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: 25893
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 (1-41) not displayed.
.
.
.
#42. To: A K A Stone, cranky, nolu chan, tomder55, redleghunter, tooconservative, whitesands (#1)
What battle? For all of her inane protestations she hasn't changed a damned thing other than assuring that her County is now issuing licenses to gays according to the yet still law of the land - the one thing she said she was against. You may follow your false prophet here but she will lead you to the same dead end alley. She has changed nothing other than she is now living in a County that is issuing marriage licenes to gays. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
That was between the Federal government and a state or local government. The government entity was held to be violating the constitution or a federal anti-discrimination law. In the instant case, the Judge ordered deputy clerks, not involved in any alleged violation of state or local law, who had no authorization to issue marriage licenses, or to issue unlawfully altered licenses, to issue marriage licenses contrary to state law. I suppose he could have ordered the Governor to have the county issue marriage licenses. Of course, the Governor could have replied that it required a change of law, and he lacked authority to do that, and the state lacked the money to call the legislature back into session. Ask again in January.
How does being a federal judge make his actions lawful? Judges can screw up.
You are assuming those bastardized licenses are good for something besides cutting up into 4-inch squares and using in the little reading room.
Are you seriously suggesting that the County will not issue licenses to gays to marry? Are you seriously suggesting that the KY courts will not uphold the licenses issued by the Deputies? I am seriously suggesting that if Davis chooses to continue to make a BFD out of her refusal to obey the law of the land she will see her bastardized Christian ass back in jail again. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I guess SCOTUS makes that call doesn't it? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I would imagine it's extremely easy to hide the bodies in all the forests and abandoned mines Kentucky has... You're overreaching. These clerks are all authorized to issue official documents in the event of Kim's absence due to illness or compliance training or other official absences or because Kim is spending quality time with the U.S. Marshals in the local pokey. (That probably cost us a few hundred grand alone.) I think Judge Bunning was weak and hoping she'd reconsider so he tried to accommodate her objection by having them sign "Rowan County" instead of simply using her name. You may object but it is not the authority of Kim Davis that issues these licenses. It is the authority of Rowan County as authorized by the laws and jurisprudence and federal obligations of the state of Kentucky. Kim Davis is not a pope and is not a Supreme Clerk entitled to overrule the laws or rulings of the Court. She is an employee of the county who wields no authority whatsoever other than the prescribed duties of a sworn and qualified county clerk of Kentucky. It appears her lawyer is indicating now that she will try to stop her office from issuing the licenses again. So I expect she will go back to jail, probably for a much longer period. Federal judges rarely are lenient twice.
Possibly because the effect of his order, that the office issue marriage certs, was being carried out, there was no longer any practical reason to keep Davis in jail. If he didn't release her now, then what would need to change for Davis to be released in the future?
States might find it much more palatable to retitle "Marriage License" to "Civil Union License" or "Civil Union Certificate". Remove the word "marriage" from it. Leave the word "marriage" to churches and such.
It certainly does seem the marriage licenses are not legally valid. But I suppose being a federal judge, he is not vested in authority in this case to judge whether the marriage licenses being issued are valid. His interest is in only servicing the complaints of the plaintiffs in a civil case, and if they're happy, he's happy. If this judge did not order the deputy clerks to specifically sign the licenses with the county name, then it wasn't his doing. If the plaintiffs come back and complain they aren't valid because they lack Davis' signature, then maybe he'll take further action ordering Davis to sign, she'll refuse and be sent back to jail.
Evil, in this case is that there is a disparity of opinion. I suggested she should resign because she is working for an employer that does not share her sense of ethics. Who knows, maybe she will resign and save a lot of us further opinion on how she imposes her will on the People. She isn't a queen.
Fred,you have a PM at RR.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Received and backatcha.
She should resign because her job now involves an overt evil enterprise. Run, resign, retreat and let evil control everywhere? Have all the good people leave the government? That sounds like a recipe to make it even more evil and entrenched.
