Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court

[Statistikhengst]

GOD FEARING DEMOCRATS: THIS MESSAGE IS FOR YOU, ABOUT YOU AND SAYS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW, TO KNOW WHAT YOUR PARTY HAS TO SAY ABOUT YOU:

No some ignorant freak from Podunk Kentucky does not speak for God...are you all so crazed you believe the mental midget Kim Davis speaks for God ...have you all been drinking...

To everything turn turn turn [Ecclesiastes]

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Kim Davis is an idiotic Religionist mental midget ...God laughs at her outlandish claims to know what God's views are...God rejects Dixie flag Right wing slags ...

Brazenly speaking for the Almighty. Judgment day will be truly dreadful for you.

Is that not what "Kimbo" is doing nut boy....speaking for the "Almighty"......... get real...only little children are scared by Judgement day.... I am being stalked [as you are and everyone] by personal death...Judgement day is nothing for me cause I am already facing certain death. I know I am going to die when it comes time for me to die.....grow up and stop the"Judgement day" ninny show....

 

[Silhouette]

The lower court rulings overwhelmingly relied on more recent precedent, most relevantly tghe the precedent of Windsor. With its communication of the court's position on same sex marriage so clearly that even Scalia said it was 'beyond mistaking' and that the State same sex marriage bans being overturned using the logic of Windsor was 'inevitable.'

Scalia and the lower courts were right on how to interpret the Windsor ruling: the USSC did affirm same sex marriage and did overturn state marriage bans.

1. Scalia voted against gay marriage being a mandate on the 50 states.

2. Windsor was a correct ruling in that it said that whatever states say, the fed has to abide by on the question of marriage. Not the other way around dear. In fact if you want quotes to that effect and intent directly from the text of the Windsor Opinion, read here: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Skylar]

The lower court rulings overwhelmingly relied on more recent precedent, most relevantly tghe the precedent of Windsor. With its communication of the court's position on same sex marriage so clearly that even Scalia said it was 'beyond mistaking' and that the State same sex marriage bans being overturned using the logic of Windsor was 'inevitable.'

Scalia and the lower courts were right on how to interpret the Windsor ruling: the USSC did affirm same sex marriage and did overturn state marriage bans.

1. Scalia voted against gay marriage being a mandate on the 50 states.

Read Scalia's dissent in Windsor. Keep special attention out for the words 'beyond mistaking' and 'inevitable'.

2. Windsor was a correct ruling in that it said that whatever states say, the fed has to abide by on the question of marriage. Not the other way around dear. In fact if you want quotes to that effect and intent directly from the text of the Windsor Opinion, read here: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Hun, the states don't get to violate constitutional guarantees. The passage from Windsor that I cited to you again and again was the core of the Obergefell ruling. You know, the passage including the phrase 'subject to constitutional guarantees' that you always omitted from your every citation of Windsor?

Scalia knew it was coming, as the logic of the Windsor decision invalidated state same sex marriage laws as well. The Lower courts almost universally recognized this. And the USSC affirmed it in Obergefell.

You said otherwise. As the Obergefell decision so elegantly demonstrated, you didn't know what you were talking about.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The Flag of the Slave Mongers flies in support of Kim Davis...question: why would God's people support Slavery....

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Kim Davis is an idiotic Religionist mental midget ...God laughs at her outlandish claims to know what God's views are...God rejects Dixie flag Right wing slags ...

Brazenly speaking for the Almighty. Judgment day will be truly dreadful for you.

Is that not what "Kimbo" is doing nut boy....speaking for the "Almighty"......... get real...only little children are scared by Judgement day.... I am being stalked [as you are and everyone] by personal death...Judgement day is nothing for me cause I am already facing certain death. I know I am going to die when it comes time for me to die.....grow up and stop the"Judgement day" ninny show....

No that's not what Kim is doing. You going on and on about who God hates makes you exactly like someone holding a "God hates fags" sign. If you can't see the difference between your presumptuous words and Kim simply saying she feels it would be wrong, then you're an idiot.

Someday you are going to stand before a holy God and give an account for your own life. Even the righteous dread the day and humble themselves in the sight of the Lord.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Kim Davis is an idiotic Religionist mental midget ...God laughs at her outlandish claims to know what God's views are...God rejects Dixie flag Right wing slags ...

Brazenly speaking for the Almighty. Judgment day will be truly dreadful for you.

Here is someone who you can relate to....just as ******* bat shit crazy as you!

Kevin Swanson: All 50 Governors Are Going To Hell For Obeying Marriage Equality Ruling Submitted by Isabel on Wednesday, 9/9/2015 11:43 am

On his “Generations Radio” program yesterday, far-right Colorado pastor Kevin Swanson praised anti-gay Kentucky clerk Kim Davis for her “courage” in standing up to “the forces of darkness.” Swanson said he is thankful that Davis is upholding “the laws of God” by refusing to issue marriage licenses in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling on marriage equality. “Anybody that tries to approve of the absolute worst possible abomination on planet Earth and give a marriage license to homosexuals is violating the laws of God,” Swanson said. - See more at: Kevin Swanson: All 50 Governors Are Going To Hell For Obeying Marriage Equality Ruling

Huh. It didn't say what you claim it said. Did you just tell a lie?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Kim Davis is an idiotic Religionist mental midget ...God laughs at her outlandish claims to know what God's views are...God rejects Dixie flag Right wing slags ...

