CDZ Kim Davis And The Rule Of Law

[G.T.]

Did they? Neat. They probably said it about the plague, too. Oh....and roller coasters.

 

[bodecea]

Gay marriage, here to stay and making people flail...

Funny... they said the same thing about segregation!

Gay marriage, here to stay and making people flail...

Funny... they said the same thing about segregation!

What's really funny is comparing legal gay marriage with segregation. That's like comparing welcoming someone into your home to putting big "Keep Out" signs up everywhere.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You are voluntarily employed there and can leave at any moment and by not leaving, YOU give up whatever right, like your firearm rights......YOURSELF, your employer doesnt because he is not forcefully employing you.

BULLSHIT... If this were true, we'd have NO Constitutional rights as employees of ANY company! Our Constitutional rights would be dictated by our employers! You don't like slavery? Sorry... the company policy endorses slavery... get over it! ...Does that sound right in your silly little head?

You seem to be confused bro.

The COTUS ONLY protects your rights from being violated by laws.

That's it.

 

[Boss]

Gay marriage, here to stay and making people flail...

Funny... they said the same thing about segregation!

Gay marriage, here to stay and making people flail...

Funny... they said the same thing about segregation!

What's really funny is comparing legal gay marriage with segregation. That's like comparing welcoming someone into your home to putting big "Keep Out" signs up everywhere.

Why do you say "legal gay marriage" when compared with segregation which was also legal? Did you forget SCOTUS upheld segregation and it was "law of the land" for a while in America? Funny how liberal goofs slobber all over SCOTUS when SCOTUS has ruled slaves are property, women have no rights, blacks are to be segregated, japs are to be interned, lives of Native Americans don't matter, lives of the unborn don't matter. We still live with the later, most of the others took an act of congress or amendment to fix. The SCOTUS is far from the final authority.

 

[Boss]

You seem to be confused bro.

The COTUS ONLY protects your rights from being violated by laws.

That's it.

The Constitution IS THE RULE OF LAW... dummy!

 

[KokomoJojo]

And the 1st amendment doesnt always gove you the right to dictate the terms of your job to your employer, either. Pretty simple. And obvious, since, well look how it played out.

it does not strip you of your right to exercizing your religion, hence when your employer just happens to be those who swore an oath to uphold your right to exercise your religion it most certainly does give davis the right to dictate her job to her employer and if nothing else the her requirements are grandfathered.

No way to get to your position through the constitution.

 

[KokomoJojo]

I'm correct in another way as well.. Her appeal of a decision in one case where she is a defendant is not the same as a future case she may bring as a plaintiff on completely different grounds relevant to her own Constitutional rights.

You are, however she could bring it all to a head by filing a counterclaim, the court has the duty to hear her counterclaim first. That and if she does not get a jury she is truly fucked.

 

[Boss]

I'm correct in another way as well.. Her appeal of a decision in one case where she is a defendant is not the same as a future case she may bring as a plaintiff on completely different grounds relevant to her own Constitutional rights.

You are, however she could bring it all to a head by filing a counterclaim, the court has the duty to hear her counterclaim first. That and if she does not get a jury she is truly fucked.

Or any other party effected by this ruling. It doesn't have to be Davis at all. This SCOTUS ruling enables a legalization and legitimization of a behavior that is morally and religiously objectionable. There are not many comparative examples of this because it doesn't often happen. Roe v. Wade might be the best example and as we see, the issue was not settled by a SCOTUS ruling.

However, the Roe decision doesn't involve agents working on behalf of government to ordain the practice of abortion by the individual... you don't have to get the county clerk to issue an abortion license to have an abortion. It is THAT aspect which makes this issue different. Now you are involving another person who also has a Constitutional right...a FIRST amendment right which trumps a 14th Amendment right. That will never stand, the law has to be changed.

I was thinking today about this... there is also another way a SCOTUS ruling can be 'overturned' and that is by another SCOTUS ruling on another issue which renders the previous ruling irrelevant or unable to be applied. A good case for this would be the old "constitutional" segregation laws. Still found in many state laws but irrelevant because of other subsequent court rulings as well as the CRA and VRA of 64 and 65. What "is constitutional" is always changing.

 

[Arizona Willie]

What do I think?

