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

[johnwk]

Kim Davis should crawl back under her rock.

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 ?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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 ?

I don't agree with your opinion based on nothing but your lizard brain bigotry, sorry

 

[johnwk]

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

Correct. Kim Davis should not have let her religious beliefs interfere with carrying out her functions at work. She was not forced to take the job she took. But that is an entirely different subject then the actions of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan when performing their jobs as Justices on our Supreme Court who took an oath to support and defend our federal Constitution.

 

[johnwk]

I don't agree with your opinion based on nothing but your lizard brain bigotry, sorry

When has pointing to truth and facts become bigotry?

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:

• substituting their personal views and predilections for the true meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment;
• subverting the unambiguous legislative intent of the Fourteenth Amendment,
• subverting the Tenth Amendment which reserves the power to issued marriage licenses exclusively in the hands of the States and people therein;
• subverting Article V of our Constitution, by acting as an unelected, omnipotent constitutional convention, and expanding the limited subject matter under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to while Article V is the only lawful way to approve nation-wide same-sex marriage.

 

[elektra]

Kimmy dumb-Dumb violated two clauses of the United Constitution. The Separation Clause (First Amendment)

0311, you prove that you are stupider.
The 1st Amendment, Congress shall make no law ...

0311 is a great example of how the democrats are of below average intelligence

The 1st amendment states what congress cant do, not us citizens

 

[0311]

Correct. Kim Davis should not have let her religious beliefs interfere with carrying out her functions at work. She was not forced to take the job she took. But that is an entirely different subject then the actions of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan when performing their jobs as Justices on our Supreme Court who took an oath to support and defend our federal Constitution.

YOU ignore and/or choose forget the Equal Clause of the 14th. Amendment. Which completely and beyond a shadow doubt is foundational. This clause insures Equal Protection for all., including same Sex Couples. That is what homophobic bigots like you refuse to accept.

 

[kc48]

I thought that hag kicked.

 

[0311]

I thought that hag kick

She got shit canned. But she has twice gone before SCOTUS and lost each time. She is an attention seeking media whore who cannot and/or will not accept she lost.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Yes, she should, then we can all laugh at her again as she will lose again.

 

[johnwk]

YOU ignore and/or choose forget the Equal Clause of the 14th. Amendment. Which completely and beyond a shadow doubt is foundational. This clause insures Equal Protection for all., including same Sex Couples. That is what homophobic bigots like you refuse to accept.

Your opinion regarding the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment is without foundation.

With reference to ”…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.

In fact this is confirmed during the debates of the 39th Congress which framed and helped to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment.

“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

 

[0311]

Yes, she should, then we can all laugh at her again as she will lose again.

She would be a three-time loser.

 

[0311]

Your opinion regarding the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment is without foundation.

With reference to ”…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.

In fact this is confirmed during the debates of the 39th Congress which framed and helped to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment.

“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 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 Equal Protection Clause means exactly that, EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.

Keep your homophobic hate to yourself. Equal Protection totally, bigley and hugley foundationally relevant.

EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW MEANS EXACTLY THAT EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE
LAW..

It does NOT differentiate between LQBT and Straight, it applies all laws fairly and equally.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

When has pointing to truth and facts become bigotry?

When did your low IQ bigotry become facts?

Never.

Not interested, dipshit.

 

[johnwk]

She would be a three-time loser.

From what you are saying you seem to be ok with a majority on our Supreme Court

• substituting their personal views and predilections for the true meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment;

• subverting the unambiguous legislative intent of the Fourteenth Amendment,

• subverting the Tenth Amendment which reserves the power to issued marriage licenses exclusively in the hands of the States and people therein;

• subverting Article V of our Constitution, by acting as an unelected, omnipotent constitutional convention, and expanding the limited subject matter under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to while Article V is the only lawful way to add or expand subject matter in our Constitution.

• not honoring the Seventh Amendment which 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.

 

[johnwk]

EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW MEANS EXACTLY THAT EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE
LAW..

Thank you for your opinion . . .

And what does the 14th Amendment actually state?


”…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.

In fact this is confirmed during the debates of the 39th Congress which framed and helped to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment.

“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 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

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You sound like the people who supported Plessey.

What the **** are you blathering about.? That does not make a lick of sense. Separate but equal? That was what the anti gay marriage bigots pushed in the form of civil unions which were anything bit equal.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

And they also once ruled in Dread Scott that blacks could never be citizens and were in fact not human. That was then , That is why the interpretation of the Constitution must evolve to keep up with changing values , societal sensibilities and science. You should try it yourself sometime.

 

[0311]

The 14th. Amendment is clear. All laws must applied fairly and equally, regardless race, religion, gender or gender preference.

You can site every ConJob you want, Same Sex is Constitutional. Using your twisted as shit fucked up MAGA MAGGOT racist logic, Justice Thomas would to vote to nullify his mixed race marriage......Loving v Virginia allowed for mixed race marriage.

As stated before, keep your ******* homophobic hate to yourself. Just so you know, Yeshua (Correct) never said one word about Gays, Gay Marriage or Abortion but he sure as shit hated divorce. How many times has Kimmy Dumb-Dumb been married and divorced. You want to hate, I do not.

 

[0311]

What the **** are you blathering about.? That does not make a lick of sense. Separate but equal? That was what the anti gay marriage bigots pushed in the form of civil unions which were anything bit equal.

Separate but Equal is Unconstitutional under Brown v Board of Education.

 

[IM2]

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 ?

SCOTUS shredded the constitution when it gave Trump unlimited power.