Kim Davis needs to go to jail

[Seawytch]

Easy65 is leaving out something very important. Kim Davis went through a long series of appeals and hearings. While doing so she was allowed to refuse issuing marriage licences. The case was bounced upwards through the system until finally the Supreme Court of The United States sent it back to the original federal court in a show of support for the original court. It was then and only then that the court made the contempt order when Davis refused to follow the order of the court.
In the cases Easy65 has tried to make against Obama and his administration, the cases were resolved before it came to the point of the court making a final decision at the SCOTUS level. No actions were taken against Davis until her case was rejected by SCOTUS and returned to the original Federal Court.

Actually this not true as the Obama administration is still in defiance of a court order demanding his e-mails - all of them - regarding F&F be turned over. Obama continues to drag this scandal - which began his 1st year in office - out

And, like Davis he can be taken to court. Why hasn't he?

 

[bodecea]

Ok now get a court order saying Obama has refused to uphold DOMA etc and you are in business...

So....you can't be bothered?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Until the law stays as it is and no one changes it. The SCOTUS interpreted the law as they saw it.

The SCOTUS abused its authority and in so doing forfeited its position within the constitutional construct upon which the individual American consents to be governed.

As a result the SCOTUS and the US Government it represents, is no longer relevant. And as time passes, it will become less and less relevant, as the consequences of its Relativist nature, leave it less capable of governing.

 

[bodecea]

Davis is not an Attorney General or Prosecutor with the Constitutional authority of Prosecutorial Discretion. The fact is the President through his Attorney General does have the right to pick and choose. If congress determines he is violating his oath to uphold the constitution and overstepping the right to Prosecutorial Discretion they have the option of impeachment.

Obama swore an oath to defend and up-hold the Constitution in our laws. So you are saying Obama and the DOJ DID - as I said - choose what laws to enforce and what laws not to enforce based on the fact that they did not agree with the law!

THANK YOU for finally admitting it!

You guys suck at analogies. First off, if the President violated the law, was sued, lost, appealed, lost again and then STILL continued to break the law, your analogy would be valid.

Secondly:

Precedent for Presidential Refusal to Defend Statutes the Administration Believes to be Unconstitutional - The Volokh Conspiracy

The Administration; which is to say the obama Cult, decided not to defend DOMA, because the obama Cult is a subversion insurgency, intent upon destroying the US Culture and in so doing to separate the Citizenry of the United States from the Principles that define and sustain America. It is comprised of seditionists, and traitors; which is to say those who are US Citizens, but who have been trained to reject American Principle in favor of Foreign Ideas Hostile to those principles, OKA: EVIL.

And that is truly all there is to this... and all anyone needs to know, to know what they should do in terms of cooperating with obama and it's government.

Nominated for the most drug-fueled conspiracy post today.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Easy65 is leaving out something very important. Kim Davis went through a long series of appeals and hearings. While doing so she was allowed to refuse issuing marriage licences. The case was bounced upwards through the system until finally the Supreme Court of The United States sent it back to the original federal court in a show of support for the original court. It was then and only then that the court made the contempt order when Davis refused to follow the order of the court.
In the cases Easy65 has tried to make against Obama and his administration, the cases were resolved before it came to the point of the court making a final decision at the SCOTUS level. No actions were taken against Davis until her case was rejected by SCOTUS and returned to the original Federal Court.

Actually this not true as the Obama administration is still in defiance of a court order demanding his e-mails - all of them - regarding F&F be turned over. Obama continues to drag this scandal - which began his 1st year in office - out

And, like Davis he can be taken to court. Why hasn't he?

He hasn't been 'taken to court' because he has politicized the judicial process.

Again, obama is a Relativist.

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context and, as such, can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.

It is through this perversion of reason; wherein relativism axiomatically rejects the very existence of objectivity; which is essential to truth, that we find that such precludes the means for Left-think to serve justice.

With truth being essential to trust and, both: truth and trust being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality and, because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

And what you're seeing in the failure of the Justice System to shut down the criminal endeavors, is a demonstration of WHY Left-think and the lowly adherents to such, can NEVER serve justice and why the next natural event which comes as a consequence of such, is open and bloody civil war. The very beginnings of which are being played out with the "BLACK LIVES MATTERS RUSE"... which is attacking the very fabric of society... in the specific attempt to ignite that war.

 

[Camp]

Easy65 is leaving out something very important. Kim Davis went through a long series of appeals and hearings. While doing so she was allowed to refuse issuing marriage licences. The case was bounced upwards through the system until finally the Supreme Court of The United States sent it back to the original federal court in a show of support for the original court. It was then and only then that the court made the contempt order when Davis refused to follow the order of the court.
In the cases Easy65 has tried to make against Obama and his administration, the cases were resolved before it came to the point of the court making a final decision at the SCOTUS level. No actions were taken against Davis until her case was rejected by SCOTUS and returned to the original Federal Court.