What "good" people are you talking about? Where are they? Oh, the ones that say they can fight within? The nation has continuously declined just about the tyme the CIA was created. Since that tyme (~circa 1948), the US government has increased the federal debt while increasing the CIA secret budget. Keep in mind, there is no accountability about the CIA. Even Congress does not know the CIA budget.
Homosexuals had to bust into the media attention. They were upstaged by The Donald for weeks. TC might like that tidbit:) quotquot autem receperunt eum dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri his qui credunt in nomine eius
These clerks are all authorized to issue official documents in the event of Kim's absence due to illness or compliance training or other official absences or because Kim is spending quality time with the U.S. Marshals in the local pokey. (That probably cost us a few hundred grand alone.) NO THEY ARE NOT. They get any authority they have only from Kim Davis. Why were they not issuing any licenses before the Judge's order? They are issuing bastardized STATE licenses on the authority of an order of a FEDERAL judge. The State courts may find those licenses invalid. I think Judge Bunning overreached and reconsidered what he was doing. RFRA - Religious Freedom Restoration Act http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-42/chapter-21b/section-2000bb/ §2000bb. Congressional findings and declaration of purposes (a) Findings The Congress finds that— (1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution; (2) laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise; (3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification; (4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and (5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests. (b) Purposes The purposes of this chapter are— (1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and (2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government. (Pub. L. 103–141, §2, Nov. 16, 1993, 107 Stat. 1488.) References in Text This chapter, referred to in subsec. (b), was in the original “this Act”, meaning Pub. L. 103–141, Nov. 16, 1993, 107 Stat. 1488, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note below and Tables. Constitutionality For constitutionality of section 2 of Pub. L. 103–141, see Congressional Research Service, The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation, Appendix 1, Acts of Congress Held Unconstitutional in Whole or in Part by the Supreme Court of the United States. Short Title Pub. L. 103–141, §1, Nov. 16, 1993, 107 Stat. 1488, provided that: “This Act [enacting this chapter and amending section 1988 of this title and section 504 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees] may be cited as the ‘Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993’.” http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-42/chapter-21b/section-2000bb-1/ §2000bb–1. Free exercise of religion protected (a) In general Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section. (b) Exception Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person— (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. (c) Judicial relief A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution. (Pub. L. 103–141, §3, Nov. 16, 1993, 107 Stat. 1488.) http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-42/chapter-21b/section-2000bb-2/ §2000bb–2. Definitions As used in this chapter— (1) the term “government” includes a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and official (or other person acting under color of law) of the United States, or of a covered entity; (2) the term “covered entity” means the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory and possession of the United States; (3) the term “demonstrates” means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion; and (4) the term “exercise of religion” means religious exercise, as defined in section 2000cc–5 of this title. (Pub. L. 103–141, §5, Nov. 16, 1993, 107 Stat. 1489; Pub. L. 106–274, §7(a), Sept. 22, 2000, 114 Stat. 806.) http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-42/chapter-21b/section-2000bb-3/ §2000bb–3. Applicability (a) In general This chapter applies to all Federal law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or otherwise, and whether adopted before or after November 16, 1993. (b) Rule of construction Federal statutory law adopted after November 16, 1993, is subject to this chapter unless such law explicitly excludes such application by reference to this chapter. (c) Religious belief unaffected Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize any government to burden any religious belief. (Pub. L. 103–141, §6, Nov. 16, 1993, 107 Stat. 1489; Pub. L. 106–274, §7(b), Sept. 22, 2000, 114 Stat. 806.) = = = = = = = = = = KENTUCKY RFRA http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/13rs/HB279/bill.doc AN ACT relating to construction of the law. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky: SECTION 1. A NEW SECTION OF KRS CHAPTER 446 IS CREATED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: Government shall not substantially burden a person's freedom of religion. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A "burden" shall include indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.
