Kim Davis should sue Justices Sotomayor and Kagan under the Seventh Amendment

[johnwk]

Kim Davis should sue Justices Sotomayor and Kagan under the Seventh Amendment for the misfeasance and nonfeasance exhibited in the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges which has led to a $100,000 damages verdict against her, plus $260,000 for attorney’s fees, for allegedly violating the law in 2015 by refusing to issue a marriage license to a Kentucky same-sex couple, when Kentucky’s constitution would be violated by issuing such a license.

Kentucky’s Constitutional Amendment states:

“Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”


Our U.S. Supreme Court has never taken up and reversed the decision in Bradwell v. The State, 83 U.S. 130 (1872) in which the State of Illinois refused to grant a license to a woman to practice law in Illinois, on the ground that females were not eligible under the laws of that state. The USSC upheld the law as not violating the Fourteenth Amendment!

Kim Davis should sue Justices Sotomayor and Kagan under the Seventh Amendment for Sotomayor and Kagan’s misfeasance and nonfeasance in Obergefell v. Hodges which has led to a $100,000 damages verdict against her, plus $260,000 for attorney’s fees, for allegedly violating the law in 2015 by refusing to issue a marriage license to a Kentucky same-sex couple, when Kentucky’s constitution would be violated by issuing such a license.

The Seventh Amendment states:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Keep in mind Sotomayor and Kagan took an oath to support and defend our written Constitution which does not allow them to substitute their personal feelings and predilections as the rule of law, which is what they did in Obergefell v. Hodges . . . they ignored fundamental rules of constitutional construction.


“In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it…A construction which would give the phrase…a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution.” Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Additionally, our very own Supreme Court Sotomayor and Kagan’s fundamental duty:

"The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it."_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

Let a jury decide whether or not Sotomayor and Kagan engaged in misfeasance and nonfeasance.

 

[konradv]

Kim Davis should sue Justices Sotomayor and Kagan under the Seventh Amendment for the misfeasance and nonfeasance exhibited in the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges which has led to a $100,000 damages verdict against her, plus $260,000 for attorney’s fees, for allegedly violating the law in 2015 by refusing to issue a marriage license to a Kentucky same-sex couple, when Kentucky’s constitution would be violated by issuing such a license.

Kentucky’s Constitutional Amendment states:

“Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”


Our U.S. Supreme Court has never taken up and reversed the decision in Bradwell v. The State, 83 U.S. 130 (1872) in which the State of Illinois refused to grant a license to a woman to practice law in Illinois, on the ground that females were not eligible under the laws of that state. The USSC upheld the law as not violating the Fourteenth Amendment!

Kim Davis should sue Justices Sotomayor and Kagan under the Seventh Amendment for Sotomayor and Kagan’s misfeasance and nonfeasance in Obergefell v. Hodges which has led to a $100,000 damages verdict against her, plus $260,000 for attorney’s fees, for allegedly violating the law in 2015 by refusing to issue a marriage license to a Kentucky same-sex couple, when Kentucky’s constitution would be violated by issuing such a license.

The Seventh Amendment states:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Keep in mind Sotomayor and Kagan took an oath to support and defend our written Constitution which does not allow them to substitute their personal feelings and predilections as the rule of law, which is what they did in Obergefell v. Hodges . . . they ignored fundamental rules of constitutional construction.


“In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it…A construction which would give the phrase…a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution.” Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Additionally, our very own Supreme Court Sotomayor and Kagan’s fundamental duty:

"The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it."_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

Let a jury decide whether or not Sotomayor and Kagan engaged in misfeasance and nonfeasance.

Kim Davis is a busybody, as bad as any wokester. No sympathy.

 

[johnwk]

Kim Davis is a busybody, as bad as any wokester. No sympathy.

Totally irrelevant to the Sotomayor and Kagan’s misfeasance and nonfeasance in Obergefell v. Hodges which has led to a $100,000 damages verdict against Davis, plus $260,000 for attorney’s fees, for allegedly violating the law in 2015 by refusing to issue a marriage license to a Kentucky same-sex couple, when Kentucky’s constitution would be violated by issuing such a license.

