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

[martybegan]

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.

To me the proper ruling in Obergfell should have been a State doesn't have to issue Same Sex Marriage licenses unless they want to via legislative action, but they would have been required to honor same sex marriage licenses issued by other States via full faith and credit, as they have done so in the past.

 

[johnwk]

To me the proper ruling in Obergfell should have been a State doesn't have to issue Same Sex Marriage licenses unless they want to via legislative action, but they would have been required to honor same sex marriage licenses issued by other States via full faith and credit, as they have done so in the past.

Full Faith and Credit

I basically agree but with specific clarity as follows.

Article IV was adopted to establish a universal rule by which one state may be required to verify and acknowledge the records of another state during a legal proceeding between contesting parties, such as in the collection of a debt. For example, a child support judgment handed down by a court in New York against a party who has moved to Florida to escape making payment may be presented to a court in Florida which is then to take judicial notice of the judgment. However, the laws of New York under which the judgment arose are not made applicable to residents living in Florida. Likewise, applying Article IV to say the driving laws of one state which may issue a permit under specified conditions cannot be enforced in another state under the full faith and credit provision. One state is not obligated to recognize the driving permit issued by another state. A Number of States do not accept any out of state learner’s permit. Last time I checked, one may not drive in New York State if they are under 16, even if they are licensed in another state!


And so, if two people of the same sex are married in a State where same sex marriage is constitutional and they move to Florida, Article IV is not intended, nor does it, require the State of Florida to recognize the couple as being a married couple under Florida's laws.

 

[martybegan]

Full Faith and Credit

I basically agree but with specific clarity as follows.

Article IV was adopted to establish a universal rule by which one state may be required to verify and acknowledge the records of another state during a legal proceeding between contesting parties, such as in the collection of a debt. For example, a child support judgment handed down by a court in New York against a party who has moved to Florida to escape making payment may be presented to a court in Florida which is then to take judicial notice of the judgment. However, the laws of New York under which the judgment arose are not made applicable to residents living in Florida. Likewise, applying Article IV to say the driving laws of one state which may issue a permit under specified conditions cannot be enforced in another state under the full faith and credit provision. One state is not obligated to recognize the driving permit issued by another state. A Number of States do not accept any out of state learner’s permit. Last time I checked, one may not drive in New York State if they are under 16, even if they are licensed in another state!


And so, if two people of the same sex are married in a State where same sex marriage is constitutional and they move to Florida, Article IV is not intended, nor does it, require the State of Florida to recognize the couple as being a married couple under Florida's laws.

I disagree. It's not a question of the marriage being constitutional or not. There are already differences in marriage laws between states, age of consent, cousin marriage, blood test requirements, etc.

A full license in one State works in another State, just as a full marriage license in one State should work in another. Learner's permits aren't full licenses.

 

[Independent thinker]

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.

Can't have this happen from either side just because one side doesn't like the opinions of particular Supreme Court justices.

 

[johnwk]

Can't have this happen from either side just because one side doesn't like the opinions of particular Supreme Court justices.

From what you say, 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.

• And 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."

 

[Independent thinker]

From what you say, 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.

• And 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."

Can't have this happen from either side just because one side doesn't like the opinions of particular Supreme Court justices. It would never end.

 

[Edgetho]

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.

The very first thing the CRIMINALS in the Judicial Branch ever did was to --

Give themselves ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. Note the word 'Absolute' It matters. A lot.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

Stare Decisis does not mean that a court can never overturn a precedent

Common reasons and factors that lead to the overruling of a precedent include:

• Flawed or Poor Reasoning: The court may decide that the original decision was based on exceptionally weak, erroneous, or badly reasoned legal analysis.
• Unworkable in Practice: If the prior ruling established a rule or standard that has proven to be consistently difficult for lower courts or other interpreters to apply in practice, the court may deem it "unworkable".
• Inconsistency with Related Decisions: A precedent may be overturned if its rationale has been eroded by subsequent decisions or if it is an outlier that is inconsistent with the court's other rulings on similar issues.
• Changed Societal Values or Facts: The court may overrule a precedent when significant social, technological, or factual changes have occurred since the original decision, making its application obsolete or unjust. A prominent example is Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned Plessy v. Ferguson's "separate but equal" doctrine due to a changed understanding of racial equality.
• Constitutional Questions: The court is generally more willing to reexamine and overrule precedents in constitutional cases, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible (unlike with statutory interpretation, where the legislature can pass a new law to modify or clarify a statute).
• Lack of Reliance Interests: The court will consider whether individuals, companies, or governments have heavily relied on the precedent when making important decisions. If overturning the decision would not unfairly upset these settled expectations, the court may be more likely to overrule it.
• Egregiously Wrong Decisions: The court may overrule a decision if it concludes the prior ruling was simply "egregiously wrong" from the start.