Actually this not true as the Obama administration is still in defiance of a court order demanding his e-mails - all of them - regarding F&F be turned over. Obama continues to drag this scandal - which began his 1st year in office - out

And, like Davis he can be taken to court. Why hasn't he?

Because the actions were taken against Eric Holder and Holder is no longer in a position to fulfill the court request. In addition, the question of executive privilege is still being determined in a federal court. The last hearing was in July. In other words, the case is still being argued in the courts.
So, it is a case of the Fed's not wanting to give up law enforcement secrets or a big conspiracy theory to start a racial civil war. Take your pick.

 

[Skylar]

Hey, Easy.......show me Obama's name on any contempt order. Its that simple.

Hey Skyler, explain to me again how Obama personally refusing to up-hold / enforce the existing DOMA Law and ordering his employees (the DOJ) not to do so is any way different than Davis personally refusing to up-hold / enforce the existing law regarding marriage and ordering her employees not to do so ....

Like I said, you're a 'special kind of stupid'...

Still can't find a single contempt order with Obama's name on it, can you? Which is exactly my point. You may not be able to comprehend the difference between a contempt order against an organization and one against an individual.

But the courts can.

See how that works?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Easy65 is leaving out something very important. Kim Davis went through a long series of appeals and hearings. While doing so she was allowed to refuse issuing marriage licences. The case was bounced upwards through the system until finally the Supreme Court of The United States sent it back to the original federal court in a show of support for the original court. It was then and only then that the court made the contempt order when Davis refused to follow the order of the court.
In the cases Easy65 has tried to make against Obama and his administration, the cases were resolved before it came to the point of the court making a final decision at the SCOTUS level. No actions were taken against Davis until her case was rejected by SCOTUS and returned to the original Federal Court.

Actually this not true as the Obama administration is still in defiance of a court order demanding his e-mails - all of them - regarding F&F be turned over. Obama continues to drag this scandal - which began his 1st year in office - out

And, like Davis he can be taken to court. Why hasn't he?

Because the actions were taken against Eric Holder and Holder is no longer in a position to fulfill the court request. In addition, the question of executive privilege is still being determined in a federal court. The last hearing was in July. In other words, the case is still being argued in the courts.
So, it is a case of the Fed's not wanting to give up law enforcement secrets or a big conspiracy theory to start a racial civil war. Take your pick.

ROFLMNAO!

Law Enforcement Secrets?

LOL!

That secret is that "Law Enforcement" as constituted by the Ideological Left... is a criminal syndicate. Thus precluding the means for "The People of the United States" to find justice. Which is a position which throughout human history... is the last step before Civil War.

That such is the consequence of a Relativist Conspiracy... is only the natural logical consequence of allowing Leftist to participate in one's culture. There's no other way it could have turned out.

The fact is: Relativism KILLS!

Such is simply the nature of Evil.

 

[NoNukes]

Yeah... She's a Christian, therefore not a Leftist. My guess is that she votes for Americans and likely maintains party affiliation with the Democrat Party out of family heritage. At one time in U.S. History Democrats were affiliated with American Principle.

That's what I've saying for years.
These backwards hicks vote Democrat no matter what....but Obama is giving them too many reasons to break with tradition.

more lunacy from muddy.

the "hicks" dear are the rightwingnut bigoted trash.

want to try again?

Don't need to, because the facts are on my side, once again.

You on the left live in an imaginary world. The real world keeps rearing it's ugly head....and that causes you distress.

Many of these inbred mouth breathers are Democrats, purhaps most of them. They go to work every day, chew tobacco, drive their trucks, go hunting and fishing, get drunk Friday night, suffer thru a hangover on Saturday, attend church on Sunday, and vote Democrat every 4 years.....sometimes 2 years. You on the left alienate them 24/7 and then trash conservatives day and night in hopes they'll either continue to vote Democrat, or stay home. Why do you think every Democrat claims to be Catholic, Mormon, or Christian during election cycles?

Harry Reid - Mormon
Nancy Pelosi - Catholic
Joe Biden - Catholic
Barrack Obama - Christian

Once they feel fooling these imbeciles that live in trailers is impossible, they'll probably drop the facade. Maybe bringing in in millions of refugees will change all of that. At the DNC they voted to remove God. Leadership knew this was political suicide, so they were overruled.

You were certainly describing Republicans. Get back on your meds.

No....it's a false sterotype.

