United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Kim Davis, Prisoner of Conscience: RELEASED!
Source:
Breitbart
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern ... isoner-or-conscience-released/
Published: Sep 8, 2015
Author: Austin Ruse
Post Date: 2015-09-08 15:07:08 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 26065
Comments: 191
Judge David Bunning jailed Davis last Thursday after she repeatedly refused to grant any marriage licenses from her office as long as they had to include same-sex couples. Davis cited her religious beliefs in refusing to issue the licenses, even though the Supreme Court imposed same-sex marriage on the country last June 26. In his order issued today Bunning said, “Defendant Davis shall not interfere in any way, directly or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples. If Defendant Davis should interfere in any way with their issuance, that will be considered a violation of this Order and appropriate sanctions will be considered.” Bunning says he is satisfied that Davis’s staff has so far adhered to his order to issue marriage licenses to all qualified applicants. He has ordered that Davis’s office report to him every 14 days to demonstrate that the office is continuing to follow the order to grant licenses to same-sex couples. He notes that the reports so far have shown the Office of County Clerk of Rowan County no longer puts Davis’s name on marriage liceneses but instead uses “Rowan County” where her name is supposed to go. Davis’s attorney Matthew Staver of Liberty Cousel issued the following statement: “We are pleased that Kim Davis has been ordered released. She can never recover the past six days of her life spent in an isolated jail cell, where she was incarcerated like a common criminal because of her conscience and religious convictions. She is now free to return to her family, her coworkers and the office where she has faithfully served for the past 27 years. We will continue to assist Kim and pursue the multiple appeals she has filed.” There is no word on whether Davis intends to interfere with the issuance of marriage licenses in her office in defiance of the court order. 
After five days in jail, Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis is being freed by the judge who put her there.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-116) not displayed.
.
.
.
#117. To: TooConservative (#113)
Kim Davis cannot be charged with TooConservative's speculative conclusions about her actual actions. Regardless of why she did what she did, what she did was not discriminatory. I do not hope to achieve anything. What do you hope to achieve? Rowan County will issue marriage licenses. They may change the form, the law, or the Clerk. Do you think it is long passed the time the legislature should have gone back to work and addressed the issue and the laws that were struck down?
Are you going to charge her with impure motives? Or are you going to charge her with something she actually did?
Perhaps your ideal outcome is that county clerks (or deputies like her son who is 1 of five deputy clerks in Kim Davis's office) would have the right to refuse to issue marriage licenses entirely and other deputy clerks who do not have religious objections will issue the marriage licenses and this will be the situation there for years to come. This seems to me like another Schiavo or Bundy case, to name a few examples. People are very fired up that this is a fight worth having.
Lawsuits and charges will come if she stops issuing licenses again. At present, her office is issuing them in her absence and will continue after she goes back to work tomorrow.
Yes, it is true that the Kentucky constitution, as well as statutes, state that marriage is between one man and one woman. Neither the constitution nor statutes have been changed since Obergefell have been changed. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/legresou/constitu/233A.htm Text as ratified on: November 2, 2004.
Not for discrimination.
My ideal outcome would be the U.S. Supreme Court not going where it does not belong.
Of course. That doesn't answer what to do since they did go there.
Kim Davis's job as a county official is to issue marriage licenses under the authority of the state. She can reject them if they are not qualified. She is not free to stop issuing licenses completely because she has a religious objection. No, nothing remains definitive in this case; Especially the extent and definition of Davis' obligations, duties, job description, or authority. You may perceive this case as simply a black and white matter of authority and obligation over issuance of marriage licenses (based on religious belief or otherwise.) However, it's clearly and obviously not. This case (and Kim Davis in particular) has become the match that's exposed the fedgoob and its judges as interpreting and shading the law as advocates of "social justice" and "gay" rights. It's also exposed just how our subversive fedgoob uses the judiciary as a sledgehammer to usurp the authority of States' Rights as well as We The People -- while steamrolling an agenda. This as they target Christians and conservatives, violating their 1A and 14A rights. Furthermore, this l'il ol' case has presented a spectrum of conundrum of technicalities for state and Fed gubmint authoritahs. The judiciary -- a tool of rampant fascist statism and "social justice" -- has been too busy punishing its "enemies" to pay attention to pesky protocol.
