Page 1 of 2
The Jailed in Kentucky
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 2:33 pm
by Red Oak
For refusing to issue marriage licences to 'Homosexual Partner's' has raised a few questions in my mind.
1 Why is a Feral Judge jailing her for 'contempt' ? It is a State matter.
2 Why haven't Feral Judges jailed any official for violating immigration laws ? I don't know of any cases.
3 Were any Clerks jailed for issuing marriage licences to same sex partners when it was illegal ?
In my opinion laws are selectively enforced and the Gaystapo and their useful idiot supporters who spout legal and illegal platitudes are hypocrites and mostly evil blackhearted totalitarians who would just as soon jail their opposition as they would breathe.
Re: The Jailed in Kentucky
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 2:42 pm
by BillB
Red Oak wrote:For refusing to issue marriage licences to 'Homosexual Partner's' has raised a few questions in my mind.
1 Why is a Feral Judge jailing her for 'contempt' ? It is a State matter.
2 Why haven't Feral Judges jailed any official for violating immigration laws ? I don't know of any cases.
3 Were any Clerks jailed for issuing marriage licences to same sex partners when it was illegal ?
In my opinion laws are selectively enforced and the Gaystapo and their useful idiot supporters who spout legal and illegal platitudes are hypocrites and mostly evil blackhearted totalitarians who would just as soon jail their opposition as they would breathe.
SCOTUS ruled that states issue marriage licenses to homosexuals.
The clerk is defying the order and has been held in contempt.
SCOTUS has never ruled that these licenses NOT be issued. So the ones who issued them previously, were not in contempt.
The way around it is either massive disobedience or a constitutional amendment.
Neither will happen.
We are on the skids to Hell. It's a done deal.
Re: The Jailed in Kentucky
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 4:49 pm
by Red Oak
The SCOTUS is a Rouge Branch and needs to be put back into a legitimate role.
Re: The Jailed in Kentucky
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 5:03 pm
by grouchy
BillB wrote:Red Oak wrote:For refusing to issue marriage licences to 'Homosexual Partner's' has raised a few questions in my mind.
1 Why is a Feral Judge jailing her for 'contempt' ? It is a State matter.
2 Why haven't Feral Judges jailed any official for violating immigration laws ? I don't know of any cases.
3 Were any Clerks jailed for issuing marriage licences to same sex partners when it was illegal ?
In my opinion laws are selectively enforced and the Gaystapo and their useful idiot supporters who spout legal and illegal platitudes are hypocrites and mostly evil blackhearted totalitarians who would just as soon jail their opposition as they would breathe.
SCOTUS ruled that states issue marriage licenses to homosexuals.
The clerk is defying the order and has been held in contempt.
SCOTUS has never ruled that these licenses NOT be issued. So the ones who issued them previously, were not in contempt.
The way around it is either massive disobedience or a constitutional amendment.
Neither will happen.
We are on the skids to Hell. It's a done deal.
Perhaps, but not for that sole reason.
Re: The Jailed in Kentucky
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 5:04 pm
by ralph
there has been talk of doing something about the 'supremes' , think that it was Ted Cruz [think] doing the talking .
Re: The Jailed in Kentucky
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 5:15 pm
by mayhem
I'm tryin' to figure out what skin you guys have in this game.
What's it to any of you if any two adults/age of consent decide to spend the rest of
their lives together in love and trust? Or even in unconditional positive regard?
Even more directly: how is it anyone else's business? Isn't it better for all concerned
that we support (if only by consent) durable, stable relationships?
Why is it such a big deal? Is anyone exercised about this other than the extreme
fundamentalist churches or other faith groups?
Somebody send a copy of this to JW and RO. Whether they like it or not, I think
it's a fair question and I believe those who think they have a lot at stake and
a lot of harsh things to say should have the opportunity to address these
questions.
ATDoW
Re: The Jailed in Kentucky
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 6:32 pm
by Red Oak
And one more thing, this clerk is not violating any 'Law's, as a matter of fact she is enforcing Kentucky Law, as I understand it she is an elected official following her oath of office.
Re: The Jailed in Kentucky
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 7:06 pm
by BillB
ralph wrote:there has been talk of doing something about the 'supremes' , think that it was Ted Cruz [think] doing the talking .
Congress can easily rein in the Supreme Court if it wants to.
The constitution gives Congress has sole power to set the jurisdiction of the Court.
For example, it can limit SCOTUS to only deciding Washington DC traffic tickets.
If Cruz wants to do something, what bill has he introduced to do this?
It's all a bunch of talk.
Re: The Jailed in Kentucky
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 8:19 pm
by Red Oak
“The idea of natural law superceding [sic] this court’s authority would be a dangerous precedent indeed,” U.S. District Judge David L. Bunning told Rowan County clerk Kim Davis.