Those false pieces of paper are as wrong as two men...oh wait that's what they do:) quotquot autem receperunt eum dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri his qui credunt in nomine eius
At no time has the County refused to issue licenses to gays. The County Clerk has refused to issue, or have issued, licenses in her name to anyone. To refuse to issue to gays would invoke Federal anti-discrimination laws. She deliberately did not do that. This is not an accident. Try again. Yes, I am seriously suggesting that the KY courts may invalidate the invalid, bastardized licenses issued by deputies without the authorization of the Clerk. She has refused to perform a function of her job in Kentucky. There is clearly a Federal right to equal protection of the laws, but please show me a federal law providing that states must issue marriage licenses.
I'm telling you, once she's elected, she swears her deputy clerk in to serve as clerk in the clerks absence. Assistant and deputy clerks all over the country do official clerk business when the clerk isn't in the office. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Are you saying nolu is wrong on his technicality angle? Say it ain't so.
Just between me and you, sometymes chan gets caught up in a comma or two without realizing that appropriate designated delegates fulfil the role & responsibilities of a given government office in their absence. You are correct, GI.
He does not want that because it would be his admission that no licenses would issue, and he would be embarrassed. He ordered the clerks to issue licenses, They followed his order and issued licenses without fraudulently asserting a grant of authority of Kim Davis that they knew they did not have. Both sides are playing a legal game. It's going on elsewhere as well. Judges are making some obstinate decisions and they are not in jail. SCOTUS invited this stuff. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oregon-judge-gay-marriages_55e9e757e4b03784e275d182 The judge says marrying gay couples would violate his religious freedom. Mollie Reilly http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/allen-mcconnell-toledo-refuses-gay-marriage By Katherine Krueger An Ohio judge refused to conduct a same-sex marriage in his court this week, the latest instance of local officials refusing marriages on religious grounds in the weeks after the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage nationwide. Toledo Municipal Judge Allen McConnell, who was in the midst of a three-week stint performing civil ceremonies, refused to marry Carolyn Wilson and her partner on Monday. “I declined to marry a non-traditional couple during my duties assignment,” McConnell said in a statement. “The declination was based upon my personal and Christian beliefs established over many years. I apologize to the couple for the delay they experienced and wish them the best.” Jeffrey Atherton says US supreme court has deemed Tennesseans ‘incompetent to define’ marriage as attorney accuses him of ‘unnecessary grandstanding’ A Tennessee judge has denied a divorce petition because of the US supreme court decision allowing gay marriage, leaving a couple married against their wishes. Hamilton County chancellor Jeffrey Atherton denied the couple’s divorce petition last week, claiming the national marriage equality ruling had marred Tennessee’s ability to determine what constitutes divorce. Atherton’s reasoning to deny the petition was that the supreme court had not clarified “when a marriage is no longer a marriage”, the Times Free Press reported. “With the US Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee’s judiciary must now await the decision of the US Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage,” Atherton wrote in the order. “The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the US Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces,” Atherton wrote.
