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

[IM2]

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.

Actually, he did say something, but he said something about divorce, adultery, bearing false witness, worshiping graven images, following false prophets, and I can go on. If you are a worshipper of Trump, you are just as much of a sinner as anybody gay. None of us escapes sin. Therefore, we are to treat others as we want to be treated. Jesus didn't say treat others as you would want to be treated, unless you're gay.

 

[johnwk]

SCOTUS shredded the constitution when it gave Trump unlimited power.

So, you have no rebuttal to stated facts nor embrace fundamental rules of constitutional construction, i.e:

“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),

And, our very own Supreme Court emphatically provides a procedure answering the same question:

“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)

It should also be noted that 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!

So, considering the Fourteenth Amendment was not violated in 1872 by by Illinois making distinctions in law based upon sex, when was our Constitution amended to henceforth forbid the States to make distinctions in law based upon sex?

The only amendment to be found in our Constitution since 1872 with reference to sex is the Nineteenth Amendment, adopted in 1920. But that amendment, is narrowly worded and limits the protection against “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.”

Is it now obvious that the American people have never adopted a constitutional amendment in our federal constitution, forbidding our States from making distinctions in law based upon “sex” other than the Nineteenth Amendment?

Is it not also true that the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, which would have forbid the States to make distinctions in law based upon sex, was rejected in 1982 by an insufficient number of States approving the amendment?

Now tell me, in view of the historical evidence provided, is it now crystal clear that Kagan and Sotomayor, in Obergefell v. Hodges , in essence, set themselves up (along with three other S.C. Justices) as members of an unelected, omnipotent, constitutional convention, and substituted their personal feelings and predilections as being within the terms and conditions under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to, while Article V is the only lawful way to alter our Constitution?

Do the actions of these two, Kagan and Sotomayor, not fall within the four walls of misfeasance and nonfeasance, and effectively resulted in wrongfully letting stand a $100,000 damages verdict against Kim 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?

 

[dudmuck]

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 ?

public officials cannot deny constitutional rights based on personal beliefs, which means that she must pay the damages.

 

[johnwk]

public officials cannot deny constitutional rights based on personal beliefs, which means that she must pay the damages.

The majority's opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges has unjustly created a very real victim, Kim Davis

That victim is Kim Davis, who is now in debt for 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 Kim Davis issuing such a license.

The fact is, the provision of Kentucky’s constitution which is in contention, is in total harmony with both the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and its documented legislative intent.

As I pointed out, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Kentucky was under no constitutional obligation to license or recognize same-sex marriages, effectively upholding Kentucky’s Constitutional Amendment:

“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.”

Shortly before Kim Davis began refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, reversing the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which upheld, on November 6, 2014, Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriage

What is stunning to realize is, nowhere in the majority opinion, Obergefell v. Hodges, is there a shred of evidence that by the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection or due process clause, or the legislative intent under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to by the States when ratifying the amendment, was Kentucky‘s refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In essence, a majority on our Supreme Court set itself up as members of an unelected, omnipotent, constitutional convention, and substituted their personal feelings and predilections as being within the terms and conditions under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to, while Article V is the only lawful way to alter our Constitution and requires consent of the States and people therein.

Because of the majority’s opinion in Obergefell, which willfully and negligently avoided adhering to the fundamental rules of Constitutional construction _ such actions falling within the definition of misfeasance and nonfeasance _ Kim Davis because a victim, not to mention how the majority’s opinion has worked to shred and expand the documented legislative intent of the Fourteenth Amendment which is found in the Debates of the 39th Congress, which framed and helped to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment.

Let us never forget what is found in Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),


"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."

 

[IM2]

So, you have no rebuttal to stated facts nor embrace fundamental rules of constitutional construction, i.e:

“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),

And, our very own Supreme Court emphatically provides a procedure answering the same question:

“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)

It should also be noted that 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!

