federal court has no jurisdiction to remove her from office. A State court would.

 

The County Judge of the identical county is also authorized to issue marriage licenses. Did the federal judge order the County Judge to issue the gay couple a marriage license? No. Did the Federal Court order a State Court to remove her? No. Did the Federal Judge order the clerks to issue marriage licenses? No. Did the Federal judge try to get the gay couple a marriage license? No.

The Federal Judge knows he's not going to get away with ordering State judges what to do because are lawyers and have lawyers. He's only shoving around a little clerk relying that the media will add their hatred of the religious rightwing to support his judicial thuggery infuriated at being protested.

 

Once she stopped doing any marriage licenses the issue of discrimination ended. The case became NO different than mayors or police chiefs who refuse to comply with federal immigration laws in sanctuary cities.

The Supreme Court did not make any ruling of who has to issue marriage licenses. It only ruled against discrimination against gay couples. The moment she stopped issuing any marriage licenses to anyone the discrimination issue ended. The constant claim that local, county, state and federal officials who "refuse to do their job" should then be immediately imprisoned in federal prison is absurd.

Call the police. Complain of your neighbor's barking dog. Then try to get that police officer thrown into federal prison for refusing to write your neighbor a ticket - "refusing to do his job" - and see how far that goes. "Refusing to do your job" is never a jailable offense. For officials it is only a firing/impeachment offense.

- - - Updated - - -

There are federal judges who have refused to hear certain categories of drug cases in opposition to mandatory sentencing laws. Nor did they resign. Why aren't all those federal judges in prison?

- - - Updated - - -

Immigration.