Kim Davis is the result of judicial activism

[Carla_Danger]

So if a Quaker works for the government, they can refuse to issue concealed carry permits?

If a Sikh works for the government, they can refuse to license a barber shop?

If a Jew works for the government, they can refuse to license a pig farm?

If a Mormon works for the government, can they refuse to license tobacco sales?

Heck, let's just go with the Christians ...

If a Christian works for the government, they can refuse to allow divorces?

Can a Christian refuse to issue birth certificates for babies born to single mothers?

Can a Christian refuse to license a business that will be open on Sunday?

The point? You're allowing a special religious exemption solely in this case, which shows your whole "I'm for freedom of religion!" claim is a dishonest crock.

Also, Ms. Davis has admitted that her "religious rights" are not the issue.

Ky. clerk's office will issue marriage licenses Friday — without the clerk
---
“And if I left, resigned or chose to retire, I would have no voice for God’s word," calling herself a vessel that the Lord has chosen for this time and place.
---

She's not oppressed. She just wants to preach, and she thinks that the taxpayers should be forced to sponsor her preaching.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You mean you want the constitution to be violated, as long as it's in a way you agree with?

No... I want the Constitution upheld as it was originally intended and not perverted and rewritten by a liberal activist Supreme Court that is out of control and usurping their authority to legislate liberal activism from the bench.

The Constitution is being upheld as originally intended by the Framers, in accordance with the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution, authorizing the Supreme Court to determine what the Constitution means.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

As Justice Kennedy explained in Lawrence;

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

The Framers did not presume to know the “manifold possibilities” of liberty and freedom – a testament to their genius and wisdom, an acknowledgment of their understanding of human fallibility, and an expression of their confidence that the rule of law is the only way by which men can be governed justly.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

I do not approve of foul language used to express one's outrage and passion on the subject but the fact remains that Kim Davis was unjustly accused and put in jail. The Roman Catholic judge who incarcerated her and charged her with contempt of court was clearly wrong. The laws in Kentucky clearly state that marriage is between a man and a woman. She enforced the laws. If the law had been same sex marriage she still would have been within her rights as a Christian to refuse to participate by issuing a license to them.

You are in error!

1. Did Ms. Davis work in the Clerks office when her mother was the Clerk and know the totality of the Clerks obligations and responsibilities? YES!
2. Was Ms. Davis ELECTED to office and thereupon take an OATH to God to faithfully discharge her duties of office & the Constitutions of Kentucky and the United States? YES!
3. Did SCOTUS render a recent decision that same sex marriage was a Constitutional right? YES!
4. Upon receiving that SCOTUS decision, did same sex marriage become a lawfully protected right and the Law of the Land? YES!
5. Does the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution enable Federal law supremacy over conflicting State laws as read in Article VI, Clause 2? YES!
6. Did Ms. Davis abide by her OATH of office before God to faithfully execute her responsibilities then refuse to follow new law established through judicial review? YES!
7. Did Ms. Davis enforce the law of the land according the to her OATH of office? NO!
8. Does the religion of the Federal Judge before whom Ms. Davis appeared have anything to do with any of the germane facts in the case? NO!
9. When ordered by the Judge to obey the Law of the Land did she comply? NO!
10. When a Christian take a solemn OATH to God to execute her job according to the law, is she then allowed to break that OATH? NO!!!!

She could have done her job or resigned. There would have been no broken OATH or no charge of contempt. She was wrong and so are you!

No, I'm not. Kentucky law says that marriage is between a man and a woman. Mrs. Davis is a Christian and has the right to not be forced to go against her own Christian faith. She did enforce the laws on the books in Kentucky and that is where it happened. Correct? That settles the matter.

Note to you - You can start any thread you wish to start tomorrow (as you say) but it is no guarantee I'll read it. As for you? If you were a Christian you would say God willing I will do this or do that tomorrow - you would not presume anything. It is arrogance to presume upon the grace of God. We are given today. That's it. Are you saved? If you died tonight would you go to heaven or hell? If you do not know the answer to that question you need to get that matter settled. Read Romans 10:9,10 today. Today is the day of Salvation. TODAY.

Since I had a great workout this AM at the Gym, with all the extra energy I'm going to take the time to quote what you posted then in colored font reply to each point...Kaaaay?