I think you are a right wing nut job because they are the only ones who use the verbiage " unelected judges " to imply they are not REAL judges or not qualified to be judges because you don't agree with their decisions.

I didn't see you screaming about " unelected judges " when they installed Bush as President.

Nope you loved those Supreme Court judges then.

Begone with you.
========

Another look at all this. what do you all think?

SNIP:

Kim Davis And The Rule Of Law
Kim Davis views her stand as simply one of conscience rights, but it implicates many more questions about the rule of law and the democratic process.



By Richard Samuelson
September 10, 2015
.
When a public official cannot enforce the law in good conscience, he or she should resign and work to change the law through regular channels. That is my first instinct with regard to Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’ refusal to issue marriage licenses. Charles Cooke made

essentially that argument in National Review. Having read and reflected further on the case, I am starting to wonder if the question is actually much more interesting.

Davis is an elected official. When the people elected her, she had no objection to the law of marriage as it existed. A couple of months ago, the Supreme Court changed the legal definition of marriage in Kentucky—or, at least, asserted its right to do so. (One could argue that the Supreme Court, in fact, only asserted that it is unconstitutional not to allow people of the same sex to marry, but since we have separations of power, it is the duty of the legislatures of our states to change their laws to comply with the court’s demands).


Since the key practical fact is that the law has been changed since Davis was elected, the logical reaction is not simply to resign, but to resign and to campaign for re-election. If the people want to elect someone who disagrees with either the Supreme Court’s power to change the definition of marriage or simply with the new definition of marriage, then she should, with the people’s blessing, continue to follow the law of the land as her district understands it, and be willing to suffer the legal consequences on behalf of her constituents.

Davis views this matter as simply one of her rights of conscience, but it, in fact, implicates many more questions about the rule of law and the democratic process. Were American civil education stronger, that element of the story would getting much more play in the press.

It Would Be Easy to Accommodate Kim Davis
The most interesting analysis of the question is Eugene Volokh’s account. Volokh is one of America’s leading experts on religious liberty, and his account of the case is enlightening and fascinating. Volokh reminds us that religious exemptions to generally applicable laws are common in the United States—from Quakers who refuse to fight, to a “philosophically vegetarian” bus driver who refused to hand out free hamburger coupons. (Note that, in this case, our courts agreed that the word “philosophy” used in this sense means religion—our fundamental moral beliefs, values, or practices.)

Religious exemptions to generally applicable laws are common in the United States.
Moreover, he points out that what Davis wants is an accommodation that would entail nothing more than changing the legal form of marriage licenses in a small way. He points out that she would be content with, in the words of her legal briefs: “Modifying the prescribed Kentucky marriage license form to remove the multiple references to Davis’ name, and thus to remove the personal nature of the authorization that Davis must provide on the current form.”

Volokh argues that she might actually win such an exemption under Kentucky law, although not federal law. If Davis turns to Kentucky courts and wins such a change, that would conclude the matter. In response to the argument that such an “accommodation” is, in reality, a legislative change that would require an act of the legislature, Volokh finds that Kentucky law already provides for such an accommodation.

What’s Really Happening Is the End of Law Itself
That opens up a whole second set of questions. It is one thing for a religious-freedom law to require accommodations or work-arounds that would, for example, exempt a religious Muslim or Jew from head-covering laws or facial-hair requirements, and another for one law, as if by autopilot, to change the wording of a legal form. But if courts are allowed to, in effect, dictate the content of our legal code rather than, as they traditionally did, simply reject unconstitutional law, that might not be so unreasonable.

More and more of the laws under which we live are not legislation passed by our legislatures.
That Volokh’s interpretation may very well be correct shows us how far the very idea of legislation has been degraded in the United States. After all, more and more of the laws under which we live are not legislation passed by our legislatures. Instead, they are rules created by unelected bureaucrats or, as in this case, unelected judges—and in both cases they usually have jobs for life, making them, in effect, a postmodern form of robe-nobility.

How to fight against such intrusions upon the rights of we, the people? As in all other fights, we need to fight intelligently. Moreover, we also need to do our best to see the full contours of the fight we are in.

What Do Kim Davis’s Constituents Think?

ALL of it here:
Kim Davis And The Rule Of Law

 

[Arizona Willie]

The Supreme Court DID NOT LEGISLATE ANYTHING.