No, your fascist fantasy will NOT come true, statist freak. David Barton (Wall Builders): By way of background, Federal Judge David Bunning ruled that Davis was in contempt of court, which a court can legitimately do. But he then ordered federal marshals enforce his decision and take her into custody, which he cannot do. Federal marshals are part of the Executive Branch, not the Judicial Branch; he has absolutely no authority to order any federal marshal to do anything. Significantly, the Founders -- and thus the Constitution -- did not give power to the Judiciary to enforce any of its decisions -- they deliberately made it powerless in this regards. They made the Executive Branch alone responsible for enforcement. So while Judge Bunning can (and did) issue his personal opinion regarding Kim Davis, his personal opinion does not have the force of law. (By the way, check any civics book: a law must originate as a measure proposed in the House or Senate, be passed by both, and then signed by the president. Only then and by this means does anything become law.) Bunning must thus ask (not order) the Executive Branch to enforce his opinion, and if it agrees, it can order its marshals to do so, but the Judicial Branch may order no such thing. Sadly, not only did the Judicial Branch first take on itself the role of the Legislative Branch by issuing its ruling in the homosexual-marriage decision, but now it has assumed the role of the Executive Branch by attempting to enforce its own opinion. The Founding Fathers vehemently objected to this practice. As George Washington warned: "[T]hose entrusted with its [the nation’s] administration [must] confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism." James Madison similarly charged: "The preservation of a free government requires not merely that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be universally maintained but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great barrier which defends the rights of the people. The rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment exceed the commission from which they derive their authority and are tyrants. The people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them and are slaves." Samuel Adams agreed: "In all good governments, the Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary powers are confined within the limits of their respective departments. If therefore it should be found that . . . either of the departments aforesaid should interfere with another, it will, if continued, essentially alter the Constitution, and may, in time, . . . be productive of such convulsions as may shake the political ground upon which we now happily stand." Thomas Jefferson thus admonished that we must "cleave to the salutary distribution of powers which that [i.e., the Constitution] has established" and that if we ever move away from its separation of powers that "we shall be in danger of foundering." Perhaps political philosopher Charles de Montesquieu -- a favorite of the Founders, and the most-cited human source in the political writings of the Founding Era -- said it best when he declared: "There is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers." So while the Kim Davis travesty continues, perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the entire controversy is that Judge Bunning personally ordered her to jail, thus blatantly violating one of the Constitution's most important provisions for securing the liberty of the entire people". The over-official Judge Bunning: NOT the "King" of any part of KY. Perhaps just a Princess. He just blinked for good reason. OR several.
And you were a cop with a badge and a gun. And if you were told to hand over your badge and gun by a senior police official, you were no longer authorized to carry them. The deputies can be stripped of their authority at will by the elected official. When Kim Davis decided that there would be no licenses issued under her authority, the deputies lost their authority to issue licenses.
On the surface your suggestion seems an easy solution, but at the same time suggests surrendering the language, Webster's Dictionary, and Nature to a bunch of anarchists, freaks, and fascists.
Who cares? Davis is free to stop you from marrying yukon and that is all I really care about. I can't take any liberator clones mixed with yukon. It could cause a lot of problems for LF.
Apparently homofascists, Christians, and the sane. On whose side are you coming down on? Davis is free to stop you from marrying yukon and that is all I really care about. I can't take any liberator clones mixed with yukon. It could cause a lot of problems for LF. Gimme time to absorb that scenario....and write a script for a New Twilight's Zone episode.
Davis has the smallest background in the Universe to suggest that she "speaks for the Lord." So, my take isn't for her side.
You are correct, GI. Absolutely not. The instant Kim Davis advised the deputies that no licenses could be issued by her authority, they had no authority to issue any license, and they ceased issuing all licenses until the Federal judge gave a contrary order, and then expressed their doubts that it was legal. Any authority of the deputies must be granted by Kim Davis. It is blatant and notorious that she ordered them to cease issuing licenses.
She became a Believer 4 years ago according to sources, so why can't she "speak for the Lord"? She's taking more of a stand than lifetime "Christians" and some Pastors. AND...she's taking a stand against goob fascism and homo-fascism so you ought to laud her efforts.
You don't understand, Nolu; Feral Judges wear CROWNS and sit in THRONES!
Would the author claim that all ordered jailings for contempt breach the separation of powers? By what authority does any judge order anyone jailed for contempt? I do feel like there is a breach of separation of powers here, by way of attempting to force an elected official (exec branch) to proactively do things related to the office, but not related to the judge ordering federal marshals to jail her.
To agree to let the other clerks issue licenses under her grant of authority to do so. Why doesn't the judge order the State/Governor to take action to have marriage licenses issued in that county? The judge's biggest problem is that he does not have a case of discrimination before him.
Don't forget the robes, and maybe they can bring back whigs.