I wonder how many sought out damages from the school district. Yep, Bunning is on a sodomite Jihad against Christians. quotquot autem receperunt eum dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri his qui credunt in nomine eius
I suspect that before this is over, they will regret that they ever opened up this can of worms. Si vis pacem, para bellum
Yet it is my understanding that he was appointed by Bush Jr, and that his father was a conservative. Si vis pacem, para bellum
Great job boiling that down. quotquot autem receperunt eum dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri his qui credunt in nomine eius
You act like this suddenly happened but it has been moving steadily this way for the last few decades. And you think there is some great Silent Majority out there that is finally ready to rise up to defend their liberties? When you hear from them, let me know.
Does not surprise me. quotquot autem receperunt eum dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri his qui credunt in nomine eius
You guys haven't heard of Jim Bunning? He's one of a handful of famous athletes that went into politics.
That would be Senator Bunning. Not Justice David L. Bunning. Senator Bunning understands in the game of life there are pitchers and catchers.
quotquot autem receperunt eum dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri his qui credunt in nomine eius
The have not figured out what to do with Roe yet. When SCOTUS short-circuits the political process, we get dissent. Justice Thomas explicitly forecast what would happen in his dissenting opinion. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf [All Obergefell opinions at link.] Obergefell, THOMAS, J., dissenting at 2-3: Id. at 7: Id. at 9: Petitioners cannot claim, under the most plausible definition of "liberty," that they have been imprisoned or physically restrained by the States for participating in same-sex relationships. Id. at 10: Id. at 13: Id. at 15-16: The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability. It makes only a weak gesture toward religious liberty in a single paragraph, ante, at 27. And even that gesture indicates a misunderstanding of religious liberty in our Nation's tradition. Religious liberty is about more than just the protection for "religious organizations and persons . . . as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths." Ibid. Religious liberty is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally, and the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious practice. Although our Constitution provides some protection against such governmental restrictions on religious practices, the People have long elected to afford broader protections than this Court's constitutional precedents mandate. Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process—as the Constitution requires—the People could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process. Instead, the majority's decision short-circuits that process, with potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty. IV Perhaps recognizing that these cases do not actually involve liberty as it has been understood, the majority goes to great lengths to assert that its decision will advance the "dignity" of same-sex couples. Ante, at 3, 13, 26, 28. The flaw in that reasoning, of course, is that the Constitution contains no "dignity" Clause, and even if it did, the government would be incapable of bestowing dignity. Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate.
I don't see that these arguments by Clarence Thomas moved any votes on the Court. The majority on the Court were unimpressed.
Yes, I have. Former Senator from Ky, and before that had been a US Representative from Ky. A conservative. He was also a pitcher for the Detroit Tigers, and the Philadelphia Phillies. Si vis pacem, para bellum
Canada Free Press is notoriously unreliable on legal matters. Morrison v. Board of Education of Boyd County, Kentucky, KYED (17 Feb 2006), BUNNING, District Judge - - - - - https://casetext.com/case/morrison-v-board-of-educ Morrison v. Board of Education of Boyd County, 507 F.3d 494, (6th Cir., 2007). Before: MOORE and COOK, Circuit Judges; ADAMS. District Judge.The Honorable John R. Adams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. MOORE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ADAMS, D.J., joined. COOK, J. delivered a separate dissenting opinion. The Morrison decision of 2007 lasted until 2008 when it was reversed at a rehearing. - - - - - http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0146a-06.pdf Morrison v. Board of Education of Boyd County, 521 F. 3d 602, (6th Cir., 9 Apr 2008), COOK, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ADAMS, D. J., joined. MOORE, J. (pp. 9-21), delivered a separate dissenting opinion. In this appeal, Timothy Morrison (“Morrison”) challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Board. Morrison is a student at Boyd County High School (“BCHS”). He is a Christian who believes that homosexuality is a sin. He further believes that part of his responsibility as a Christian is to tell others when their conduct does not comport with his understanding of Christian morality. During the 2004–05 academic year, BCHS had a written policy prohibiting students from making stigmatizing or insulting comments regarding another student’s sexual orientation. Wary of potential punishment, Morrison remained silent with respect to his personal beliefs, but challenged in federal court the Board’s right to stifle his speech. After Morrison filed this lawsuit, the Board changed the BCHS policy, but Morrison’s litigation did not end. We must now decide whether Morrison’s claim for nominal damages premised upon a “chill” on his speech during the 2004–05 school year presents a justiciable controversy. We conclude that it does not, and accordingly AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Board. - - - - -
The majority in Plessy was unimpressed by the dissent. The majority is never impressed with the dissent. When SCOTUS wades into the deep waters and short circuits the political process, dissent follows. Dissent is still following Roe v. Wade. A Court decision on a moral issue does not change people's morals. When nearly two-thirds of the states were overruled by a court on shaky ground and fuzzy logic, dissent and resistance is inevitable, as Justice Thomas predicted. Nobody can contest that his prediction was correct.
