It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can We Defy the Supreme Court? Jesse Ventura on Kim Davis's Violation

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: JesseVentura
Were American citizens morally right to oppose the US Supreme Court's Dredd Scott decision?
We look back at that decision today and agree that the decision was wrong....



So how is a decision that reduces government oversight in the matters of marriage (keep in mind it actually only just overturned gay marriage bans, it didn't add any new laws to the books) and reinforces the Constitutional idea of Separation of Church and State a bad decision?




posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah, it's not over. She's still fighting to impose her religion on the people of Rowan county. I'm keeping up with it, but I know a lot of people here are tired of hearing about it, so I contain my findings to the thread I started.

It's not that she defies the Supreme Court that bothers me. Hell, I think we all defy the law now and then. What bothers me is that her illegal activity is negatively affecting the lives of the people of her county. She's doing her very best to deny rights to fellow citizens. And she just may be succeeding. What a mess when these people find out their marriages aren't legal...

FOX



The judge could appoint another person to oversee the issuance of marriage licenses, both to ensure that the licenses are issued legally and to protect the deputy clerks, who are now left with the difficult choice to either defy their boss or defy a judge.

"It's almost a worst-case scenario," he said. "The worst case scenario would be to send her to jail again."

The judge has wide discretion on who might be appointed. It could be a lawyer, another Rowan County public official or any citizen the judge trusts to carry out his orders impartially, Marcosson said. He said the judge will likely call a hearing, where he might hear testimony about the process Davis undertook to alter the licenses or the instructions she gave to her deputy clerks.


This ain't over, folks.


That's interesting you see it as "imposing her religion". Really? She's trying to convert people to Christianity? Don't think so. She is religiously opposed to performing an action that didn't exist when she took the job. Should she have to quit? I don't know, part of me doesn't think so. If my employer came to me today and told me I'd have to start working every Sunday morning even though it wasn't a requirement when I started my job I'd tell my employer no. And I wouldn't quit. If they fired me I would sue for discrimination. Aren't we supposed to be protected from employers taking actions like these?



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi

So it's not ok to make her do the job she is employed for and is paid for, when anyone else would be fired for refusing to do their job, but it's ok for her to discriminate against gay people, when they aren't hurting anyone by being gay and wanting the same rights everyone else has, but her beliefs do hurt others, and gay people don't have a choice in their sexual orientation?

Yeah...that makes perfect sense.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah, it's not over. She's still fighting to impose her religion on the people of Rowan county. I'm keeping up with it, but I know a lot of people here are tired of hearing about it, so I contain my findings to the thread I started.

It's not that she defies the Supreme Court that bothers me. Hell, I think we all defy the law now and then. What bothers me is that her illegal activity is negatively affecting the lives of the people of her county. She's doing her very best to deny rights to fellow citizens. And she just may be succeeding. What a mess when these people find out their marriages aren't legal...

FOX



The judge could appoint another person to oversee the issuance of marriage licenses, both to ensure that the licenses are issued legally and to protect the deputy clerks, who are now left with the difficult choice to either defy their boss or defy a judge.

"It's almost a worst-case scenario," he said. "The worst case scenario would be to send her to jail again."

The judge has wide discretion on who might be appointed. It could be a lawyer, another Rowan County public official or any citizen the judge trusts to carry out his orders impartially, Marcosson said. He said the judge will likely call a hearing, where he might hear testimony about the process Davis undertook to alter the licenses or the instructions she gave to her deputy clerks.


This ain't over, folks.


That's interesting you see it as "imposing her religion". Really? She's trying to convert people to Christianity?



I didn't say she was trying to convert people. She is IMPOSING her religious beliefs on other people. It's like saying, "I'm on a diet, so you can't have a donut".


She is religiously opposed to performing an action that didn't exist when she took the job.


Not true. Issuing marriage licenses to legally-qualified couples of Rowan county has ALWAYS been her job. She has NEVER had the authority to decide who can or cannot have marriage licenses. The LAW decided that. If she doesn't want to adhere to the law...



Should she have to quit?


Yes. Or be legally removed. The people whose lives she's messing with are paying her salary.


If my employer came to me today and told me I'd have to start working every Sunday morning even though it wasn't a requirement when I started my job I'd tell my employer no. And I wouldn't quit. If they fired me I would sue for discrimination. Aren't we supposed to be protected from employers taking actions like these?


That's not what happened. No new responsibilities or hours were added. SHE doesn't even have to do that part of the job! She has had every opportunity to just back down and let her deputies issue legal licenses, but she's refusing. She's doing everything possible to IMPOSE her beliefs on others.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: JesseVentura
Were American citizens morally right to oppose the US Supreme Court's Dredd Scott decision?
We look back at that decision today and agree that the decision was wrong....



So how is a decision that reduces government oversight in the matters of marriage (keep in mind it actually only just overturned gay marriage bans, it didn't add any new laws to the books) and reinforces the Constitutional idea of Separation of Church and State a bad decision?