Roe and Chevron met none of those criteria. They were arbitrary and capricious

 

[martybegan]

Stare Decisis does not mean that a court can never overturn a precedent

Common reasons and factors that lead to the overruling of a precedent include:

• Flawed or Poor Reasoning: The court may decide that the original decision was based on exceptionally weak, erroneous, or badly reasoned legal analysis.
• Unworkable in Practice: If the prior ruling established a rule or standard that has proven to be consistently difficult for lower courts or other interpreters to apply in practice, the court may deem it "unworkable".
• Inconsistency with Related Decisions: A precedent may be overturned if its rationale has been eroded by subsequent decisions or if it is an outlier that is inconsistent with the court's other rulings on similar issues.
• Changed Societal Values or Facts: The court may overrule a precedent when significant social, technological, or factual changes have occurred since the original decision, making its application obsolete or unjust. A prominent example is Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned Plessy v. Ferguson's "separate but equal" doctrine due to a changed understanding of racial equality.
• Constitutional Questions: The court is generally more willing to reexamine and overrule precedents in constitutional cases, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible (unlike with statutory interpretation, where the legislature can pass a new law to modify or clarify a statute).
• Lack of Reliance Interests: The court will consider whether individuals, companies, or governments have heavily relied on the precedent when making important decisions. If overturning the decision would not unfairly upset these settled expectations, the court may be more likely to overrule it.
• Egregiously Wrong Decisions: The court may overrule a decision if it concludes the prior ruling was simply "egregiously wrong" from the start.

Roe and Chevron met none of those criteria. They were arbitrary and capricious

Roe and Chevron were terrible rulings, just like Plessey and Dred Scott.

 

[BackAgain]

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.

The Constitution says that a judge can only be removed by impeachment and a senate conviction of bad behavior. (Paraphrased for convenience.)

The policy is “absolute judicial immunity.” See, Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978).

Here’s a link: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/435/349/

 

[johnwk]

The Constitution says that a judge can only be removed by impeachment and a senate conviction of bad behavior. (Paraphrased for convenience.)

Correct. Removal from office.

And 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.

The policy is “absolute judicial immunity.” See, Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978).

As acknowledged by the Supreme Court, and before the Court decided to cloth itself with absolute immunity from their evil doings in Stump, the Court did acknowledge possible exceptions to "absolute immunity":

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).
SOURCE

Having diligently studied the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges I have come to the conclusion if falls within the possible exceptions indicated in Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 523, 537 (1869).

The majority opinion is not based on the rule of law, but rather, the feelings and sexual preferences and predictions of the majority's members.

 

[BackAgain]

Correct. Removal from office.

And 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.



As acknowledged by the Supreme Court, and before the Court decided to cloth itself with absolute immunity from their evil doings in Stump, the Court did acknowledge possible exceptions to "absolute immunity":

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).
SOURCE

Having diligently studied the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges I have come to the conclusion if falls within the possible exceptions indicated in Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 523, 537 (1869).

The majority opinion is not based on the rule of law, but rather, the feelings and sexual preferences and predictions of the majority's members.

If a case or controversy comes before the high court, by definition the court has jurisdiction unless such jurisdiction has been specifically denied by Congress.

There is no legitimate argument here to apply any exception to judicial immunity.

 

[sartre play]

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.

Just another hate filled person. SAD.

 

[johnwk]

If a case or controversy comes before the high court, by definition the court has jurisdiction unless such jurisdiction has been specifically denied by Congress.

There is no legitimate argument here to apply any exception to judicial immunity.

Considering the Tenth Amendment reserves the subject matter [the issuance of marriage licenses] to the States, there is a legitimate argument our Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges was acted beyond a subject matter authorized by our Constitution.

Aside from the above, Kim Davis as a government employee of Kentucky, took an oath to support and defend Kentucky's Constitution:

“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.”