Did the Constitution change in the last few decades to create a constitutional mandate for same-sex marriage? Did the Constitution morph to include a right that was never there before?
Yes, George III thought so too. He didn't know SCOTUS from a hole in the wall. But I guess there are those who think it will be useful to ask SCOTUS to rule again on gay marriages. They could use their time more productively by doing something like......oh, I don't know.......shoveling sand against the tide. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
We have been done this road before. The Consitution started to get bent almost from Day 1 of Washington's administration. It was broken big time during Adam's administration and again by Jefferson. I will say this again and again and again, the only rights that one has are those that one can and will defend. We The People have allowed this to happen. We The People continue to elect the same Constitution muggers over and over and over again. And when We The People gets it in the ass, We The People squeal "Thank you ,sir. May I have another." потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I'm 5/9ths certain that it did.
I can't seem to get anyone to say exactly what they would prefer to have happen in this case and similar ones.
I'm 5/9ths certain that it did. Can you provide the textual change to the Constitution?
The biggest muggers of the Constitution get to be national heroes.
What I'd like to see in similar cases would depend on the details. In Davis' case, and those exactly or substantially similar, I'd like to see her serve some more jail time if she interfers with the Deputies issuing the licenses. If she merely returns to her office without asking for more "accomodations" and without challenging the validity of those licenses issued by the Deputies then I'd like to see her live out the rest of her life as a good, dutiful, faithful Christian. But my life experiences tell me that people that seek public office are rarely a good, dutiful, faithful Christian or earnest practicioner of any self-professed religion. Atheists may be true believers and act as such in bith their public and private life but I would not knowingly vote for an atheist. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Thanks to We The People. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Name one.
Why is no senior authority in the STATE held responsible? When she was in jail for contempt, why was the STATE not ordered to cure the problem? Is nobody in the state responsible to do something about the problem? How about the governor? If the Federal court was going to act, why did it not act to levy a fine against the STATE until the STATE cured the problem. A very large and progressively larger fine until the governor got off his ass and acted. The STATE should have acted to remove Davis from office. The Court should have provided encouragement to do so.
Gee, only one. Abraham Lincoln.
Another Republican is GWBush. But, that startling FACT won't surprize you, will it?
Many of the legal arguments for the acts of GWBush were originated by the Lincoln administration.
You might say, it is in the veins of Republicans and their respective representative bloodlines. Now, a new monster rises: Jeb!
Wipe your chin... someone left some democrat on it. There must be a forum a little more left than this one that would suit your ideals better. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Well, it is true that it is not all the Republicans fault. But, then again, we have TRUMP!, don't we?
Say that about 5,000 more times on LF, JUST TO BE FUCKING FAIR... then maybe, just maybe I'll consider you a fed up non-libtard, fed up with BOTH parties that ran up 18 trillion in debt. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
ROTFL! You didn't catch the TRUMP! card that I mentioned. Here let me explain my perspective s-l-o-w-l-y: TRUMP! epitomizes a Democrat; in fact, he WAS a registered Democrat. See ... fair and balanced reporting ... brought by buckeroo.
Comments (158 - 191) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThe abruptness of her decision to stop issuing marriage licenses immediately after the Court decision, having issued thousands of licenses before the Court decision, allows no other conclusion than that her motive is directly related to the legalization of sodomy marriage.