So, considering the Fourteenth Amendment was not violated in 1872 by by Illinois making distinctions in law based upon sex, when was our Constitution amended to henceforth forbid the States to make distinctions in law based upon sex?

The only amendment to be found in our Constitution since 1872 with reference to sex is the Nineteenth Amendment, adopted in 1920. But that amendment, is narrowly worded and limits the protection against “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.”

Is it now obvious that the American people have never adopted a constitutional amendment in our federal constitution, forbidding our States from making distinctions in law based upon “sex” other than the Nineteenth Amendment?

Is it not also true that the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, which would have forbid the States to make distinctions in law based upon sex, was rejected in 1982 by an insufficient number of States approving the amendment?

Now tell me, in view of the historical evidence provided, is it now crystal clear that Kagan and Sotomayor, in Obergefell v. Hodges , in essence, set themselves up (along with three other S.C. Justices) as members of an unelected, omnipotent, constitutional convention, and substituted their personal feelings and predilections as being within the terms and conditions under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to, while Article V is the only lawful way to alter our Constitution?

Do the actions of these two, Kagan and Sotomayor, not fall within the four walls of misfeasance and nonfeasance, and effectively resulted in wrongfully letting stand a $100,000 damages verdict against Kim 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?

I understand better than you do. So all this long-winded tripe doesn't prove anything. Davis was wrong nd that's all there is to it.

 

[dudmuck]

The majority's opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges has unjustly created a very real victim, Kim Davis

That victim is Kim Davis, who is now in debt for 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 Kim Davis issuing such a license.

The fact is, the provision of Kentucky’s constitution which is in contention, is in total harmony with both the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and its documented legislative intent.

As I pointed out, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Kentucky was under no constitutional obligation to license or recognize same-sex marriages, effectively upholding Kentucky’s Constitutional Amendment:

“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.”

Shortly before Kim Davis began refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, reversing the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which upheld, on November 6, 2014, Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriage

What is stunning to realize is, nowhere in the majority opinion, Obergefell v. Hodges, is there a shred of evidence that by the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection or due process clause, or the legislative intent under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to by the States when ratifying the amendment, was Kentucky‘s refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In essence, a majority on our Supreme Court set itself up as members of an unelected, omnipotent, constitutional convention, and substituted their personal feelings and predilections as being within the terms and conditions under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to, while Article V is the only lawful way to alter our Constitution and requires consent of the States and people therein.

Because of the majority’s opinion in Obergefell, which willfully and negligently avoided adhering to the fundamental rules of Constitutional construction _ such actions falling within the definition of misfeasance and nonfeasance _ Kim Davis because a victim, not to mention how the majority’s opinion has worked to shred and expand the documented legislative intent of the Fourteenth Amendment which is found in the Debates of the 39th Congress, which framed and helped to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment.

Let us never forget what is found in Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),


"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."

a Supreme Court ruling in 2015 established a national right to same-sex marriage, which supersedes state laws and constitutional provisions that ban it. A federal judge in Kentucky had previously ruled that the state's ban was unconstitutional, stating it violated the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Great idea. You should send her lots of money for her case. I'm sure she will share any settlement she might get with you.

 

[g5000]

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!

.
Once the Civil Rights Act of 1964 became the law of the land, there was no need to revisit Bradwell.

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.

Kentucky's marriage amendment was a violation of the US Constitution which supercedes Kentucky's bullshit.

You know who is actually destroying the institution of marriage?

Kim Davis. Divorced how many times? Three? Four?

You know who else? Donald Trump. Three marriages, committed adultery in all three. Fucked a pornographic actress while his third wife was home with their newborn.

Newt Gingrich. Rush Limbaugh. The list of hypocritical adulterers is very, very, very long.

So don't pretend this is about religion or protecting the institution of marriage, mm-kay?

It's all about hate.

That's it.

Hate.

Move along now.