Kim Davis was following Kentucky’s law, while five United States Supreme Court Members, set set themselves up as members of an unelected, omnipotent, constitutional convention in Obergefell v. Hodges, 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 [with the people’s consent] is the only lawful way to alter the terms and conditions our Constitution.

It should also be noted that our U.S. Supreme Court has never officially 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!

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 not true the American people have never adopted a constitutional amendment in our federal constitution, forbidding the 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 the 1980s by an insufficient number of States approving the amendment?

Is it not also true that, in view of the historical evidence provided, is it not 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?

.

 

[BackAgain]

Considering the Tenth Amendment reserves the subject matter [the issuance of marriage licenses] to the States, there is a legitimate argument our Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges was acting beyond a subject matter authorized by our Constitution.

Aside from the above, Kim Davis as a government employee of Kentucky, took an oath to support and defend Kentucky's Constitution:

“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.”

Kim Davis was following Kentucky’s law, while five United States Supreme Court Members, set set themselves up as members of an unelected, omnipotent, constitutional convention in Obergefell v. Hodges, 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 [with the people’s consent] is the only lawful way to alter the terms and conditions our Constitution.

It should also be noted that our U.S. Supreme Court has never officially 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!

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 not true the American people have never adopted a constitutional amendment in our federal constitution, forbidding the 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 the 1980s by an insufficient number of States approving the amendment?

Is it not also true that, in view of the historical evidence provided, is it not 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?

.

Whether the SCOTUS decision is a legally correct and valid bit of jurisprudence is a very different question from the one asking whether the SCOTUS had jurisdiction to hear the case or controversy.

Also (and I’m neither attempting to defend the SCOTUS decision nor offering any opinion on it, substantively), there are many State Law matters which are, nevertheless, properly subject to US Constitutional review.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Considering the Tenth Amendment reserves the subject matter [the issuance of marriage licenses] to the States, there is a legitimate argument our Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges was acting beyond a subject matter authorized by our Constitution.

Inane equine excrement . The tenth amendment is not superior to the 14th amendment whiich in part extends the bill of rights to the states. Nothing that is reserved to the states is exempt from passingh constitutional muster, Times and again the courts- including SCOTUS - have ruled that marriage is a fundamental right and restrictions on it are subject to strict scrutany .

Strict scrutiny is the highest standard of judicial review in the U.S. used to evaluate the constitutionality of government actions that affect fundamental rights or involve suspect classifications, such as race, religion, or national origin. To pass strict scrutiny, a law must be "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling government interest" and be the "least restrictive means" to achieve that interest. The government bears the burden of proof and is presumed to lose unless it can demonstrate both the compelling interest and the narrow tailoring and least restrictive means.

The states opposing same sex marriage woefully failed to meet that burden proof

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Aside from the above, Kim Davis as a government employee of Kentucky, took an oath to support and defend Kentucky's Constitution:

“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.”

The Kentucky Constitution is subservient to federal constitutional case law.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It should also be noted that our U.S. Supreme Court has never officially 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!

False equivalency logical fallacy bullshit . A sexist ruling that has long since been ignored has nothing to do with a ruing that essentially states that same sex couples are equal to opposite sex couples . This is not about gender equality.

 

[Magnus]

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.

So what’s stopping her, other than not having a case?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Considering the Tenth Amendment reserves the subject matter [the issuance of marriage licenses] to the States, there is a legitimate argument our Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges was acting beyond a subject matter authorized by our Constitution.

Aside from the above, Kim Davis as a government employee of Kentucky, took an oath to support and defend Kentucky's Constitution:

“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.”

Kim Davis was following Kentucky’s law, while five United States Supreme Court Members, set set themselves up as members of an unelected, omnipotent, constitutional convention in Obergefell v. Hodges, 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 [with the people’s consent] is the only lawful way to alter the terms and conditions our Constitution.

It should also be noted that our U.S. Supreme Court has never officially 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!

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 not true the American people have never adopted a constitutional amendment in our federal constitution, forbidding the 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 the 1980s by an insufficient number of States approving the amendment?

Is it not also true that, in view of the historical evidence provided, is it not 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?

.

Your whole idiotic rant seems to be predicated on the assumption that the issues of same sex marriage is related to the issue of gender equality . It is not. The issue of gender in respect to same sex marriage is limited to the the ruing that establishes the fact that the respective genders of a couple should not determine their ability to marry. You sure are twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to get around that fact