Your party specializes in them.

People who vote Democrat often vote out of habit....or misinformation. They're often illiterate or extremely prejudice. They vote based on emotion rather than rational thought. They are low-information voters that go with what's trendy or cool instead of their clear-cut values system or their morals. That is why it is so rare for a Democrat to take a stand on principle because they rarely have any. Their leaders sure as shit don't. As a matter of fact, they are discouraged to have any.

Like I said, you should get back on your meds the hallucinations might stop.

 

[Skylar]

Easy65 is leaving out something very important. Kim Davis went through a long series of appeals and hearings. While doing so she was allowed to refuse issuing marriage licences. The case was bounced upwards through the system until finally the Supreme Court of The United States sent it back to the original federal court in a show of support for the original court. It was then and only then that the court made the contempt order when Davis refused to follow the order of the court.
In the cases Easy65 has tried to make against Obama and his administration, the cases were resolved before it came to the point of the court making a final decision at the SCOTUS level. No actions were taken against Davis until her case was rejected by SCOTUS and returned to the original Federal Court.

Actually this not true as the Obama administration is still in defiance of a court order demanding his e-mails - all of them - regarding F&F be turned over. Obama continues to drag this scandal - which began his 1st year in office - out

And, like Davis he can be taken to court. Why hasn't he?

He hasn't been 'taken to court' because he has politicized the judicial process.

Again, obama is a Relativist.

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context and, as such, can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes

You're a relativist. As you use your personal opinion to define all the same things. The only difference is that you pretend that your subjective opinion is objective truth.

It isn't.

With truth being essential to trust and, both: truth and trust being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality and, because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

And by 'soundly reasoned', you mean whatever hapless bullish you make up? Remember, your concept of 'objectivity' is anything you believe. But your subjective beliefs don't define objective anything.

Subjective is not objective. And your entire argument is dependent on us accepting your subjective opinion as objective truth. Which is why you keep failing.....as it isn't.

 

[Skylar]

Easy65 is leaving out something very important. Kim Davis went through a long series of appeals and hearings. While doing so she was allowed to refuse issuing marriage licences. The case was bounced upwards through the system until finally the Supreme Court of The United States sent it back to the original federal court in a show of support for the original court. It was then and only then that the court made the contempt order when Davis refused to follow the order of the court.
In the cases Easy65 has tried to make against Obama and his administration, the cases were resolved before it came to the point of the court making a final decision at the SCOTUS level. No actions were taken against Davis until her case was rejected by SCOTUS and returned to the original Federal Court.

Actually this not true as the Obama administration is still in defiance of a court order demanding his e-mails - all of them - regarding F&F be turned over. Obama continues to drag this scandal - which began his 1st year in office - out

And, like Davis he can be taken to court. Why hasn't he?

Because the actions were taken against Eric Holder and Holder is no longer in a position to fulfill the court request. In addition, the question of executive privilege is still being determined in a federal court. The last hearing was in July. In other words, the case is still being argued in the courts.
So, it is a case of the Fed's not wanting to give up law enforcement secrets or a big conspiracy theory to start a racial civil war. Take your pick.

ROFLMNAO!

Law Enforcement Secrets?

LOL!

That secret is that "Law Enforcement" as constituted by the Ideological Left... is a criminal syndicate. Thus precluding the means for "The People of the United States" to find justice. Which is a position which throughout human history... is the last step before Civil War.

That such is the consequence of a Relativist Conspiracy... is only the natural logical consequence of allowing Leftist to participate in one's culture. There's no other way it could have turned out.

The fact is: Relativism KILLS!

Such is simply the nature of Evil.

Calling your personal opinion 'objective truth' doesn't actually change the fact that its still your subjective opinion. This is why your arguments are so consistently worthless: they are all just you insisting that anything you imagine must be objective truth.

And no one gives a shit what you imagine. As it defines nothing objectively.

Take your conception of 'god' which you claim to speak for. You can't actually factually establish any of its attributes. Even by your own standards, the only attribute that is affirmed is that it moved first. Which doesn't require of the 'additions' that you imagine. A first mover need not be sentient, intelligent, self aware, good, have any awareness at all, be aware we exist or care if it did. A first mover doesn't even need to exist after moving first.

You imagine all of it. And then laughably insist that your imagination makes it objective reality.

Nope. Its just you.....citing you. And you can't logically, rationally, or by the weight of evidence carry your argument.

 

[Skylar]

Davis is not an Attorney General or Prosecutor with the Constitutional authority of Prosecutorial Discretion. The fact is the President through his Attorney General does have the right to pick and choose. If congress determines he is violating his oath to uphold the constitution and overstepping the right to Prosecutorial Discretion they have the option of impeachment.