 

[g5000]

This is serial adultress Kim Davis, with her fourth husband. Straight off the set of Hee Haw.

You remember Kim. She wouldn't let gays come between her and the Bible.

Fake Christians from around the country rushed to celebrate four-time adultress Kim Davis for protecting the institution of marriage from being destroyed.

 

[g5000]

Now you listen here, ******. I've gotten four marriage licenses so far, and my baker has made me four wedding cakes so far. That makes me holier than thou, understand?


.

.

 

[BackAgain]

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?

It doesn’t matter. You can’t sue a judge for doing her job.

 

[g5000]

Kim Davis should sue Justices Sotomayor and Kagan

And if she loses, she should take her lawsuit all the way to the Supreme Court!

 

[1srelluc]

It doesn’t matter. You can’t sue a judge for doing her job.

True.

 

[johnwk]

Kentucky's marriage amendment was a violation of the US Constitution which supercedes Kentucky's bullshit.

Tenth Amendment. You are supporting the same shit as was done in Roe vs. Wade.

 

[johnwk]

It doesn’t matter. You can’t sue a judge for doing her job.

There are exceptions.

The federal Constitution does not by its stated terms grant immunity to judges for flagrant misfeasance or malfeasance. But the Seventh Amendment does state:

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.

Under common law—the Supreme Court has not elevated judicial immunity from suit to a constitutional principle—judges “are responsible to the people alone for the manner in which they perform their duties. If faithless, if corrupt, if dishonest, if partial, if oppressive or arbitrary, they may be called to account by impeachment, and removed from office. . . . But responsible they are not to private parties in civil actions for the judicial acts, however injurious may be those acts, and however much they may deserve condemnation, unless perhaps where the acts are palpably in excess of the jurisdiction of the judges, and are done maliciously or corruptly.” See: Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 523, 537 (1869).

Obergefell v. Hodges was beyond the S.C’s. jurisdiction as per the Tenth Amendment, just as was Roe v. Wade. Additionally, the opinion was not based upon our Constitution’s terms and condition, but rather on the majority’s personal beliefs and predilection. In fact, the majority opinion, in essence, set itself up as members of an unelected, omnipotent, constitutional convention, and substituted their personal feelings and predilections as being within the terms and conditions under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to, while Article V is the only lawful way to alter our Constitution.



Justices Sotomayor and Kagan’s actions certainly fall within the definition of misfeasance and nonfeasance, and effectively resulted in letting stand a $100,000 damages verdict against Kim 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, and the provision of Kentucky’s constitution which is in contention is in total harmony with both the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to the text of the Fourteenth Amendment.

.
Let a jury decide as our constitution commands. Remember, no one is above the law.

 

[martybegan]

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.

It's the blind appeal to authority I am talking about, and the bullshit legal concept used for both decisions.

 

[martybegan]

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.

And yet you screamed "stare decisis" when they overturned Roe and Chevron.....

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It's the blind appeal to authority I am talking about, and the bullshit legal concept used for both decisions.

You're still not making any sense. You can't just string words together and then clasim that you scored a point. That is an appeal to ignorance

 

[martybegan]

You're still not making any sense. You can't just string words together and then clasim that you scored a point. That is an appeal to ignorance

Not my fault your room temperature IQ can't figure it out.

 

[johnwk]

Not my fault your room temperature IQ can't figure it out.

Just for the record, a majority on our Supreme Court (Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the opinion with Justices Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joining) in Obergefell v. Hodgesoffered no evidence that by the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection or due process clause, was Kentucky required to perform and recognize same-sex marriages on the same terms as opposite-sex marriages, which Justice Kennedy, falsely suggested there was.

Justice Kennedy in authoring the opinion, went on and on, page after page, with irrelevant historical notations having nothing to do with the debates of the 39th Congress which actually framed and helped to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment.

And we are supposed to blindly accept his opinion when it offers not a shred of evidence confirming Kentucky may not make distinctions in law based upon sex?