Brazenly speaking for the Almighty. Judgment day will be truly dreadful for you.

Only, it's not your job to be speaking for H-shem. No one is entitled to speak for G-d. G-d has made that ABUNDANTLY clear. To do so is to commit sacriledge. So, enjoy your crispy critters...

You quoted the wrong person, silly. You should be preaching this to Tyrone

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Someday you are going to stand before a holy God and give an account for your own life. Even the righteous dread the day and humble themselves in the sight of the Lord.

I am standing Right now in front of God and the Universe and saying you are a scared rabbit on the run and I am a man... I am not scared or intimidated by promises of a meet up with God....I think you and Kimbo Davis are both full of Holy Excrement and what you want is Bible based Laqws ...it is not gonna happen...not on my watch

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

In case you all forgot...there is video in which "Kimbo" is proclaiming she is acting under God's authority...well in the Government offices its Caesar that rules and Jesus has already made it clear that one renders to Caesar what is his and to God what is God...its not complicated...

 

[Statistikhengst]

Kim Davis is an idiotic Religionist mental midget ...God laughs at her outlandish claims to know what God's views are...God rejects Dixie flag Right wing slags ...

Brazenly speaking for the Almighty. Judgment day will be truly dreadful for you.

Only, it's not your job to be speaking for H-shem. No one is entitled to speak for G-d. G-d has made that ABUNDANTLY clear. To do so is to commit sacriledge. So, enjoy your crispy critters...

You quoted the wrong person, silly. You should be preaching this to Tyrone

Uhm, no. I quoted the right person, in this case.

 

[dcraelin]

saying that the SCOTUS would have done the right thing in slapping down the appeal.........when of course their mind was already made up ...........is kind of a circular argument. ...............

but as your 3rd link shows.............the other courts, when they did mention it......................got it wrong.

You said the lower courts didn't address Baker - I showed they did address Baker.

You said they were bound by Baker - I showed where there were developmental caused Baker not to apply.

You say the lower courts got it wrong - yet the SCOTUS upheld the lower courts and specifically declared Baker overturned.

And they "got it wrong".

Well at that point there is only one thing to say.

...................................

you showed some of them addressed baker.....at least one in opposition to the other courts....

5 of 9 of SC agree with you, hardly a slam dunk.......and 2 of the 5 in majority signaled their impervious-ness to logic and legal precedent when they presided over gay weddings.

The Valentines Day ruling is emblematic of the majority of lower courts

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[Skylar]

saying that the SCOTUS would have done the right thing in slapping down the appeal.........when of course their mind was already made up ...........is kind of a circular argument. ...............

but as your 3rd link shows.............the other courts, when they did mention it......................got it wrong.

You said the lower courts didn't address Baker - I showed they did address Baker.

You said they were bound by Baker - I showed where there were developmental caused Baker not to apply.

You say the lower courts got it wrong - yet the SCOTUS upheld the lower courts and specifically declared Baker overturned.

And they "got it wrong".

Well at that point there is only one thing to say.

...................................

you showed some of them addressed baker.....at least one in opposition to the other courts....

5 of 9 of SC agree with you, hardly a slam dunk.......and 2 of the 5 in majority signaled their impervious-ness to logic and legal precedent when they presided over gay weddings.

Why is officiating a gay marriage 'signalling their impervious-ness to logic and legal precedent?

Remember, these marriages were conducted in Maryland and DC respectively. Both of which had voted in same sex marriage. And as the Windsor decision made ludicrously clear, this something that both states have the authority to do. Making their actions explicitly consistent with legal precedent.

Perhaps you can explain it to us.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Kim Davis is an idiotic Religionist mental midget ...God laughs at her outlandish claims to know what God's views are...God rejects Dixie flag Right wing slags ...

Brazenly speaking for the Almighty. Judgment day will be truly dreadful for you.

Only, it's not your job to be speaking for H-shem. No one is entitled to speak for G-d. G-d has made that ABUNDANTLY clear. To do so is to commit sacriledge. So, enjoy your crispy critters...

You quoted the wrong person, silly. You should be preaching this to Tyrone

Uhm, no. I quoted the right person, in this case.

No you didn't. If you think he wasn't speaking for God then you're an idiot or a liar.

 

[dcraelin]

your link for the 2nd circuit is the same link for the 4th......so one of these links, at least, is a lie..........regardless they did not have the right to avoid that precedent

A mistake in copying a link incorrectly is not a lie. Here is the corrected link -->>
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisio...6-98fa59ffb645/1/doc/12-2335_complete_opn.pdf

They didn't "avoid" the precedent. Avoiding the precedent would have been not mentioning it. But they did mention it.