I reckon he's focused only on this case. By what authority does any judge order anyone jailed for contempt? Good question. Does this specific case open up a retroactive can o' worms for over-officious judges who've ignore proper protocol? Hmmm... I do feel like there is a breach of separation of powers here, by way of attempting to force an elected official (exec branch) to proactively do things related to the office, but not related to the judge ordering federal marshals to jail her. Agree. This situation appears to indeed challenge and/or usurp what is a separation of powers for good reason. Bunning yielded, knowing full well the word had already come down: The deck was stacked against him and he word be reprimanded AND embarrassed. The homo-fascist Fatwa would also face a set back. So...Even incompetent judges whose daddies were Senators are not above the lawful application of protocols.
HEH! The long flowing robes and powdered wigs -- the best part! And maybe even a sledgehammer instead of a gavel.
Only by the narrowest possible reading of Kentucky law. Judges can be more expansive in applying the law, in this case, a fundamental right to marry. He had to have ordered it. Or perhaps the attorney general of KY, a Dem named Conway who was defeated by Rand Paul in his 2010 Senate race. A key issue: standing. Can you name a single party that any state or federal court would grant standing to? I can't think of one. Not the people applying for marriage licenses or rejected (they can just go to the next county). Not those who got married and later want a court to annul their marriage so they don't have to get a divorce, not the attorney general of the state, KY's state or federal legislators, etc. In fact, I don't think the federal courts, and certainly not the Supremes, would ever grant anyone standing to challenge the validity of licenses issued in the name of Rowan County, Kentucky instead of the name Kim Davis. Who can demonstrate they have been harmed by the lack of Kim Davis' name on their marriage license? I think anyone trying to challenge would get punished by being drawn into a long and expensive series of legal roadblocks. And get nowhere with their effort. nolu does have a point as far as reading the statutes of Kentucky. But the rights of the Supreme Clerk of Kentucky is never going to outweigh the newly established right to marry from the Supreme Court. And the courts don't have to rewrite all those statutes. Bunning just jumped to the desired outcome and imposed it while warning Davis from trying to use her office to deny anyone their fundamental right to marry.
I think Judge Bunning overreached and reconsidered what he was doing. Don't be silly. Sodomy marriage was imposed, ultimately, as a result of the Supremes declaring a fundamental right to marry and that states that did not recognize sodomy marriage must comply under the full faith and credit clause, namely, that states recognize each other's marriages (and other legal instruments) as valid. On that basis, Kentucky's marriage laws were altered, just as the Court struck down Kentucky's miscegenation laws that dated back to the 18th century. If you get married in Kentucky and divorce (or receive benefits or rights) in another state, it is the state of Kentucky whose marriage authority is involved, not the Supreme Clerk of Rowan County (who may have left office or died in the meantime). But Kim Davis is the one who is withholding benefits (fundamental right to marry) from Teh Gays and even from the normal couples that she had been issuing licenses to for years, in the thousands. This actually compounds her offenses with the courts in that she is depriving all persons of a right to marry including those she had never had a problem issuing licenses to previously. It is refusing to issue to the straights that is most likely to really hang her. You are insisting that Kim Davis has a right to refuse marriage licenses on any religious whim. What if she doesn't like race mixing? Or Asians? Or Catholics? Will those be the next excuse she uses to refuse to do her job and issue licenses? At some point, she'll lose her office and, likely, be required to pay back her salary for having refused to perform her job. And possibly serve time in prison. I know people don't like to be reminded of other similar "heroic stands" but how well did this work out for a Lt. Col. Lakin, a military doctor, when he refused to deploy after receiving orders from his superiors because he wanted to challenge Oblowme's birth certificate? ABC: 'Birther' Dismissed from Army for Refusing Deployment, Sentenced to Six Months in Prison I suppose this current outbreak of obstinate and pointless dumbassery will continue with all the True Believers ready to do-or-die for the Supreme Clerk of Rowan County until the hammer falls on her. Then, just as with Lakin, they will all disappear as soon as anyone mentions that person they egged into ruining their lives in a pointless quest to frustrate the federal leviathan. Because that is certainly what happened to Lakin when he tried to refuse lawful orders from his superiors because he wanted to challenge Obama's BC. And that is likely to happen in short order to Kim Davis.
