Kim Davis Freed. Drama Queen Mike Huckabee: Lock Me Up!

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: diggindirt

It's really this simple. She swore to the Constitution and SCOTUS. Don't like it? Don't take the job.

They did not offer her the accommodations she requested and as a result she ended up in a jail cell.

She is the one who told her deputies to deny the licenses.

Yes, it really is that simple. The governor and the AG also swore the same oath. Perhaps they shouldn't have their jobs either since they've ignored a law they don't support.
She did indeed tell her deputies to cease issuing licenses until she could obtain relief by using the legal system, not by her declaration.

a reply to: Deaf Alien
Well, now it seems that you've gone completely off the subject since as far as I've read the statutes, Captain Picard has nothing whatsoever to do with US or Kentucky law.
We were discussing the governor's abdication of his duty to uphold his oath---and the obligation of attending to duties under the oath that public officials take.

a reply to: diggindirt

She did indeed tell her deputies to cease issuing licenses until she could obtain relief by using the legal system, not by her declaration.

Yes by ignoring the SCOTUS ruling and the Constitution she swore she would follow. All she had to do was tell them not to put her name on the licenses. Simple.

a reply to: diggindirt

Captain Picard has nothing whatsoever to do with US or Kentucky law

It is all about the oath and following the law. If you can't do the job then don't sign up or quit or go away.

I can't believe that when she was released and all Christians cheering her on it doesn't scare them AND YOU too.

I mean come on.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Again, you need to know the facts of the case before you go making statements like that. The form's official design included her name as clerk. That's why she asked for relief. Relief to which she was entitled under KY law.

You have yet to point out to me how I'm misinformed about the governor and AG's actions. What information do you have that makes you think I'm misinformed?

a reply to: diggindirt

That's why she asked for relief. Relief to which she was entitled under KY law.

You mean after she was jailed? She even said that she will not allow her deputies issue the licenses from jail.

[edit] Don't worry we will see what happens on Monday.

a reply to: IAMTAT

There is a big difference between the two as explained here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: diggindirt

Will you check U2U from me?

a reply to: diggindirt

You have yet to point out to me how I'm misinformed about the governor and AG's actions. What information do you have that makes you think I'm misinformed?

Ok so you are saying that this could have been simply avoided?

I DON'T CARE!!!!

Let's see what happens on Monday.

And I hope nothing happens today (9/11).

a reply to: diggindirt

You have yet to point out to me how I'm misinformed about the governor and AG's actions. What information do you have that makes you think I'm misinformed?

Before or after?

The judge released her with rules

Nobody is denying her freedom of religion.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: diggindirt

You have yet to point out to me how I'm misinformed about the governor and AG's actions. What information do you have that makes you think I'm misinformed?

Before or after?

The judge released her with rules

Nobody is denying her freedom of religion.

SNIP You can say all night that nobody is denying her freedom of religion but that won't make her claim invalid. She felt that she couldn't comply with the law so she applied for relief in a legal manner and was ignored by those who should have been attempting to follow the law and provide that relief.

Is she not entitled to be have her grievance addressed in a timely manner?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Kim Davis and Mike Huckabee, along with their supporters, are anti-American scum, but they have the right to their own opinions, thanks to Real Americans. Let's just hope they can contain their terrorist leanings from trampling on the rights of others.

a reply to: diggindirt

so she applied for relief in a legal manner and was ignored by those who should have been attempting to follow the law and provide that relief.

I don't understand.

She filed an appeal it was denied. The SC refused to hear the case.

That's her getting her answer for 'legal' relief. The answer was do your job or quit.

Pretty simple.

A christian author summed it up perfectly:



~Tenth

I am a little confused as to how she ended up going to prison for this. Also, the amount of publicity this has generated seems odd.

originally posted by: diggindirt
SNIP You can say all night that nobody is denying her freedom of religion but that won't make her claim invalid. She felt that she couldn't comply with the law so she applied for relief in a legal manner and was ignored by those who should have been attempting to follow the law and provide that relief.

Is she not entitled to be have her grievance addressed in a timely manner?

Having it addressed and having it resolved in the manner you want are not the same thing. It was heard by the state court where she was told to issue the license, she appealed the decision to the supreme court who rejected it on the basis that their ruling already covered it and said obey the lower court. The she went to the governor to try and circumvent the court and he told her to do her job.

Her grievance has been addressed and she's been told to do her job.

originally posted by: Harvin
I am a little confused as to how she ended up going to prison for this. Also, the amount of publicity this has generated seems odd.

She went to prison on contempt of court. When she took the case to trial the court ruled against her and said her office needed to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. She defied the court order, which put her in jail for contempt.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
What I loved about Huckabee's speech was that he likened the Supreme Court's decision using the 14th amendment to tyranny! LOL! He said they "made laws"! I laughed so hard! And you KNOW he knows better!

Oops! I may be wrong in thinking that Huckabee knows about the Supreme Court's ruling and how the Constitution was used to make a decision...

Gay Marriage is Still Illegal, Because the Ruling is Too Confusing, Says Huckabee

The Republican presidential candidate argued earlier this week that the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision remained “the law of the land” — although the 14th Amendment overturned that ruling a little more than a decade later.

Huckabee made another staggering claim about the judicial branch Thursday during a discussion about defiant Kentucky clerk Kim Davis with the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins.

“The governor can fix this very simply by simply saying he’ll change the form,” Huckabee said. “Now the question is, does he have the authority to do that? And if so, under what authority?”

He seems to think that the SCOTUS ruling is "illegal" because no one understands it... ... *blink*

“Frankly, Tony, it’s why it’s so illegal, is because this has left the whole country in a state of ambiguity and confusion.”

Granted, a lot of people are confused, and much like the blind leading the blind, Huckabee is the confused leading the confused. But the courts, the legal experts, and the people who care to educate themselves on the law are NOT confused in the least.

Perhaps Huckabee should leave the law to those who have a clue about it - or get an education on it so he's not so confused and the SC ruling will become legal again...

nm

originally posted by: Harvin
I am a little confused as to how she ended up going to prison for this. Also, the amount of publicity this has generated seems odd.

this would have been low key, except for Huckabee and Cruz showing up...besides, what else would the news report on....Fukishima?...the war in Syria?...Saudi's bombing Yemen?...Libya's problems?...workers pay?...Ukraine?...47 million poor people in America?...big corporations not paying any taxes at all, and getting millions back in tax credits?