New Precedent: Federal Court Upholds Christians' Rights To Refuse. Kim Davis Has Case.

[Jarlaxle]

Repeating this lie over and over again does not make it so. Gay marriage is here to stay. Too bad, so sad.

No, it is not.

The culture of self destruction is prevailing today, but as the affects continue to be seen wiser heads will see the need to reverse this cultural suicide.

Not only is Fag marriage going to eventually be banned, but abortion passed the first trimester will be as well for the sake of the nation.

What color is the sky on your planet?

 

[Silhouette]

I am pretty sure Kim Davis is tired of being laughed out of court.

Not exactly.. See post #2 for details..

 

[Silhouette]

lol, Remember the Hobby Lobby debate, when the HL defenders say oh hey this isn't about birth control, this is just about abortifacients.

Yeah right. Now what?

Yeah...remember when the Justices said in Lawrence v Texas that "this isn't about gay marriage, it's about decriminalizing sodomy".

Incremental precedent progression can sure be a bitch, can't it? Seems good for your cult, but you want to deny it to Christians.

 

[Silhouette]

You can't and don't impeach SCOTUS judges for making rulings you don't like.

But you CAN impeach them for publicly displaying bias on a case while it is pending, and then not recusing themselves sitting on it..

 

[Silhouette]

So you advocate someone else defining your rights...

... based on their beliefs?

You can't require the Bible to be rewritten because sexual deviants want to circumvent democracy and force the majority via their pocket Justices to have so-called "gay marriage".

People like to avoid this little adjunct, but I'm going to bring it up here again. For the first time in human history, a court has acted to permanently divorce children from either a mother or father for life. HUGE issue. Children had no representative in Obergefell. Marriage deeply affects children more than any other demographic.

Enjoy the Obergefell Ruling while you can..

BTW, I wonder how the ruling in the OP affects the Oregon bakers' case?

 

[mdk]

I am pretty sure Kim Davis is tired of being laughed out of court.

Not exactly.. See post #2 for details..

Details for what? Davis didn't have a legal leg to stand on. She also dropped her lawsuit. Her name is off the licenses and she can't force her clerks and citizens to abide by the whims of her religious beliefs.

 

[jillian]

Court: Birth control mandate violates religious rights

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A federal judge has ruled in favor of a Missouri lawmaker who cited religious objections while challenging the inclusion of birth control coverage in his government-provided health insurance....The lawsuit by Wieland and his wife, Teresa, who are Roman Catholics, asserted that it violates their religious beliefs to include contraception coverage in the state health insurance plan that he participates in as a lawmaker....In a ruling Thursday siding with the Wielands, U.S. District Judge Jean Hamilton cited the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says government shall not "substantially burden" a person's exercise of religion..."the only way plaintiffs can comply with their religious conscience is by dropping their insurance altogether, which would result in them foregoing a valuable job benefit

Kim Davis, you listening? The only way Kim Davis could keep her job would be to violate her religious conscience. Remember, Kim Davis took her job BEFORE Obergefell's illegal Ruling (two justices were mandated to have recused themselves from Obergefell, for performing gay marriages as representatives of the fed while deciding "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage?").

I found this part utterly hilarious...as if a precedent only applies on a case by case basis...as if all Americans don't enjoy interpretation of law equally... What a jokester that Senator was saying this:

State Sen. Paul Wieland said Friday that the ruling , while applying only to his family, could serve as a guide for others seeking to challenge the application of a section of President Barack Obama's health care law that requires insurers to include coverage of contraceptives

As if laws protecting religious freedoms ONLY apply to one person and ONLY in certain specific violations of religious conscience...you know...but not others... !

Jonathan Turley needs to get a hold of Kim Davis. They have a case to file..

the district court of mississippi cannot overrule the US Supreme court you obsessed psycho.

a trial level court is not PRECEDENT....the supreme court is.

 

[mdk]

So you advocate someone else defining your rights...

... based on their beliefs?

You can't require the Bible to be rewritten because sexual deviants want to circumvent democracy and force the majority via their pocket Justices to have so-called "gay marriage".

People like to avoid this little adjunct, but I'm going to bring it up here again. For the first time in human history, a court has acted to permanently divorce children from either a mother or father for life. HUGE issue. Children had no representative in Obergefell. Marriage deeply affects children more than any other demographic.

Enjoy the Obergefell Ruling while you can..

BTW, I wonder how the ruling in the OP affects the Oregon bakers' case?

That's odd. According to your ramblings children don't need a mother or a father. All they is hope. That alone in your addled mind is good enough.

You never answer this question: how does denying gay marriage stop gay people from raising their children? Hint: it doesn't. Your solution in no way addresses your problem. So what's your end game?