I think Bunning will return to deny them standing to invalidate those marriages in any such attempt. And just who do you think will try to stop him? Name these parties who will be granted standing by Bunning, the Sixth Circuit, or the Supreme Court. You're beating a dead horse.
Comments (83 - 191) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestBy the way all of you folks who said she should resign are a bunch of pussies who run from battle.
#43. To: TooConservative (#36)
How about court-ordered busing? Or court meddling in districting and elections.
#44. To: TooConservative, Liberator (#37)
No, he hasn't. He's a federal judge.
#45. To: SOSO, A K A Stone, cranky, tomder55, redleghunter, tooconservative, whitesands (#42)
What battle? For all of her inane protestations she hasn't changed a damned thing other than assuring that her County is now issuing licenses to gays according to the yet still law of the land
#46. To: nolu chan, A K A Stone, cranky, tomder55, redleghunter, tooconservative, whitesands (#45)
You are assuming those bastardized licenses are good for something besides cutting up into 4-inch squares and using in the little reading room.
#47. To: nolu chan, TooConservative, Liberator (#44)
How does being a federal judge make his actions lawful? Judges can screw up.
#48. To: redleghunter (#9)
KY has not been known for a large homosexual population. That's why I think Davis' county was targeted.
#49. To: nolu chan (#43)
In the instant case, the Judge ordered deputy clerks, not involved in any alleged violation of state or local law, who had no authorization to issue marriage licenses, or to issue unlawfully altered licenses, to issue marriage licenses contrary to state law.
#50. To: Stoner (#22)
I have to wonder why the Judge decided to release her?
#51. To: CZ82 (#10)
The only other option is for the State to stop issuing marriage licenses entirely.
Aren't some states already contemplating that??
#52. To: nolu chan (#14)
#53. To: redleghunter (#8)
She should resign because her job now involves an overt evil enterprise.
#54. To: Fred Mertz (#34)
#55. To: sneakypete (#54)
#56. To: redleghunter (#8)
I was one who said she should resign. I literally never ran from a battle.
#57. To: A K A Stone (#56)
Have all the good people leave the government?
#58. To: Liberator, CZ82, tomder55, TooConservative (#39)
Do you find this bizarre?? The nation is in flames, but denying flaming freaks a fake license to "marry" (as interpreted by rogue judges) remains headline news everyday, ALL week.
#59. To: TooConservative (#49)
You're overreaching.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION - 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb (2012)
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION - 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1 (2012)
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION - 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-2 (2012)
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION - 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-3 (2012)
UNOFFICIAL COPY AS OF 09/08/15 -- 13 REG. SESS. -- 13 RS HB 279/VO
#60. To: nolu chan, CZ82 (#45)
You are assuming those bastardized licenses are good for something besides cutting up into 4-inch squares and using in the little reading room.
#61. To: SOSO (#46)
Are you seriously suggesting that the County will not issue licenses to gays to marry? Are you seriously suggesting that the KY courts will not uphold the licenses issued by the Deputies?
#62. To: nolu chan (#59)
NO THEY ARE NOT. They get any authority they have only from Kim Davis. Why were they not issuing any licenses before the Judge's order? They are issuing bastardized STATE licenses on the authority of an order of a FEDERAL judge. The State courts may find those licenses invalid.
#63. To: GrandIsland (#62)
I'm telling you, once she's elected, she swears her deputy clerk in to serve as clerk in the clerks absence.
#64. To: GrandIsland, nolu chan (#62)
I'm telling you, once she's elected, she swears her deputy clerk in to serve as clerk in the clerks absence. Assistant and deputy clerks all over the country do official clerk business when the clerk isn't in the office.