"No, I'm not. [Yes you are, neener, neener!] Kentucky law says that marriage is between a man and a woman. [The Ky law was made moot with the SCOTUS deceison in Obergefell v. Hodges because of the Supremacy Clause at Article VI, Cls.2 of the US Constitution] Mrs. Davis is a Christian and has the right to not be forced to go against her own Christian faith. [That is true as a citizen BUT not as an elected government official with an OATH to God to perform her responsibilities. Her fault as a "Christian" was in not heeding Christ's admonition in Mark 12:17 and not observing her OATH!] She did enforce the laws on the books in Kentucky and that is where it happened. Correct? That settles the matter. [Balderdash and poppycock! The KY law was made moot by Obergefell v. Hodges as explained at least twice before this point. She enforced an outdated, illegal law which had been swept aside through Constitutional actions and powers. You are incorrect, in error and wrong! Her options were to either FOLLOW THE LAW or RESIGN. She was wrong as you are. The matter may be settled in your unyielding, contrary and biased mind, but truth it is not!]

Note to you - You can start any thread you wish to start tomorrow (as you say) but it is no guarantee I'll read it. As for you? If you were a Christian you would say God willing I will do this or do that tomorrow - you would not presume anything. It is arrogance to presume upon the grace of God. We are given today. That's it. Are you saved? If you died tonight would you go to heaven or hell? If you do not know the answer to that question you need to get that matter settled. Read Romans 10:9,10 today. Today is the day of Salvation. TODAY. [I do not have to pronounce my faith to the world; He knows my heart. I do not make displays of my works for others to marvel; He knows my works. I do not have to I do not have to worry about my salvation. I know.]

Have a nice day!

 

[Boss]

She went to jail of her own free will, she could be home by next week if she so desires.

No one is forcing her to sign her name. One of her clerks can do it. No, wait. Her clerks told the judge that she wouldn't let them under pain of losing their jobs.

Authorizing someone else to do it is no different than doing it yourself. She doesn't believe it is right because of her religion. It's no more "right" to authorize someone else to act in your place.

And yes... she COULD have done something in conflict with her religious beliefs and there would have been no problem and she wouldn't have been arrested. MLK could have stayed home and never been arrested... Rosa Parks could have sat at the back of the bus and never been arrested. Abe Lincoln could have gone along with SCOTUS rulings and never sparked a Civil War.

This is an act of civil disobedience. She doesn't believe she should be forced to do something in conflict with her religious beliefs or that you have the authority to make her do that. Our religious freedom is not endowed by men on a court.

 

[Boss]

The Constitution is being upheld as originally intended by the Framers..

Well, no it's not... There is nothing in the Constitution about Gay Marriage. Just not there! And frankly, nothing in the 'original intent' gives the federal government ANY power over this issue. NONE!

This is a completely lawless act by SCOTUS. A clear overreach of their power under the Constitution. No different than their rulings in Plessy, Dred Scott or Korematsu, which is why I linked them in the OP.

THEY have created this Constitutional conflict! --Not Kim Davis!

 

[foggedinn]

This is a problem created by only considering former prosecutors and appellate judges as nominees for scotus. G. H. W. Bush and W. J. Clinton should both be sitting justices. Legalists create more problems than they solve.

 

[Boss]

This is a problem created by only considering former prosecutors and appellate judges as nominees for scotus. G. H. W. Bush and W. J. Clinton should both be sitting justices. Legalists create more problems than they solve.

Well.. if you would like to replace Sotomayor, Kegan or Ginsberg with Clinton and Bush, that would be an improvement. However, I don't think justices should serve for life. I think they should have a maximum 12 year term. I also think there should be a mechanism by which the people and states can overrule a SCOTUS decision without an Amendment to the Constitution. The criteria should be set high, like maybe 3/4 of the states, but they should have a way to counter wrongful SCOTUS rulings quickly and efficiently. That in itself will require a Constitutional amendment but it can be done.

Liberals don't seem to understand, LOTS of things can be done in response to an out-of-control and lawless SCOTUS. Congress retains the power in conjunction with the president, to intervene on overreach of power by the judiciary branch. This has happened before... FDR added justices to the court with help from his Congress. We have three co-equal branches for a reason.

 

[foggedinn]

FOR tried and failed to add justices to SCOTUS.

 

[Boss]

FOR tried and failed to add justices to SCOTUS.

Yes he tried and failed on SCOTUS but added many justices at district level. There have been several times when Congress has changed the number of justices on SCOTUS, it has not always been nine. Granted, you have to go back to the 19th century to find examples but my point is, Congress retains power over the structure of SCOTUS and all federal court parameters.