Kentucky’s Constitutional Amendment states:

“Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

 

[0311]

Kim Davis should sue Justices Sotomayor and Kagan under the Seventh Amendment for the misfeasance and nonfeasance exhibited in the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges which has led to a $100,000 damages verdict against her, plus $260,000 for attorney’s fees, for allegedly violating the law in 2015 by refusing to issue a marriage license to a Kentucky same-sex couple, when Kentucky’s constitution would be violated by issuing such a license.

Kentucky’s Constitutional Amendment states:

“Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”


Our U.S. Supreme Court has never taken up and reversed the decision in Bradwell v. The State, 83 U.S. 130 (1872) in which the State of Illinois refused to grant a license to a woman to practice law in Illinois, on the ground that females were not eligible under the laws of that state. The USSC upheld the law as not violating the Fourteenth Amendment!

Kim Davis should sue Justices Sotomayor and Kagan under the Seventh Amendment for Sotomayor and Kagan’s misfeasance and nonfeasance in Obergefell v. Hodges which has led to a $100,000 damages verdict against her, plus $260,000 for attorney’s fees, for allegedly violating the law in 2015 by refusing to issue a marriage license to a Kentucky same-sex couple, when Kentucky’s constitution would be violated by issuing such a license.

The Seventh Amendment states:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Keep in mind Sotomayor and Kagan took an oath to support and defend our written Constitution which does not allow them to substitute their personal feelings and predilections as the rule of law, which is what they did in Obergefell v. Hodges . . . they ignored fundamental rules of constitutional construction.


“In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it…A construction which would give the phrase…a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution.” Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Additionally, our very own Supreme Court Sotomayor and Kagan’s fundamental du

"The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it."_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

Let a jury decide whether or not Sotomayor and Kagan engaged in misfeasance and nonfeasance.

SCOTUS has ruled Sam Sex Marriage is Constitution under the Equal Protection Clause. Kimmy Dub-Dumb also violated the Separation of Church and State under First Amendment. she had no to inject her religious beliefs into job. **** her, well each of her FOUR husbands at least.

 

[konradv]

Totally irrelevant to the Sotomayor and Kagan’s misfeasance and nonfeasance in Obergefell v. Hodges which has led to a $100,000 damages verdict against Davis, plus $260,000 for attorney’s fees, for allegedly violating the law in 2015 by refusing to issue a marriage license to a Kentucky same-sex couple, when Kentucky’s constitution would be violated by issuing such a license.

Kentucky’s Constitutional Amendment states:

“Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

Still no sympathy. She brought on herself.

 

[IM2]

No, she should not sue.

 

[1srelluc]

Kim Davis is most defiantly not a hill I'd choose to die on.

She could have simply resigned in protest rather than issue the license but she chose to be a Karen and try to keep her job instead.....The law was clear.....WTF did she think would happen?

 

[0311]

Kimmy dumb-Dumb violated two clauses of the United Constitution. The Separation Clause (First Amendment) and the Equal Protection Clause (14th. Amendment). Dumb-Dumb has lost twice at SCOTUS. Her religious belief should never have used at all. Husbands is she on now?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Kim Davis should sue Justices Sotomayor and Kagan under the Seventh Amendment for the misfeasance and nonfeasance exhibited in the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges which has led to a $100,000 damages verdict against her, plus $260,000 for attorney’s fees, for allegedly violating the law in 2015 by refusing to issue a marriage license to a Kentucky same-sex couple, when Kentucky’s constitution would be violated by issuing such a license.

Kentucky’s Constitutional Amendment states:

“Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”


Our U.S. Supreme Court has never taken up and reversed the decision in Bradwell v. The State, 83 U.S. 130 (1872) in which the State of Illinois refused to grant a license to a woman to practice law in Illinois, on the ground that females were not eligible under the laws of that state. The USSC upheld the law as not violating the Fourteenth Amendment!

Kim Davis should sue Justices Sotomayor and Kagan under the Seventh Amendment for Sotomayor and Kagan’s misfeasance and nonfeasance in Obergefell v. Hodges which has led to a $100,000 damages verdict against her, plus $260,000 for attorney’s fees, for allegedly violating the law in 2015 by refusing to issue a marriage license to a Kentucky same-sex couple, when Kentucky’s constitution would be violated by issuing such a license.

The Seventh Amendment states:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Keep in mind Sotomayor and Kagan took an oath to support and defend our written Constitution which does not allow them to substitute their personal feelings and predilections as the rule of law, which is what they did in Obergefell v. Hodges . . . they ignored fundamental rules of constitutional construction.