#118. To: TooConservative (#116)
Any court examining the timeline of when her refusal began will fail to discern her motive.
#119. To: nolu chan (#117)
Rowan County will issue marriage licenses. They may change the form, the law, or the Clerk.
#120. To: nolu chan (#118)
Are you going to charge her with impure motives? Or are you going to charge her with something she actually did?
#121. To: Stoner (#115)
I seem to remember reading that it is in Ky Constitution that marriage is between a man & a woman. Is that true?
Section 233A. Valid or recognized marriage - Legal status of unmarried individuals. Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.
History: Creation proposed by 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 128, sec. 1.
#122. To: TooConservative (#120)
Lawsuits and charges will come if she stops issuing licenses again.
#123. To: TooConservative (#119)
Perhaps your ideal outcome....
#124. To: nolu chan (#123)
My ideal outcome would be the U.S. Supreme Court not going where it does not belong.
#125. To: TooConservative, Nolu Chan (#111)
(Edited)
It remains:
#126. To: Liberator (#107)
Bunning’s decision was overturned in October 2007 by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that a Christian student could seek damages from the school district because the training Bunning imposed had “chilled” the student’s ability to express his Christian beliefs about homosexuality to his fellow students.
#127. To: Liberator (#125)
" state and Fed gubmint authoritahs "
#128. To: redleghunter (#126)
" Bunning is on a sodomite Jihad against Christians. "
#129. To: nolu chan, liberator (#112)
At its core, this civil action presents a conflict between two individual liberties held sacrosanct in American jurisprudence. One is the fundamental right to marry implicitly recognized in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The other is the right to free exercise of religion explicitly guaranteed by the First Amendment. Each party seeks to exercise one of these rights, but in doing so, they threaten to infringe upon the opposing party’s rights. You would like it to be a case of discrimination. That would be so much easier to argue. It is no accident that it isn't.
#130. To: Liberator (#125)
This case (and Kim Davis in particular) has become the match that's exposed the fedgoob and its judges as interpreting and shading the law as advocates of "social justice" and "gay" rights.
It's also exposed just how our subversive fedgoob uses the judiciary as a sledgehammer to usurp the authority of States' Rights as well as We The People -- while steamrolling an agenda. This as they target Christians and conservatives, violating their 1A and 14A rights.
#131. To: Stoner (#128)
Yet it is my understanding that he was appointed by Bush Jr, and that his father was a conservative.
#132. To: Stoner, redleghunter (#128)
...he was appointed by Bush Jr, and that his father was a conservative.
#133. To: TooConservative (#132)
(Edited)
#134. To: TooConservative (#124)
Of course. That doesn't answer what to do since they did go there.
By straying from the text of the Constitution, substantive due process exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority. Petitioners argue that by enshrining the traditional definition of marriage in their State Constitutions through voter-approved amendments, the States have put the issue "beyond the reach of the normal democratic process." Brief for Petitioners in No. 14-562, p. 54. But the result petitioners seek is far less democratic. They ask nine judges on this Court to enshrine their definition of marriage in the Federal Constitution and thus put it beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire Nation. That a "bare majority" of this Court, ante, at 25, is able to grant this wish, wiping out with a stroke of the keyboard the results of the political process in over 30 States, based on a provision that guarantees only "due process" is but further evidence of the danger of substantive due process.
Even assuming that the "liberty" in those Clauses encompasses something more than freedom from physical restraint, it would not include the types of rights claimed by the majority. In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.
Whether we define "liberty" as locomotion or freedom from governmental action more broadly, petitioners have in no way been deprived of it.
Instead, the States have refused to grant them governmental entitlements. Petitioners claim that as a matter of "liberty," they are entitled to access privileges and benefits that exist solely because of the government. They want, for example, to receive the State's imprimatur on their marriages—on state issued marriage licenses, death certificates, or other official forms. And they want to receive various monetary benefits, including reduced inheritance taxes upon the death of a spouse, compensation if a spouse dies as a result of a work-related injury, or loss of consortium damages in tort suits. But receiving governmental recognition and benefits has nothing to do with any understanding of "liberty" that the Framers would have recognized.