#65. To: Pinguinite (#52)
If this judge did not order the deputy clerks to specifically sign the licenses with the county name, then it wasn't his doing.
Oregon Judge Refuses To Perform Same-Sex Marriages
Deputy Politics Editor, The Huffington Post
Posted: 09/04/2015 03:39 PM ED Ohio Judge Refuses To Marry Same-Sex Couple
Published July 8, 2015, 2:54 PM EDT Tennessee judge denies straight couple divorce, citing gay marriage ruling
#66. To: SOSO, nolu chan, A K A Stone, cranky, tomder55, redleghunter, TooConservative, Vicomte13 (#46)
Are you seriously suggesting that the County will not issue licenses to gays to marry? Are you seriously suggesting that the KY courts will not uphold the licenses issued by the Deputies? I am seriously suggesting that if Davis chooses to continue to make a BFD out of her refusal to obey the law of the land she will see her bastardized Christian ass back in jail again.
"Perhaps the single most important issue in the Kim Davis situation (the County Clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, who was jailed for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses) -- an issue about which most observers and commentators have been completely silent -- is the flagrant violation of the constitutionally-mandated separation of powers.
#67. To: GrandIsland (#62)
I'm telling you, once she's elected, she swears her deputy clerk in to serve as clerk in the clerks absence.
#68. To: Pinguinite (#51)
States might find it much more palatable to retitle "Marriage License" to "Civil Union License" or "Civil Union Certificate". Remove the word "marriage" from it. Leave the word "marriage" to churches and such.
#69. To: Liberator (#66)
#70. To: buckeroo (#69)
Who cares?
#71. To: Liberator (#70)
On whose side are you coming down on?
#72. To: buckeroo, GrandIsland (#64)
Just between me and you, sometymes chan gets caught up in a comma or two without realizing that appropriate designated delegates fulfil the role & responsibilities of a given government office in their absence.
#73. To: buckeroo (#71)
Davis has the smallest background in the Universe to suggest that she "speaks for the Lord." So, my take isn't for her side.
#74. To: nolu chan, TooConservative (#44)
How does being a federal judge make his actions lawful? Judges can screw up.
#75. To: Liberator (#66)
By way of background, Federal Judge David Bunning ruled that Davis was in contempt of court, which a court can legitimately do. But he then ordered federal marshals enforce his decision and take her into custody, which he cannot do. Federal marshals are part of the Executive Branch, not the Judicial Branch; he has absolutely no authority to order any federal marshal to do anything.
#76. To: Pinguinite, Stoner (#50)
If he didn't release her now, then what would need to change for Davis to be released in the future?
#77. To: Liberator, TooConservative (#74)
Feral Judges wear CROWNS and sit in THRONES!
#78. To: Pinguinite (#75)
(Edited)
Would the author claim that all ordered jailings for contempt breach the separation of powers?
#79. To: nolu chan (#77)
#80. To: Pinguinite, nolu chan, redleghunter (#52)
It certainly does seem the marriage licenses are not legally valid.
If this judge did not order the deputy clerks to specifically sign the licenses with the county name, then it wasn't his doing.
If the plaintiffs come back and complain they aren't valid because they lack Davis' signature, then maybe he'll take further action ordering Davis to sign, she'll refuse and be sent back to jail.
#81. To: nolu chan, buckeroo, redleghunter (#59)
NO THEY ARE NOT. They get any authority they have only from Kim Davis. Why were they not issuing any licenses before the Judge's order? They are issuing bastardized STATE licenses on the authority of an order of a FEDERAL judge. The State courts may find those licenses invalid.
Government shall not substantially burden a person's freedom of religion. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A "burden" shall include indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.
#82. To: nolu chan (#61)
Yes, I am seriously suggesting that the KY courts may invalidate the invalid, bastardized licenses issued by deputies without the authorization of the Clerk.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]