I agree with the Supreme Court decision in support of gay marriage, and am on record here at ATS in regard to that.
If you will notice, I didn't say that it was a bad decision. You assumed that I meant that, but I didn't at all.
Jesse's question was, 'Can we defy the Supreme Court?' John Brown challenged the Dredd Scott decision at Harper's Ferry. You can check the history books to see what he got for his trouble.
I was just giving an example of a very bad SCOTUS decision and now I have given you the answer as to what happens if you dare challenge them.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Ok. Just checking.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: butcherguy

Ok. Just checking.

Sorry, I was vague about it in my first post.
But we have it all cleared up now.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: JesseVentura
If you don't like a law, break it, right? Former Governor Mike Huckabee has told Kentucky country clerk Kim Davis and her followers that their religious beliefs can supersede the Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage. What happened to the separation of church and state? Myself and my Vigilant Producer Alex Logan break down what we can do to defy the laws we don't agree with and stay out of jail.

Should Kim Davis keep her job?


Mike Huckabee should not run for president.

Kim Davis should leave her office while she is still free.

Separation of religion and state is what makes us different from ISIS and other religious fanatics... isn't it??

What really bothers me is that thanks to support of fossils such as Hackabee and Cruz she is able to avoid jail time.


Seems that our future with republican candidates as is... might be colorful...





originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah, it's not over. She's still fighting to impose her religion on the people of Rowan county. I'm keeping up with it, but I know a lot of people here are tired of hearing about it, so I contain my findings to the thread I started.

It's not that she defies the Supreme Court that bothers me. Hell, I think we all defy the law now and then. What bothers me is that her illegal activity is negatively affecting the lives of the people of her county. She's doing her very best to deny rights to fellow citizens. And she just may be succeeding. What a mess when these people find out their marriages aren't legal...

FOX



The judge could appoint another person to oversee the issuance of marriage licenses, both to ensure that the licenses are issued legally and to protect the deputy clerks, who are now left with the difficult choice to either defy their boss or defy a judge.

"It's almost a worst-case scenario," he said. "The worst case scenario would be to send her to jail again."

The judge has wide discretion on who might be appointed. It could be a lawyer, another Rowan County public official or any citizen the judge trusts to carry out his orders impartially, Marcosson said. He said the judge will likely call a hearing, where he might hear testimony about the process Davis undertook to alter the licenses or the instructions she gave to her deputy clerks.


This ain't over, folks.


That's interesting you see it as "imposing her religion". Really? She's trying to convert people to Christianity? Don't think so. She is religiously opposed to performing an action that didn't exist when she took the job. Should she have to quit? I don't know, part of me doesn't think so. If my employer came to me today and told me I'd have to start working every Sunday morning even though it wasn't a requirement when I started my job I'd tell my employer no. And I wouldn't quit. If they fired me I would sue for discrimination. Aren't we supposed to be protected from employers taking actions like these?



let me ask you a question. Now that discussion about muslim president was this past weekend, thanks to Trump, question is, what if some muslim has her position and starts to issue multiple marriage license to already married people, just because his religion allows him to do so?! Or what if he discriminate against you, for whatever religions reason?! I really like to know what would be your response...

Would you fight for your right, or you would go to some other county to get paperwork there, because mean religious follower could not do his job because it does not go with his 'belief'.

Here is poster from her little town... it tells a lot.




edit on 22-9-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   
We all seem to be able to excuse almost anything as long as it plays into what we think is 'right'.

This is why the Founders were so concerned about creating a nation of laws and not men (people).

10th Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Where is marriage delegated to the Federal Government? It's a state issue, and if the Feds want control over marriage then let them propose a Constitutional amendment.

The Court did virtually the same thing with the ACA and the state exchanges. The Court basically redefined states as being indistinguishable from the federal government. That's a watershed moment that has been for the most part, missed by the majority of the country while we're debating Trump's face/persona distinctions and Hillary's bathroom housed email server.

Every year that goes by, We The People lose more and more control as the states cede more and more power to the feds. Not because we want to, but because we're collectively not paying attention. There's a right way and a wrong way to get things accomplished and every time the 'right' thing gets accomplished the wrong way, we do damage to the nation and its future.

The Republican candidates sign a pledge to support the ultimate nominee and everybody loses their minds. Every person in the three branches of the Federal government pledges to support and defend the Constitution and that's become a freaking joke.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: yeahright

The court only did the same thing it did when it ruled on interracial marriage. Don't forget, it is the fault of Christians to begin with that marriage rules are determined by the federal government. Pretending like it is only NOW a problem that they oversee it is just demonstrating cognitive dissonance.

Heck, it's even downright dishonest. I didn't see NEARLY as many complaints about the federal government overseeing marriage rules before the Supreme Court ruling (even though nothing changed regarding federal control of marriage when the ruling happened). It was only when the ruling came down, that all these arguments started really popping up. Sure there were a few pockets who have always been saying it, but most of these arguments just boil down to sour grapes that gay people can get married now.
edit on 22-9-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: yeahright
10th Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Where is marriage delegated to the Federal Government? It's a state issue, and if the Feds want control over marriage then let them propose a Constitutional amendment.


The 10th amendment doesn't only say that the states have power, but that the states have ONLY the power that's not prohibited by the Constitution.