In a concession to petitioners' misconception of liberty, the majority characterizes petitioners' suit as a quest to "find . . . liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex." Ante, at 2. But "liberty" is not lost, nor can it be found in the way petitioners seek. As a philosophical matter, liberty is only freedom from governmental action, not an entitlement to governmental benefits. And as a constitutional matter, it is likely even narrower than that, encompassing only freedom from physical restraint and imprisonment. The majority's "better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define . . . liberty," ante, at 19,—better informed, we must assume, than that of the people who ratified the Fourteenth Amendment—runs headlong into the reality that our Constitution is a "collection of 'Thou shalt nots,'" Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1, 9 (1957) (plurality opinion), not "Thou shalt provides."
Numerous amici—even some not supporting the States—have cautioned the Court that its decision here will "have unavoidable and wide-ranging implications for religious liberty." Brief for General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists et al. as Amici Curiae 5. In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well. Id., at 7. Today's decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.
#135. To: nolu chan (#134)
#136. To: TooConservative (#132)
" You guys haven't heard of Jim Bunning? "
#137. To: Liberator, TooConservative, Pinguinite, redleghunter, stoner, A K A Stone (#107)
Bunning’s decision was overturned in October 2007 by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that a Christian student could seek damages from the school district because the training Bunning imposed had “chilled” the student’s ability to express his Christian beliefs about homosexuality to his fellow students.
COOK, Circuit Judge. This panel heard arguments in the matter before us on July 25, 2007, after which we filed an opinion, Morrison v. Board of Education of Boyd County, 507 F.3d 494 (6th Cir. 2007), reversing the judgment of the district court and remanding for further proceedings. Subsequently, the Board of Education of Boyd County (the “Board”) filed a petition for rehearing en banc. Review of the briefs and record counsels us to reconsider our previous holding, and as a result we vacate and amend Sections III and IV of the prior opinion. We now affirm the district court’s decision and set forth our opinion, as amended, below.
#138. To: TooConservative (#135)
I don't see that these arguments by Clarence Thomas moved any votes on the Court.
#139. To: TooConservative, Liberator (#130)
You act like this suddenly happened but it has been moving steadily this way for the last few decades.
#140. To: redleghunter, nolu chan, liberator (#95)
guess SCOTUS makes that call doesn't it?
#141. To: nolu chan, TooConservative, Liberator (#139)
Did the Constitution change in the last few decades to create a constitutional mandate for same-sex marriage? Did the Constitution morph to include a right that was never there before?
#142. To: nolu chan (#139)
Did the Constitution change in the last few decades to create a constitutional mandate for same-sex marriage? Did the Constitution morph to include a right that was never there before?
#143. To: SOSO (#140)
But I guess there are those who think it will be useful to ask SCOTUS to rule again on gay marriages. They could use their time more productively by doing something like......oh, I don't know.......shoveling sand against the tide.
#144. To: TooConservative (#142)
Did the Constitution change in the last few decades to create a constitutional mandate for same-sex marriage? Did the Constitution morph to include a right that was never there before?
#145. To: SOSO (#141)
#146. To: TooConservative (#143)
I can't seem to get anyone to say exactly what they would prefer to have happen in this case and similar ones.
#147. To: nolu chan (#145)
The biggest muggers of the Constitution get to be national heroes.
#148. To: nolu chan (#145)
#149. To: TooConservative, SOSO (#143)
I can't seem to get anyone to say exactly what they would prefer to have happen in this case and similar ones.
#150. To: buckeroo (#148)
Name one.
#151. To: nolu chan (#150)
Gee, only one. Abraham Lincoln.
#152. To: buckeroo (#151)
Another Republican is GWBush. But, that startling FACT won't surprize you, will it?
#153. To: nolu chan (#152)
#154. To: buckeroo (#153)
it is in the veins of Republicans and their respective representative bloodlines
#155. To: GrandIsland (#154)
(Edited)
#156. To: buckeroo (#155)
Well, it is true that it is not all the Republicans fault.
#157. To: GrandIsland (#156)
(Edited)
Say that about 5,000 more times on LF, JUST TO BE FUCKING FAIR... then maybe, just maybe I'll consider you a fed up non-libtard, fed up with BOTH parties that ran up 18 trillion in debt.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]