Precedent's are not inviolate such when the conditions under which the precedent are not the same or when the SCOTUS indicates that the previous conditions no longer apply. Which of course exactly what happened with Roamer v. Evans, Lawrence overturned Bowers and when they issued the Windsor decision, all showing that homosexual have due process and equal protection rights.

If the SCOTUS had thought that Baker was still applicable, then they would have slapped down the first appeal that reached them concerning SSCM. But they didn't. In the end the District and Circuit Court Judges got the correct read from the SCOTUS as they specifically overturned Baker as part of Obergefell.


>>>>

saying that the SCOTUS would have done the right thing in slapping down the appeal.........when of course their mind was already made up ...........is kind of a circular argument. ...............

No, its a clear demonstration that you don't know what you're talking about. You're insisting that the lower courts were bound to Baker, when they weren't.

The lower court rulings overwhelmingly relied on more recent precedent, most relevantly tghe the precedent of Windsor. With its communication of the court's position on same sex marriage so clearly that even Scalia said it was 'beyond mistaking' and that the State same sex marriage bans being overturned using the logic of Windsor was 'inevitable.'

Scalia and the lower courts were right on how to interpret the Windsor ruling: the USSC did affirm same sex marriage and did overturn state marriage bans. The lower courts got it right. With the exception of the 6th which the USSC reviewed and overturned.

Your position that the lower courts should have ignored Windsor, Lawrence and Romer in favor of Baker was wrong. As the USSC demonstrated so elegantly in Obergefell.

I dont believe Windsor itself said it overruled Baker....so why should the lower courts assume it did?
It dealt with a side issue...............who had the power on wedding policy...and really in a way affirmed Baker by saying it was the states.....i.e. want of federal question. I am sure you are misreading Scalia.....

 

[dcraelin]

saying that the SCOTUS would have done the right thing in slapping down the appeal.........when of course their mind was already made up ...........is kind of a circular argument. ...............

but as your 3rd link shows.............the other courts, when they did mention it......................got it wrong.

You said the lower courts didn't address Baker - I showed they did address Baker.

You said they were bound by Baker - I showed where there were developmental caused Baker not to apply.

You say the lower courts got it wrong - yet the SCOTUS upheld the lower courts and specifically declared Baker overturned.

And they "got it wrong".

Well at that point there is only one thing to say.

...................................

you showed some of them addressed baker.....at least one in opposition to the other courts....

5 of 9 of SC agree with you, hardly a slam dunk.......and 2 of the 5 in majority signaled their impervious-ness to logic and legal precedent when they presided over gay weddings.

Why is officiating a gay marriage 'signalling their impervious-ness to logic and legal precedent?

Remember, these marriages were conducted in Maryland and DC respectively. Both of which had voted in same sex marriage. And as the Windsor decision made ludicrously clear, this something that both states have the authority to do. Making their actions explicitly consistent with legal precedent.

Perhaps you can explain it to us.

oh please,......anybody with an ounce of common sense sees what I said to be true...............your law degree has apparently removed the common sense region of your brain.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

saying that the SCOTUS would have done the right thing in slapping down the appeal.........when of course their mind was already made up ...........is kind of a circular argument. ...............

but as your 3rd link shows.............the other courts, when they did mention it......................got it wrong.

You said the lower courts didn't address Baker - I showed they did address Baker.

You said they were bound by Baker - I showed where there were developmental caused Baker not to apply.

You say the lower courts got it wrong - yet the SCOTUS upheld the lower courts and specifically declared Baker overturned.

And they "got it wrong".

Well at that point there is only one thing to say.

...................................

you showed some of them addressed baker.....at least one in opposition to the other courts....

5 of 9 of SC agree with you, hardly a slam dunk.......and 2 of the 5 in majority signaled their impervious-ness to logic and legal precedent when they presided over gay weddings.

The Valentines Day ruling is emblematic of the majority of lower courts

How much longer are you going to beat that dead horse. You're like a 2 year old in a supermarket check out line having a temper tantrum because mom wont buy you a Mars Bar

 

[Asclepias]

Kim Davis is an idiotic Religionist mental midget ...God laughs at her outlandish claims to know what God's views are...God rejects Dixie flag Right wing slags ...

Brazenly speaking for the Almighty. Judgment day will be truly dreadful for you.

Is that not what "Kimbo" is doing nut boy....speaking for the "Almighty"......... get real...only little children are scared by Judgement day.... I am being stalked [as you are and everyone] by personal death...Judgement day is nothing for me cause I am already facing certain death. I know I am going to die when it comes time for me to die.....grow up and stop the"Judgement day" ninny show....

No that's not what Kim is doing. You going on and on about who God hates makes you exactly like someone holding a "God hates fags" sign. If you can't see the difference between your presumptuous words and Kim simply saying she feels it would be wrong, then you're an idiot.

Someday you are going to stand before a holy God and give an account for your own life. Even the righteous dread the day and humble themselves in the sight of the Lord.

Its hard to remember you are a NA. Your brain washer did an amazing job.