Reply With Quote
I'm glad you're not a news editor.
No one died because of this dumb woman.
I'm glad you're not a news editor.
What court order do you think she was violating? Do you think that citizens start off by appealing to SCOTUS or do you think they file with the lower court?
They filed a contempt of the the SCOTUS ruling case in federal court. The judge simply honored the SCOTUS ruling.
short of physical annihilation by LE, the cons utional rights of the citizen can be abrogated by local officials based on totally invidious glosses of he law contradicting the law of the land?
to be totally clear, are you saying it's ok with you when the cons ution is violated and personal rights were arbitrarily curtailed because no one died?
Last edited by Winehole23; 09-04-2015 at 12:08 PM.
Some women you just can't reach. So you get what we had here yesterday, which is the way she wants it. Well, she gets it. I don't like it any more than you men.
Nobody always has to die for a law to be broken. She is clearly guilty of breaking the law and that is indisputable.
This woman and the two other KY county clerks also refusing to issue marriage licenses are not alone.
I'm sure they've been put up to this, assured they would have financial and legal support. They will be supported and rewarded by donations from Christian Taliban, etc. They won't "suffer". Any chance county jail staff beat the out of her or leave a plastic garbage bag in her cell?
Why? It's Christian Taliban fundraising, rouse the rabble, proof that Christians are persecuted in THEIR own Christian country.
See how the Repug Klowns are running with it:
=======
“Today, judicial lawlessness crossed into judicial tyranny,” Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, said in a statement. ( go Hahvahd! excellent graduate you produced! )
A lawyer for Ms. Davis, Roger Gannam, sharply criticized the ruling and portrayed it as a stark warning to Christians across the country.
“Today, for the first time in history, an American citizen has been incarcerated for having the belief of conscience that marriage is the union of one man and one woman,”
“I didn’t have to think about it,” Ms. Davis said. “There was no choice there.”
“Once she promises to obey, or once the judge determines that more jail time will not encourage her to obey, they’ll let her out. But she could be in there for a year; it’s conceivable. Judges really don’t like it when people disobey their order.”
Jurists like Judge Bunning have few options to prod compliance, but they are powerful: fines or incarceration. The legal issue — that no one, whether a government or an individual engaged in civil disobedience has standing to flout a court order — is well established.
“Tell Judge Bunning,” Mr. Davis said, “he’s a butt.”
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/04...iage.html?_r=1
“I didn’t have to think about it,”
Of course not. Christian Taliban select whatever in the Bible supports their hate. No reflection needed. Blindly follow your prejudice and hate, it's all right there in the Bible, but Covet Thy Neighbors Wife (Ashley Madison), total silence from the Repugs and Christian Taliban.
That's ok, as long as it isn't rights he likes for himself or the group he thinks he is part of. That is sort of how privilege works.
Last time I checked, this woman is going to jail. Can we move on to more interesting news stories?
You need someone to move your mouse for you?
Why are you making this a gender thing?
You don't know the movie?
This is very simple...
Its time to quit your job if the job description involves something you cannot do.
For prospective County Clerks:
Dont apply for a job you cannot do.
Your statement was that the "supreme court doesn't put up with contempt of it's decision" this wasn't a supreme court case ergo the supreme court had nothing to do with it why is that so hard for you to understand.
I'm tired of the story, though I agree it's not over yet.
The story should be dead because the clerk has absolutely no legal defense for her actions and those who try to defend her based on her "cons utional rights" are just making up cons utional concepts as they go along to sound the dog whistle for partisans who will buy into just about anything that is pitched to them as a ground for being indignant.
The worrisome thing to me about the continuation of the story is that if she gains fame (and, perhaps, a degree of wealth) from this, the story could easily encourage others to take such groundless stands in the hope of parlaying "faith" into comfort, at the expense of the hard-earned rights of other citizens.
And she is being held in contempt for violating an order of the Supreme Court. A federal judge in Kentucky enjoined her refusal to issue licenses and told her that he would hold her in contempt if she refused to comply with the Supreme Court's order. She tried to get the Supreme Court to stay the Kentucky judge's order, but Justice Kagan denied that request. And, when she failed to fulfill the Supreme Court's mandate (which violated the injunction) she was -- as would be true of most any other person whose violation of an injunction is pointed out to the court -- held in contempt. Judge Bunning's injunction depends entirely upon the Supreme Court's order in Obergefell, so she's in contempt for her violation of that order. That's true without regard to whether the Supreme Court actually issued the contemnor's penalty.
KY Clerk’s Office Issues Marriage License To Gay Couple, Ending Ban
http://www.nationalmemo.com/kentucky...le-ending-ban/
ok fine great nobody's arguing that, but what did the supreme court do to punish her? Last I checked they didn't do anything
True. Parse away.
Why are you trying to pick nits here.
There was a on sentence claim that was made it took "parse" just to show why the claim was wrong because some people couldn't figure it out.
It's not about picking nits a claim was made it was incorrect, I posted that it wasn't correct and had my claim challenged.
is this another puzzle?
It's funny because you couldn't figure out "wing" to "wrong" using basic context clues. (That's not a puzzle that's youin thisthread) And now apparently you can't read a thread. Let me ask you what is it you don't understand. It's my experience that it's best to find out where the deficiency is before attempting to explain something. We already know you can't read for context so go.
The way you structure sentences confuses me.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