“In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it…A construction which would give the phrase…a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution.” Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Additionally, our very own Supreme Court Sotomayor and Kagan’s fundamental duty:

"The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it."_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

Let a jury decide whether or not Sotomayor and Kagan engaged in misfeasance and nonfeasance.

Give it a ******* rest, Same sex marriage is here to stay . The SCOTUS made that clear by rejecting Lolita Davis' most recent attempt to have the case revisited. She was in contempt of court and paid the price. Yes it is that simple.

Furthermore, you generally cannot sue Supreme Court justices for their official judicial decisions due to judicial immunity, which shields them from civil lawsuits for actions taken in their official capacity, even if those actions are malicious or erroneous

There is something sick about people who keep obsessing over gay marriage,. It has been with us for quite some time now- in some states much longer that the time since the 2015 Oberegfell decision. What the **** is the problem? Married gay couple have just blended in, they are part of the fabrick of society. Most people don't care or don't even notice them . It is only an issue among a few bigoted knuckle dragers who probably have latent issues with your own sexuality . Get the **** over it.

 

[martybegan]

SCOTUS has ruled Sam Sex Marriage is Constitution under the Equal Protection Clause. Kimmy Dub-Dumb also violated the Separation of Church and State under First Amendment. she had no to inject her religious beliefs into job. **** her, well each of her FOUR husbands at least.

The SC once ruled separate but equal was acceptable, so your appeal to authority is without merit.

 

[martybegan]

Give it a ******* rest, Same sex marriage is here to stay . The SCOTUS made that clear by rejecting Lolita Davis' most recent attempt to have the case revisited. She was in contempt of court and paid the price. Yes it is that simple.

Furthermore, you generally cannot sue Supreme Court justices for their official judicial decisions due to judicial immunity, which shields them from civil lawsuits for actions taken in their official capacity, even if those actions are malicious or erroneous

There is something sick about people who keep obsessing over gay marriage,. It has been with us for quite some time now- in some states much longer that the time since the 2015 Oberegfell decision. What the **** is the problem? Married gay couple have just blended in, they are part of the fabrick of society. Most people don't care or don't even notice them . It is only an issue among a few bigoted knuckle dragers who probably have latent issues with your own sexuality . Get the **** over it.

You sound like the people who supported Plessey.

 

[johnwk]

SCOTUS has ruled Sam Sex Marriage is Constitution under the Equal Protection Clause.

Which is without foundation.

”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person [singular] within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal application of those specific laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State with regard to sex or age, the State may not deny to any person, blacks and whites alike, within its jurisdiction the equal application of those specific laws.

Additionally, the Fourteenth Amendment’s objectives were eloquently summarized during the 39th Congressional debates which authored the amendment by one of its supporters as follows:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” _ SEE: Representative Shallabarger, a supporter of the amendment, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

The bottom line is, the majority’s WRITTEN OPINION in Obergefell v. Hodges, authored by Justice Kennedy and joined in by Justices Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, adopts the Humpty Dumpty theory of language and imposes its personal feelings and predilections as the rule of law.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone,

“it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that’s all.”

JWK

“The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.” – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968


.

 

[1srelluc]

Give it a ******* rest, Same sex marriage is here to stay . The SCOTUS made that clear by rejecting Lolita Davis' most recent attempt to have the case revisited. She was in contempt of court and paid the price. Yes it is that simple.

Furthermore, you generally cannot sue Supreme Court justices for their official judicial decisions due to judicial immunity, which shields them from civil lawsuits for actions taken in their official capacity, even if those actions are malicious or erroneous

There is something sick about people who keep obsessing over gay marriage,. It has been with us for quite some time now- in some states much longer that the time since the 2015 Oberegfell decision. What the **** is the problem? Married gay couple have just blended in, they are part of the fabrick of society. Most people don't care or don't even notice them . It is only an issue among a few bigoted knuckle dragers who probably have latent issues with your own sexuality . Get the **** over it.

It sure does get you freaks riled up for people that "don't care".

I don't approve of the practice but it's the law, her duty was to follow the law or resign.

LOL....Her "religious convictions" sure don't extend to the sanctity of marriage so it makes her motives suspect.

 

[johnwk]

It sure does get you freaks riled up for people that "don't care".

I don't approve of the practice but it's the law, her duty was to follow the law or resign.