Obama swore an oath to defend and up-hold the Constitution in our laws. So you are saying Obama and the DOJ DID - as I said - choose what laws to enforce and what laws not to enforce based on the fact that they did not agree with the law!

THANK YOU for finally admitting it!

You guys suck at analogies. First off, if the President violated the law, was sued, lost, appealed, lost again and then STILL continued to break the law, your analogy would be valid.

Secondly:

Precedent for Presidential Refusal to Defend Statutes the Administration Believes to be Unconstitutional - The Volokh Conspiracy

The Administration; which is to say the obama Cult, decided not to defend DOMA, because the obama Cult is a subversion insurgency, intent upon destroying the US Culture and in so doing to separate the Citizenry of the United States from the Principles that define and sustain America. It is comprised of seditionists, and traitors; which is to say those who are US Citizens, but who have been trained to reject American Principle in favor of Foreign Ideas Hostile to those principles, OKA: EVIL.

And that is truly all there is to this... and all anyone needs to know, to know what they should do in terms of cooperating with obama and it's government.

Nominated for the most drug-fueled conspiracy post today.

Oh, Keyes is batshit crazy. And not in a pejorative sort of way. Genuinely insane.

 

[boilermaker55]

Once again, that is your opinion. You are entitled to it but the fact is SCOTUS interpreted the law.

Until the law stays as it is and no one changes it. The SCOTUS interpreted the law as they saw it.

The SCOTUS abused its authority and in so doing forfeited its position within the constitutional construct upon which the individual American consents to be governed.

As a result the SCOTUS and the US Government it represents, is no longer relevant. And as time passes, it will become less and less relevant, as the consequences of its Relativist nature, leave it less capable of governing.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Frank, Are you really that obtuse?

Let me try to dumb it down for you. If I knowingly hide an illegal alien in my tool shed, I am "harboring". If I ask someone who looks like a Latino for his papers, I am "Profiling". Unless the city has probable cause to think that someone has committed a crime, they can not ask him to prove he is a citizen,

So, what you're saying is that while it is Illegal to harbor an Illegal, you're completely fucked and have to fling pooh against the walls to distract us

Not at all, Frank. You can be distracted by someone asking you what time it is. After that, your train of thought has left the station with your baggage.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, Are you really that obtuse?

Let me try to dumb it down for you. If I knowingly hide an illegal alien in my tool shed, I am "harboring". If I ask someone who looks like a Latino for his papers, I am "Profiling". Unless the city has probable cause to think that someone has committed a crime, they can not ask him to prove he is a citizen,

So, what you're saying is that while it is Illegal to harbor an Illegal, you're completely fucked and have to fling pooh against the walls to distract us

Not at all, Frank. You can be distracted by someone asking you what time it is. After that, your train of thought has left the station with your baggage.

That was soooooo original.

I'll only match wits with you if you sign a waiver

 

[Vandalshandle]

Frank, Are you really that obtuse?

Let me try to dumb it down for you. If I knowingly hide an illegal alien in my tool shed, I am "harboring". If I ask someone who looks like a Latino for his papers, I am "Profiling". Unless the city has probable cause to think that someone has committed a crime, they can not ask him to prove he is a citizen,

So, what you're saying is that while it is Illegal to harbor an Illegal, you're completely fucked and have to fling pooh against the walls to distract us

Not at all, Frank. You can be distracted by someone asking you what time it is. After that, your train of thought has left the station with your baggage.

That was soooooo original.

I'll only match wits with you if you sign a waiver

Have you got the time, Frank?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Once again, that is your opinion. You are entitled to it but the fact is SCOTUS interpreted the law.

The SCOTUS abused its authority and in so doing forfeited its position within the constitutional construct upon which the individual American consents to be governed.

As a result the SCOTUS and the US Government it represents, are no longer relevant to American governance.

And as time passes, it will become less and less relevant, as the consequences of its Relativist nature, leave it less capable of governing.

 

[boilermaker55]

Your argument will be less and less relevant. They interpreted the law and they voted. It stands. The system worked exactly as it is suppose too.
You feel it didn't . To bad.

Once again, that is your opinion. You are entitled to it but the fact is SCOTUS interpreted the law.

The SCOTUS abused its authority and in so doing forfeited its position within the constitutional construct upon which the individual American consents to be governed.

As a result the SCOTUS and the US Government it represents, are no longer relevant to American governance.

And as time passes, it will become less and less relevant, as the consequences of its Relativist nature, leave it less capable of governing.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Your argument ...

Your Concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Calling your personal ...

Your Concession is Duly Noted and Summarily Accepted.