 

[OKTexas]

You can for making rulings contrary to the Constitution. That's part of the checks and balances in our government. But instead of making the generalized ignorant statements, how about you prove their actions were in accordance with the Constitution using the Constitution itself. I can easily prove it wasn't and provide previous decisions to back it up.

I'll even ask you one question that will give you a hint about one part of what I'm talking about, ya ready?

Why did the supreme court rule the presidential line item veto unconstitutional?

BTW don't try to tell me that decision doesn't apply because I can prove otherwise.

List all the judges impeached for their votes on cases.

Stop deflecting. Prove me wrong or STFU. Better yet, I done arguing with ignorance.

And another rightist consistent at being ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

Same thing, prove me wrong or STFU. I guess you regressive are all mouth and zero intelligence.

Stop with the ad hom attacks and prove me wrong using the Constitution. Are you not up to the task?

You can't and don't impeach SCOTUS judges for making rulings you don't like.

You can for making rulings contrary to the Constitution. That's part of the checks and balances in our government. But instead of making the generalized ignorant statements, how about you prove their actions were in accordance with the Constitution using the Constitution itself. I can easily prove it wasn't and provide previous decisions to back it up.

I'll even ask you one question that will give you a hint about one part of what I'm talking about, ya ready?

Why did the supreme court rule the presidential line item veto unconstitutional?

BTW don't try to tell me that decision doesn't apply because I can prove otherwise.

List all the judges impeached for their votes on cases.

Stop deflecting. Prove me wrong or STFU. Better yet, I done arguing with ignorance.

So the dissenting judges in the same sex marriage case should be impeached for voting against the Constitution.

lol, good one.

Did they legislate an unconstitutional direct tax?

 

[NYcarbineer]

List all the judges impeached for their votes on cases.

Stop deflecting. Prove me wrong or STFU. Better yet, I done arguing with ignorance.

And another rightist consistent at being ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

Same thing, prove me wrong or STFU. I guess you regressive are all mouth and zero intelligence.

You can't and don't impeach SCOTUS judges for making rulings you don't like.

You can for making rulings contrary to the Constitution. That's part of the checks and balances in our government. But instead of making the generalized ignorant statements, how about you prove their actions were in accordance with the Constitution using the Constitution itself. I can easily prove it wasn't and provide previous decisions to back it up.

I'll even ask you one question that will give you a hint about one part of what I'm talking about, ya ready?

Why did the supreme court rule the presidential line item veto unconstitutional?

BTW don't try to tell me that decision doesn't apply because I can prove otherwise.

List all the judges impeached for their votes on cases.

Stop deflecting. Prove me wrong or STFU. Better yet, I done arguing with ignorance.

So the dissenting judges in the same sex marriage case should be impeached for voting against the Constitution.

lol, good one.

Did they legislate an unconstitutional direct tax?

No. They cast an unconstitutional vote. That appears to be your grounds for impeachment.

 

[OKTexas]

Stop deflecting. Prove me wrong or STFU. Better yet, I done arguing with ignorance.

And another rightist consistent at being ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

Same thing, prove me wrong or STFU. I guess you regressive are all mouth and zero intelligence.

You can for making rulings contrary to the Constitution. That's part of the checks and balances in our government. But instead of making the generalized ignorant statements, how about you prove their actions were in accordance with the Constitution using the Constitution itself. I can easily prove it wasn't and provide previous decisions to back it up.

I'll even ask you one question that will give you a hint about one part of what I'm talking about, ya ready?

Why did the supreme court rule the presidential line item veto unconstitutional?

BTW don't try to tell me that decision doesn't apply because I can prove otherwise.

List all the judges impeached for their votes on cases.

Stop deflecting. Prove me wrong or STFU. Better yet, I done arguing with ignorance.

So the dissenting judges in the same sex marriage case should be impeached for voting against the Constitution.

lol, good one.

Did they legislate an unconstitutional direct tax?

No. They cast an unconstitutional vote. That appears to be your grounds for impeachment.

Considering you haven't heard my argument you're talking out your ass.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And another rightist consistent at being ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

Same thing, prove me wrong or STFU. I guess you regressive are all mouth and zero intelligence.

List all the judges impeached for their votes on cases.

Stop deflecting. Prove me wrong or STFU. Better yet, I done arguing with ignorance.

So the dissenting judges in the same sex marriage case should be impeached for voting against the Constitution.

lol, good one.

Did they legislate an unconstitutional direct tax?

No. They cast an unconstitutional vote. That appears to be your grounds for impeachment.

Considering you haven't heard my argument you're talking out your ass.

Your argument is that you should be magically made the supreme arbiter of all that is constitutional or unconstitutional.

 

[OKTexas]

Same thing, prove me wrong or STFU. I guess you regressive are all mouth and zero intelligence.

Stop deflecting. Prove me wrong or STFU. Better yet, I done arguing with ignorance.