And just what is Kentucky's "law"?

Kentucky’s Constitutional Amendment states:

“Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

Now, keep in mind Our U.S. Supreme Court has never taken up and reversed the decision in Bradwell v. The State, 83 U.S. 130 (1872) in which the State of Illinois refused to grant a license to a woman to practice law in Illinois, on the ground that females were not eligible under the laws of that state. The USSC upheld the law as not violating the Fourteenth Amendment!

Aside from that let us take a look at the complete historical time-line, starting with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.

On July 9th, 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment is adopted, the first Section reading as follows:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Note that there is no mention in the Fourteenth Amendment concerning “sex”.

In 1870, two years later, the Fifteenth Amendment is passed prohibiting the right to vote to be denied based upon “race, color or previous condition of servitude”.

Note, there is no mention in the Fifteenth Amendment concerning “sex”

Fifty years later, on August 18th, 1920, the American People decide to provide restrictive language into our Constitution concerning “sex” by their adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment. But the amendment is narrowly worded and limits the protection concerning “sex” discriminations as follows:

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex”.

At this very time there is an active movement in the United States to adopt an “Equal Rights Amendment” [ERA], and it persists for decades. The proposed amendment is intentionally designed to prohibit distinctions based upon “sex” as follows:

Section 1. “Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex”.

In the 1970s, Congress sets a seven year deadline for the ratification of the ERA which was later extended by three years to 1982. But despite efforts to secure ratification of the amendment, a sufficient number of States wisely refuse to adopt the Equal Rights Amendment. Some of the reasons for the rejection of the ERA were, it would lead to women being drafted into the military, unisex bathrooms, and even legalization of homosexual marriages.

So, having presented and reviewed the historical evidence, it become obvious that the majority’s WRITTEN OPINION in Obergefell v. Hodges, authored by Justice Kennedy and joined in by Justices Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, is not based upon the rule of law, but rather:

subjugates Article V, our Constitution’s only lawful way to accommodate the desire to protect and allow nation-wide same-sex marriages;

defies and distorts historical facts concerning the Fourteenth Amendment;

and that it knowingly subverts the State of Kentucky’s reserved power, guaranteed by our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, to issue marriage licenses based upon the applicants’ sex.

 

[1srelluc]

And just what is Kentucky's "law"?

Kentucky’s Constitutional Amendment states:

“Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

Now, keep in mind Our U.S. Supreme Court has never taken up and reversed the decision in Bradwell v. The State, 83 U.S. 130 (1872) in which the State of Illinois refused to grant a license to a woman to practice law in Illinois, on the ground that females were not eligible under the laws of that state. The USSC upheld the law as not violating the Fourteenth Amendment!

Aside from that let us take a look at the complete historical time-line, starting with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.

On July 9th, 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment is adopted, the first Section reading as follows:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Note that there is no mention in the Fourteenth Amendment concerning “sex”.

In 1870, two years later, the Fifteenth Amendment is passed prohibiting the right to vote to be denied based upon “race, color or previous condition of servitude”.

Note, there is no mention in the Fifteenth Amendment concerning “sex”

Fifty years later, on August 18th, 1920, the American People decide to provide restrictive language into our Constitution concerning “sex” by their adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment. But the amendment is narrowly worded and limits the protection concerning “sex” discriminations as follows:

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex”.

At this very time there is an active movement in the United States to adopt an “Equal Rights Amendment” [ERA], and it persists for decades. The proposed amendment is intentionally designed to prohibit distinctions based upon “sex” as follows:

Section 1. “Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex”.

In the 1970s, Congress sets a seven year deadline for the ratification of the ERA which was later extended by three years to 1982. But despite efforts to secure ratification of the amendment, a sufficient number of States wisely refuse to adopt the Equal Rights Amendment. Some of the reasons for the rejection of the ERA were, it would lead to women being drafted into the military, unisex bathrooms, and even legalization of homosexual marriages.

So, having presented and reviewed the historical evidence, it become obvious that the majority’s WRITTEN OPINION in Obergefell v. Hodges, authored by Justice Kennedy and joined in by Justices Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, is not based upon the rule of law, but rather:

subjugates Article V, our Constitution’s only lawful way to accommodate the desire to protect and allow nation-wide same-sex marriages;

defies and distorts historical facts concerning the Fourteenth Amendment;

and that it knowingly subverts the State of Kentucky’s reserved power, guaranteed by our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, to issue marriage licenses based upon the applicants’ sex.