They ruled on the Constitutionality of laws made by states that discriminated against homosexuals.

The STATES made laws which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional.

THE COURT DID NOT LEGISLATE A DAMN THING.

Davis's 1st amendment rights DO NOT TRUMP THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF OTHER PEOPLE.

It's like the right to scream " fire " in a theater.

IT'S AGAINST THE LAW and denies EVERYONE their 1st amendment right of Free Speech.

She has the right to believe any damn thing she wants but she cannot force HER beliefs on other people and deny them their civil rights in the course of her job.

========

No, it's NOT how it works. The SCOTUS can't legislate from the bench and fundamentally violate the 1st Amendment rights of Kim Davis. You may think they can... they may think they can... they can't.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Where we disagree is over the fact it's Davis' JOB to sign off on legal marriage license applications. She does have a legal obligation to execute the job functions she sought out by running for the office.

This is where I think you are wrong. She cannot be compelled by her job to abandon her religious convictions. If the execution of her job violates her Constitutional rights, she shouldn't be obligated to do it... doesn't matter who she works for, who elected her or didn't elect her or what the "law of the land" is. We are not compelled to follow ANY law that violates our Constitutional rights.

She's not obligated to do it. She can resign.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Th problem with Kim Davis is she wants to accept a paycheck from the Government on her terms not the Government's. The Government gives her the paycheck so she runs a Government Office whose function is providing Government Licenses for folks to marry. The Government expects the Office to run according to The Constitution of the US because this office has to do with Government documents.

Kim Davis does not want to do the job per the Constitution but she still wants the cash from the Government. The solution cannot be for Gay US citizens to lose their Constitutionality guaranteed Rights in order for Kim Davis to inflict her Church teachings on Gays because she is the incumbent .

Kim Davis converted to the Apostolic Church 4 years ago. The Constitution is over 200 years old and has been the ultimate arbiter of disputes over that time. The solution is for her to accept Constitutional rule within the Clerk's Office or resign on Principles...

 

[Syriusly]

I'm correct in another way as well.. Her appeal of a decision in one case where she is a defendant is not the same as a future case she may bring as a plaintiff on completely different grounds relevant to her own Constitutional rights.

You are, however she could bring it all to a head by filing a counterclaim, the court has the duty to hear her counterclaim first. That and if she does not get a jury she is truly fucked.

Or any other party effected by this ruling. It doesn't have to be Davis at all. This SCOTUS ruling enables a legalization and legitimization of a behavior that is morally and religiously objectionable. There are not many comparative examples of this because it doesn't often happen. .

The State of Virginia found mixed race marriages to be morally and religiously objectionable- note this quote in support of Virgina's ban


The second contention, an alternative contention is, that if the Fourteenth Amendment be deemed to apply to state antimiscegenation statutes, then this statute serves a legitimate, legislative objective of preventing the sociological and psychological evils which attend interracial marriages, and is a—an expression, a rational expression of a policy which Virginia has a right to adopt. So far as the legislative history of the amendment is concerned, we do not understand that this Court has ever avowed in principle the proposition that it is necessary in construing the Fourteenth Amendment to give effect to the intention of the Framers.....


It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems than are those of the intramarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.

 

[The Great Goose]

She's a nasty piece of work.

 

[Boss]

The Supreme Court DID NOT LEGISLATE ANYTHING.

They ruled on the Constitutionality of laws made by states that discriminated against homosexuals.

The STATES made laws which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional.

THE COURT DID NOT LEGISLATE A DAMN THING.

Davis's 1st amendment rights DO NOT TRUMP THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF OTHER PEOPLE.

It's like the right to scream " fire " in a theater.

IT'S AGAINST THE LAW and denies EVERYONE their 1st amendment right of Free Speech.

She has the right to believe any damn thing she wants but she cannot force HER beliefs on other people and deny them their civil rights in the course of her job.

========

No, it's NOT how it works. The SCOTUS can't legislate from the bench and fundamentally violate the 1st Amendment rights of Kim Davis. You may think they can... they may think they can... they can't.

She is not forcing her beliefs on other people and you get as fucking angry about it as you like and keep insisting she is, but you're not being honest or truthful. What you are doing is being a stubborn and defiant religious bigot who can't see anything but one side of an issue and it's disgusting.