So the dissenting judges in the same sex marriage case should be impeached for voting against the Constitution.

lol, good one.

Did they legislate an unconstitutional direct tax?

No. They cast an unconstitutional vote. That appears to be your grounds for impeachment.

Considering you haven't heard my argument you're talking out your ass.

Your argument is that you should be magically made the supreme arbiter of all that is constitutional or unconstitutional.

Once again you're talking out of your ass, I can prove by the Constitution they violated not only it but their own previous rulings. I asked you a question yesterday, have you figured out yet why the court said a presidential line item veto was unconstitutional?

 

[Silhouette]

No. They cast an unconstitutional vote. That appears to be your grounds for impeachment.

Grounds for impeachment that would stick would be Caperton v Massey Coal (2009). No judge or juror/Justice of the Supreme Court may openly display bias towards a case and then preside over it. While Obergefell was pending in their Court, both Kagan and Ginsburg presided/officiated as embodiments of the federal government at gay weddings as the question "should the fed preside over states on the question of gay marriage" was pending in their court.

That is an impeachable offense. At minimum, Obergefell has to be retried.

 

[mdk]

No. They cast an unconstitutional vote. That appears to be your grounds for impeachment.

Grounds for impeachment that would stick would be Caperton v Massey Coal (2009). No judge or juror/Justice of the Supreme Court may openly display bias towards a case and then preside over it. While Obergefell was pending in their Court, both Kagan and Ginsburg presided/officiated as embodiments of the federal government at gay weddings as the question "should the fed preside over states on the question of gay marriage" was pending in their court.

That is an impeachable offense. At minimum, Obergefell has to be retried.

Stop making shit up. Here were the actual questions before the court:

(1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

(2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex that was legally licensed and performed in another state?


Neither Justices are going to be impeached and Obgerefell isn't going to be reheard. Get over it. Or don't. Either way, gays will continue to marry and you can't do squat about it.

 

[Silhouette]

Stop making shit up. Here were the actual questions before the court:

(1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

(2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex that was legally licensed and performed in another state?

Both #1 and #2 address federal law presiding over state laws. So I reiterate: Ginsburg and Kagan as federal entities were not allowed to preside over gay marriages while those questions were pending before the Court. Their officiating publicly at gay weddings while the case made its way up was a clear violation of Caperton v Massey Coal (2009) of which Ginsburg herself voted in favor of!

Obergefell was a mistrial and must be reheard. The result may be the same anyway, but due process demands a rehearing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No. They cast an unconstitutional vote. That appears to be your grounds for impeachment.

Grounds for impeachment that would stick would be Caperton v Massey Coal (2009). No judge or juror/Justice of the Supreme Court may openly display bias towards a case and then preside over it. While Obergefell was pending in their Court, both Kagan and Ginsburg presided/officiated as embodiments of the federal government at gay weddings as the question "should the fed preside over states on the question of gay marriage" was pending in their court.

That is an impeachable offense. At minimum, Obergefell has to be retried.

That is nonsense.

 

[mdk]

Stop making shit up. Here were the actual questions before the court:

(1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

(2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex that was legally licensed and performed in another state?

Both #1 and #2 address federal law presiding over state laws. So I reiterate: Ginsburg and Kagan as federal entities were not allowed to preside over gay marriages while those questions were pending before the Court. It was a clear violation of Caperton v Massey Coal (2009) of which Ginsburg herself voted in favor of!

Obergefell was a mistrial and must be reheard. The result may be the same anyway, but due process demands a rehearing.

The questions before the court would not have had an impact on gay marriage occurring in Maryland and D.C. There goes your whines about bias.

Caperton deals with elected judges hearing cases from campaign donors. Neither Justices are elected nor accept campaign donations. Ending your lame whines for a second time.

Obergefell wasn't a trail so it can't result in a mistrial. Another lame whine down the drain.

Keep pissing in the wind.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you advocate someone else defining your rights...

... based on their beliefs?

Where did I state any such thing. I didn't mince words.. I stated unequivocally the US Constitution, Bill of Rights.

The Constitution doesn't protect the right to human sacrifice, no matter what your religion may say.

That principle continues on down from there.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Stop making shit up. Here were the actual questions before the court:

(1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

(2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex that was legally licensed and performed in another state?

Both #1 and #2 address federal law presiding over state laws. So I reiterate: Ginsburg and Kagan as federal entities were not allowed to preside over gay marriages while those questions were pending before the Court. Their officiating publicly at gay weddings while the case made its way up was a clear violation of Caperton v Massey Coal (2009) of which Ginsburg herself voted in favor of!

Obergefell was a mistrial and must be reheard. The result may be the same anyway, but due process demands a rehearing.

Having a personal opinion on an issue does not disqualify a judge from cases involving that issue.