Whatever dude....She lost, move on.

 

[johnwk]

Whatever dude....She lost, move on.

Which has nothing to do with Obergefell v. Hodges subjugating the terms and conditions under which the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.

Are you incapable of separating you feelings toward Kim Davis from our Supreme Court shredding our constitution inch by inch as it did in Obergefell v. Hodges ?

 

[Concerned American]

Totally irrelevant to the Sotomayor and Kagan’s misfeasance and nonfeasance in Obergefell v. Hodges which has led to a $100,000 damages verdict against Davis, plus $260,000 for attorney’s fees, for allegedly violating the law in 2015 by refusing to issue a marriage license to a Kentucky same-sex couple, when Kentucky’s constitution would be violated by issuing such a license.

Kentucky’s Constitutional Amendment states:

“Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

I think the point you're missing here is that it runs afoul of the US constitution that states must adhere to.

 

[johnwk]

I think the point you're missing here is that it runs afoul of the US constitution that states must adhere to.

I appreciate your assertion, ". . . that it runs afoul of the US constitution . . . ".

Provide you evidence that our Constitution forbids the states from making distinctions based upon "sex", excluding of course the Nineteenth Amendment.

Has the Tenth Amendment been repealed? Obergefell v. Hodges essentially did the same shit as was done in Roe v. Wade

 

[0311]

Which is without foundation.

”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person [singular] within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal application of those specific laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State with regard to sex or age, the State may not deny to any person, blacks and whites alike, within its jurisdiction the equal application of those specific laws.

Additionally, the Fourteenth Amendment’s objectives were eloquently summarized during the 39th Congressional debates which authored the amendment by one of its supporters as follows:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” _ SEE: Representative Shallabarger, a supporter of the amendment, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

The bottom line is, the majority’s WRITTEN OPINION in Obergefell v. Hodges, authored by Justice Kennedy and joined in by Justices Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, adopts the Humpty Dumpty theory of language and imposes its personal feelings and predilections as the rule of law.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone,

“it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that’s all.”

JWK

“The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.” – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968


.

Kimmy Dumb-Dumb, as a public official used her religious beliefs to deny same sex couples marriage certificates. Which violates the Separation Clause of the First Amendment (Big....Bigley Foundational) AND the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th. Amendment (Big.....BIgley.....Bigley HUGELY BIGLEY Foundational). YOU are talking out of your red ugly MAGA MAGGOT ASS!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Kim Davis should sue Justices Sotomayor and Kagan under the Seventh Amendment for the misfeasance and nonfeasance exhibited in the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges which has led to a $100,000 damages verdict against her, plus $260,000 for attorney’s fees, for allegedly violating the law in 2015 by refusing to issue a marriage license to a Kentucky same-sex couple, when Kentucky’s constitution would be violated by issuing such a license.

Kentucky’s Constitutional Amendment states:

“Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”


Our U.S. Supreme Court has never taken up and reversed the decision in Bradwell v. The State, 83 U.S. 130 (1872) in which the State of Illinois refused to grant a license to a woman to practice law in Illinois, on the ground that females were not eligible under the laws of that state. The USSC upheld the law as not violating the Fourteenth Amendment!

Kim Davis should sue Justices Sotomayor and Kagan under the Seventh Amendment for Sotomayor and Kagan’s misfeasance and nonfeasance in Obergefell v. Hodges which has led to a $100,000 damages verdict against her, plus $260,000 for attorney’s fees, for allegedly violating the law in 2015 by refusing to issue a marriage license to a Kentucky same-sex couple, when Kentucky’s constitution would be violated by issuing such a license.

The Seventh Amendment states:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Keep in mind Sotomayor and Kagan took an oath to support and defend our written Constitution which does not allow them to substitute their personal feelings and predilections as the rule of law, which is what they did in Obergefell v. Hodges . . . they ignored fundamental rules of constitutional construction.


“In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it…A construction which would give the phrase…a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution.” Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Additionally, our very own Supreme Court Sotomayor and Kagan’s fundamental duty:

"The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it."_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

Let a jury decide whether or not Sotomayor and Kagan engaged in misfeasance and nonfeasance.

Kim Davis should crawl back under her rock.