Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Found in Contempt of Court - Jail

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I like the what if with the guns, what if I feel that guns are the most evil thing in the world and part of my job is to hand out the gun permits.
you'd think that I even get half the people to support me in that one that this lady seems to have? I don't.

originally posted by: crustyjuggler27

originally posted by: newWorldSamurai
Question- Some local level governments can choose not to enforce some federal laws with no repercussions (e.g. marijuana, persons in the country illegally). I realize this is a supreme court ruling so it may not be exactly analogous. And I'm not drawing a line on one side of either of issue but merely using them as examples. But it would seems that some laws/rulings/mandates are enforced (or not enforced) with some bias. Is this just my perception and understanding of this correct? Maybe someone in the legal profession can chime in and explain the difference between the examples and this particular issue.

Having said that, this woman is public servant and it's not her duty or place to decide which court rulings/laws/mandates to enforce. She can believe what she wants personally, but should step down if she refuses to do what her position requires.

when the federal gov makes a law they say please enforce this to the states and counties making it at the discression of the jurisdiction. but when a judge says you cant persecute people or mistreat them it is not optional

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Constitution of these United States, Article VI, Section 2

Check it out some time ... it's a great and informative read!

originally posted by: dawnstar
I like the what if with the guns, what if I feel that guns are the most evil thing in the world and part of my job is to hand out the gun permits.
you'd think that I even get half the people to support me in that one that this lady seems to have? I don't.

Certainly not my support as I do not want to see anyone's Constitutional Rights abridged.

On a side note, this did happen to a friend of mine when I went with him to pick up a firearms application. We were told, 'We're out of them for this year'.

I find it interesting how many of the GOP presidential candidates condemn President Obama for his "disregard of the law" and the" lawlessness" in this administration, but when Kim Davis operated with "disregard of the law" and the" lawlessness", they support and encourage her to do so.

Not really interesting... in fact, it's expected.

In regards to the question posed by another poster as to whether it would be the same issue if they were denying gun licenses I have this to say..

Without getting into the gun control debate, I have always supported greater restrictions on guns moreso in line with what we here in Australia have done. That does not mean I am anti-guns, it simply means I support having them restricted to keep the nasties away from them.

Anyhoo, if this were about guns and not marriage, and I were that clerk, I would, despite my own beliefs, still issue licenses to people if the court ordered me to do so - as it is the LAW.

Just my 2 cents on the issue.

Carry on

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
I find it interesting how many of the GOP presidential candidates condemn President Obama for his "disregard of the law" and the" lawlessness" in this administration, but when Kim Davis operated with "disregard of the law" and the" lawlessness", they support and encourage her to do so.

Not really interesting... in fact, it's expected.

It's called "Do as we say, not as we do".

Also known as "tyranny".

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
I find it interesting how many of the GOP presidential candidates condemn President Obama for his "disregard of the law" and the" lawlessness" in this administration, but when Kim Davis operated with "disregard of the law" and the" lawlessness", they support and encourage her to do so.

Not really interesting... in fact, it's expected.

From the way I understand this, it is not law. The SCOTUS has ruled on the issue, but that does not change the law of the state she resides. State lawmakers have to change the law to fit the SCOTUS ruling. If they don't, people like this woman are not breaking the law by refusing to issue a licence, but are open to lawsuits that will have the SCOTUS ruling as precedence.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

I find it interesting how many of the GOP presidential candidates condemn President Obama for his "disregard of the law" and the" lawlessness" in this administration, but when Kim Davis operated with "disregard of the law" and the" lawlessness", they support and encourage her to do so.

Worst offender is Ted 'The Christian' Cruz missile who was an attorney and clerked for the Supreme Court.

You would think this pandering meathead would understand what a Supreme Court ruling encapsulates.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

We now live in a society where government and government entities make decisions of what we eat, drink, smoke, and marry.

We really shouldn't be surprised by this.

It is the individuals choice to marry. Much as it should be the choice of the individual in so many other things that government has begun dictating to.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
I find it interesting how many of the GOP presidential candidates condemn President Obama for his "disregard of the law" and the" lawlessness" in this administration, but when Kim Davis operated with "disregard of the law" and the" lawlessness", they support and encourage her to do so.

Not really interesting... in fact, it's expected.

Seems to be some bi-partisan comradery with this issue indeed.

Paul and Cruz seem to be "supporting" Kim Davis's stand.

Hmmm.

originally posted by: introvert

If they don't...

There is no 'if they don't', non-compliance with the ruling will only result in legal suits which the defendants cannot win.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: introvert

If they don't...

There is no 'if they don't', non-compliance with the ruling will only result in legal suits which the defendants cannot win.

Exactly, but that still does not change the law. Technically speaking, she did not break the law.

Might as well prepare for pastors and preist being rounded up and arrested next.this country will collapse.

originally posted by: introvert
Exactly, but that still does not change the law. Technically speaking, she did not break the law.

Yes, she did. The laws were ruled un-Constitutional. Changing them only removes the pretext of non-compliance.


Do you honestly think if she did not 'break any laws' that she would not be in the slam as we speak? That there is not some clever attorney who would have used this ploy in the 230+ years of Supreme Court rulings?

Saint Kimmy broke the law, now she is in jail.

a reply to: Jobeycool

Would be the best thing that has happened to society for a very long time!

originally posted by: Jobeycool

Might as well prepare for pastors and preist being rounded up and arrested next.this country will collapse.

Are they part of the government? Stop being hysterical.

originally posted by: introvert

Exactly, but that still does not change the law. Technically speaking, she did not break the law.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the US Constitution considered law? Or is this "14th Amendment" just a bit that can be ignored?

originally posted by: Jobeycool
Might as well prepare for pastors and preist being rounded up and arrested next.this country will collapse.

Here we go, another persecution complex.

Thankyou for proving my point that Christians take every opportunity they can to cry victim to elicit sympathy when it is THEY, in fact, that are doing the wrong thing.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

in fact, it's expected

Dare I say it's always been expected from the right wing folks?

but the governor recognized that the state laws were now inadequate and made an executive order for the clerks to issue the licenses. I do believe that made it legal, regardless of what the laws said.