Yelling "fire" in the theater is often cited as an example of how "free speech" isn't always a constitutional right. First of all, the analogy fails because it has nothing to do with "freedom of speech" as outlined in the Constitution. That is your protection from the government infringing on your right to free political speech. Yelling "fire" in a theater endangers lives and causes a risk to public safety. That is why it's not allowed, not because your right to free speech is being limited.

Yes, Davis' 1st Amendment rights trump someone else's 14th Amendment rights. She cannot be compelled to sign her name endorsing something in contradiction to her religion. I'm sorry that you feel like you can force her to do that against her will. You can't! YOU are the ones insisting we force YOUR beliefs on people and violate THEIR rights! That won't stand.

The SCOTUS most certainly DID legislate gay marriage into existence and establish it as a constitutional right. Again, I am sorry if you don't comprehend that's what they did, but it's what they did! They didn't have any business doing it! If you believe they CAN legislate social issues into existence from the bench then we don't live in a free self-governing society anymore. The thing is... I don't believe for one second that you'd be alright with this if SCOTUS legislated Christian morality into law. If they made such a ruling that demanded you respect the establishment of Christian religion, you'd be flooding this board with protests that it violated your 1st Amendment rights. If you were a defiant county clerk who refused to allow their ruling to force you to endorse religion, you'd think you would have every right to do so... and I would totally agree with you!

 

[Boss]

The State of Virginia found mixed race marriages to be morally and religiously objectionable- note this quote in support of Virgina's ban

And they LOST because it's NOT a fundamental aspect of religion to discriminate based on race.

 

[Arizona Willie]

The Supreme Court DID NOT LEGISLATE ANYTHING.

They ruled on the Constitutionality of laws made by states that discriminated against homosexuals.

The STATES made laws which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional.

THE COURT DID NOT LEGISLATE A DAMN THING.

Davis's 1st amendment rights DO NOT TRUMP THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF OTHER PEOPLE.

It's like the right to scream " fire " in a theater.

IT'S AGAINST THE LAW and denies EVERYONE their 1st amendment right of Free Speech.

She has the right to believe any damn thing she wants but she cannot force HER beliefs on other people and deny them their civil rights in the course of her job.

========

With a reply like that you prove you are too stupid to be bothered with any further discussion with you.

Such an ignorant reply deserves you a spot on the IGNORE list.

Please add me to yours.
========

No, it's NOT how it works. The SCOTUS can't legislate from the bench and fundamentally violate the 1st Amendment rights of Kim Davis. You may think they can... they may think they can... they can't.

She is not forcing her beliefs on other people and you get as fucking angry about it as you like and keep insisting she is, but you're not being honest or truthful. What you are doing is being a stubborn and defiant religious bigot who can't see anything but one side of an issue and it's disgusting.

Yelling "fire" in the theater is often cited as an example of how "free speech" isn't always a constitutional right. First of all, the analogy fails because it has nothing to do with "freedom of speech" as outlined in the Constitution. That is your protection from the government infringing on your right to free political speech. Yelling "fire" in a theater endangers lives and causes a risk to public safety. That is why it's not allowed, not because your right to free speech is being limited.

Yes, Davis' 1st Amendment rights trump someone else's 14th Amendment rights. She cannot be compelled to sign her name endorsing something in contradiction to her religion. I'm sorry that you feel like you can force her to do that against her will. You can't! YOU are the ones insisting we force YOUR beliefs on people and violate THEIR rights! That won't stand.

The SCOTUS most certainly DID legislate gay marriage into existence and establish it as a constitutional right. Again, I am sorry if you don't comprehend that's what they did, but it's what they did! They didn't have any business doing it! If you believe they CAN legislate social issues into existence from the bench then we don't live in a free self-governing society anymore. The thing is... I don't believe for one second that you'd be alright with this if SCOTUS legislated Christian morality into law. If they made such a ruling that demanded you respect the establishment of Christian religion, you'd be flooding this board with protests that it violated your 1st Amendment rights. If you were a defiant county clerk who refused to allow their ruling to force you to endorse religion, you'd think you would have every right to do so... and I would totally agree with you!