Marriage bans are prohibited by the Constitution (in the14th amendment).

The 14th amendment says that states cannot make laws that only apply to some citizens. So, the Constitution prohibits states from making marriage bans, because that's a STATE LAW that only applies to some citizens.

The 10th and the 14th work together perfectly here. No new amendments needed.


edit on 9/22/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
I still don't get why any christians get up in arms over anything the government does, or tells them to do. Both the old and new testament basically tell the sheeple to just obey the government that they live under. No one ever seems to bring this up, oddly. Mark 12:17 and Romans 13:1-7, yo.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: JesseVentura What happened to the separation of church and state?


Americans are the world champions of self-delusion. We still think we are the best in the world at everything.

One of the obvious ways we delude ourselves these days is by pretending we are immune to the fever of religious extremism that has spread across the globe over the past couple decades.

We simply have a blind spot with the familiar Christian Right. No bombs (recently anyways - Eric Rudolph?), but certainly a push to insert a conservative Christian world view and moral structure into government...flirtations with theocracy.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
The Supreme Court decision does a lot more than define who's permitted to enter into a marriage agreement. It changes the definition of what a marriage is. Now there are plenty of things I am in favor of, plenty of things I am opposed to. Personally, I have no problem with same sex couples entering into marriage agreements because it's neither here nor there to me.

What I do have a problem with is legislating from the bench. For every decision they make that overreaches that I ultimately agree with, there's at least one I won't agree with. And I disagree with the process that takes the decisions out of the hands of the legislators who are there to do that work.

LEGAL definition of marriage. Or at least, it used to be. That's been flipped upside down in a narrowly decided 5-4 verdict by 9 guys elected by nobody.

IMO.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: yeahright
The Supreme Court decision does a lot more than define who's permitted to enter into a marriage agreement. It changes the definition of what a marriage is.


They didn't change any definitions. The TRUTH is, marriage means different things to different people, but in the big picture, it's a joining of two or more things.



What I do have a problem with is legislating from the bench.


The legislation has been in place since 1868, when the 14th amendment was written. We've been violating the Constitution all along. This case just made that clear. The SC ruled that we've been in violation all along by restricting this LEGAL state law and institution to straight people only.



LEGAL definition of marriage. Or at least, it used to be.


That's how many define it. But it's not written in stone as THE definition.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: yeahright
The Supreme Court decision does a lot more than define who's permitted to enter into a marriage agreement. It changes the definition of what a marriage is. Now there are plenty of things I am in favor of, plenty of things I am opposed to. Personally, I have no problem with same sex couples entering into marriage agreements because it's neither here nor there to me.

What I do have a problem with is legislating from the bench. For every decision they make that overreaches that I ultimately agree with, there's at least one I won't agree with. And I disagree with the process that takes the decisions out of the hands of the legislators who are there to do that work.

LEGAL definition of marriage. Or at least, it used to be. That's been flipped upside down in a narrowly decided 5-4 verdict by 9 guys elected by nobody.

IMO.


This from the same article:




The traditional principle upon which the institution of marriage is founded is that a husband has the obligation to support a wife, and that a wife has the duty to serve. In the past, this has meant that the husband has the duty to provide a safe house, to pay for necessities such as food and clothing, and to live in the house. A wife's obligation has traditionally entailed maintaining a home, living in the home, having sexual relations with her husband, and rearing the couple's children. Changes in society have modified these marital roles to a considerable degree as married women have joined the workforce in large numbers, and more married men have become more involved in child rearing.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I'm not suggesting it's wrong that it happened. I'm saying it's wrong to the point of dangerous for the way it happened.

This IMO was a significant overreach of judicial authority. It sets another bad precedent.

You're on board with this one. Just remember that the next time a 5-4 decision doesn't go your way and overreaches in another direction.

I'll be opposed to that, too.

And to Jesse Ventura's point, you g-d right we can defy the Supreme Court. I'm actually shocked Jesse would advocate we be anybody's lapdog, when it's a situation where the court contorts enough to dislocate a shoulder to come up with a ruling.

It went your way and not against mine. This time.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I guess I should say we just don't need another thread about it.



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: yeahright
This IMO was a significant overreach of judicial authority. It sets another bad precedent.


Explain how I'm wrong that the 10th and 14th insist that state laws be applied to everyone equally. Explain WHAT the Supreme Court did, how they were wrong in their finding. What precedent? Equal protection under the law? That precedent was already set. They USED the interracial marriage precedent in their ruling, in fact.



You're on board with this one.


It doesn't matter if one agrees with the ruling or not. It's CLEARLY legal what was done. Not only legal but clearly in keeping with the Constitutional rights of the PEOPLE. You keep ignoring that (and me) in favor of the party line of "They changed the definition of marriage"... "They overstepped their bounds". Tell me HOW. How is what happened in the SC NOT Constitutional and RIGHT? Can you explain how they overreached their authority?



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It legitimizes gay marriage but reduces govt oversight ? What makes you think govt won't have a wide open door into personal stuff? People have such odd ideas if what statism is and isn't,
edit on 22-9-2015 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: Auto correct




top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join