Yes it would be a dangerous precedent you tyrant, to you and your ilk, as our founding documents are founded on natural law.
Re: The Jailed in Kentucky
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 8:56 pm
by Sangersteve
I'll be fine with her in jail as soon as she has Obama, Holder and a bunch of other federal officials as cellmates for not enforcing immigration laws.
Re: The Jailed in Kentucky
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:34 pm
by Castle Doctrine
Sangersteve wrote:I'll be fine with her in jail as soon as she has Obama, Holder and a bunch of other federal officials as cellmates for not enforcing immigration laws.
I'm sure you are aware that is a false equivalency. This has nothing to do with immigration law. It is strictly about this creature refusing to comply with a lawful court order. That really is lawless conduct. Fortunately, it doesn't matter how you feel about her being in jail...she is there. It will be interesting to see how long her deeply held religious beliefs last now. They can keep her in jail FOREVER for contempt as I am sure you know. We should start a pool to see how long it takes her to get over herself.
If you don't believe she should have to obey the courts why do you believe anyone should? Is my personal belief that speed limits are the work of the devil suppose to relieve me of having to obey them? I know you are unaccustomed to being questioned here but, really, why do you say such silly things. Don't you think these things through before you type them out?
Re: The Jailed in Kentucky
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:51 pm
by Red Oak
Sangersteve wrote:I'll be fine with her in jail as soon as she has Obama, Holder and a bunch of other federal officials as cellmates for not enforcing immigration laws.
Or when DHS Director Jeh Johnson and underlings are jailed for contempt, along with the head of the EPA.
Re: The Jailed in Kentucky
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 6:31 am
by Mark
Castle Doctrine wrote:Blah, blah, blah
Idiot.
Re: The Jailed in Kentucky
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 8:04 am
by ann jusko
The supreme court's authority is to interpret law NOT MAKE LAWS. How do you think Cruz can do anything about it with the gutless senators we have elected? Are you watching Cornyn? He's supporting further gun laws. Where's the outrage?
Re: The Jailed in Kentucky
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 8:25 am
by Red Oak
I particularly despise Cornyn.
Re: The Jailed in Kentucky
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:49 pm
by Sangersteve
There are many ways to show disdain for law. In America, we have a city council in Denver that advocates shutting down businesses like Chick-fil-A because the CEO once took a public position against gay marriage. That kind of abuse of power and contempt for the Constitution doesn’t get national play, because it’s the right kind of contempt. In this country, illegal immigrants can march in the streets to protest their station without any genuine fear of being rounded up and expelled. They are celebrated. The president ignores the legislative process and gives millions amnesty. We have cities that ignore federal drug laws because they find them oppressive. As Sean Davis points out, when California passed Prop 8, which banned gay marriage, a number of officials refused to enforce the law. But not one elected official has been hauled off to jail for any of these stands.
Re: The Jailed in Kentucky
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:55 pm
by Red Oak
Because the Left does not care about the Law, unless it advances their cause, when it is no longer useful to the cause is is abandoned.
DOMA is a fine example.
Re: The Jailed in Kentucky
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 8:05 pm
by Sangersteve
Red Oak wrote:Because the Left does not care about the Law, unless it advances their cause, when it is no longer useful to the cause is is abandoned.
DOMA is a fine example.
Yup just pointing out to Castle that he don't have an argument.
Re: The Jailed in Kentucky
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 8:08 pm
by Castle Doctrine
Sangersteve wrote:There are many ways to show disdain for law. In America, we have a city council in Denver that advocates shutting down businesses like Chick-fil-A because the CEO once took a public position against gay marriage. That kind of abuse of power and contempt for the Constitution doesn’t get national play, because it’s the right kind of contempt. In this country, illegal immigrants can march in the streets to protest their station without any genuine fear of being rounded up and expelled. They are celebrated. The president ignores the legislative process and gives millions amnesty. We have cities that ignore federal drug laws because they find them oppressive. As Sean Davis points out, when California passed Prop 8, which banned gay marriage, a number of officials refused to enforce the law. But not one elected official has been hauled off to jail for any of these stands.
No offense intended, Sir, but none of the instances cited have any relationship with the Davis case. It would be possible, if one REALLY were bothered by any of them, to seek judicial remedies. However, that didn't happen in any of those other cases so they are totally irrelevant to the present discussion. Now so we are clear, no officials in any of the other cites in any way refused to comply with a lawfully issued court order but Davis most certainly did so.
So what is the point of your selected quote (and where did it come from), Sir? Could you perhaps put it in plain language, your own words, that I might more clearly comprehend your real meaning? That would be very nice, Sir.
Re: The Jailed in Kentucky
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 8:29 pm
by Mark
Red Oak wrote:I particularly despise Cornyn.
He may as well be a Democrat.