She did not go to jail for "official misconduct". She is not in jail because she committed a crime, such as perjury, or an official misconduct. She is in the pokey because she disobeyed a direct court order, she thumbed her nose at the court, she gave the court the finger. She did it openly and publicly. Contempt of court is not a Federal issue. In general any judge can find someone in contempt and one of the remedies is to put the offender in jail until they do what they are supposed to do.
my thoughts re KY clerk Davis.. no bail!
- Thread starter republicanchick
- Start date
She did not go to jail for "official misconduct". She is not in jail because she committed a crime, such as perjury, or an official misconduct. She is in the pokey because she disobeyed a direct court order, she thumbed her nose at the court, she gave the court the finger. She did it openly and publicly. Contempt of court is not a Federal issue. In general any judge can find someone in contempt and one of the remedies is to put the offender in jail until they do what they are supposed to do.
So when Brown v. Bd of Education was decided any elected school board would have been able to ignore the decision.
Got it, now I understand. Mob rule. Works if you are part of that particular mob.
she is in jail because she couldn't approve of same sex marriage
The legislature has the PRIME responsibility here not to pass laws that violate people's conscience to perform....the Nazis should have taught us that.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
No, she is in jail because a court held her in contempt for refusing to do what the court told her to do.
She had and has choices. Do what the law now requires, resign based on her conscience or enjoy 3 hots and a cot based on her conscience.
Is she still getting paid? She should not be, she has refused to do her job.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
She offered to issue the licenses without her name attached - this would have been a simple accommodation that would have inconvenienced those poor fragile homos not the slightest
but they weren't interested in accommodation - they wanted to force Christians to accept them
They'll have their reward in eternal damnation
Davis will hear "well done thou good and faithful servant"
and Bunning will account for his behavior before the Judgement Throne
Another consideration which someone posted on Facebook is that the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to enact Law. This Clerk was obeying the Law as ordained by her State. They have usurped the right of States to govern their own constituency?
I am not knowledgeable enough to know if this is fact or not.
I would like to hear more on this.
The Supreme Court interprets the law and can determine whether or not state or Federal law is unconstitutional. Since 1803, Marbury v. Madison. Federal law trumps state law. The Constitution trumps all. Despite what Justice Scalia and the other originalists might claim, the court has interpreted the Constitution differently over time. When the language and thought of the late 18th century no longer fits with the present the Court can and does change its interpretation of the Constitution. It does not happen all that often but it does happen.
In Plessey v Ferguson, separate but equal schools were fine in 1896, but by 1954 Brown v Board of Education determined otherwise.
Under your interpretation, the Supreme Court has no power if a state law says otherwise. That is simply not the way it works.
Under your interpretation Federal law would mean nothing.
Jose Fly
New member
Nope. No one asked or ordered her to approve of anything.
Jose Fly
New member
Where did you see that? Yesterday the gay couples received their marriage licenses from the county, but without her signature. She and her legal team then stated publicly that because her name isn't on them, the licenses are invalid.
No one has been asked or ordered to accept anything.
Jose Fly
New member
Under the US Constitution, the role of the Supreme Court is to review laws and decide on their Constitutionality. With this issue, the court reviewed state bans on same-sex marriages and found them to be a violation of the Constitutional rights of same-sex couples.
That's exactly what the Constitution says the court is supposed to do. It's legally no different than when, in the Loving v. Virginia ruling, the court ruled that state bans on interracial marriages violated the Constitutional rights of interracial couples.
Again, read the US Constitution, specifically the supremacy clause. States cannot enact laws that violate the Constitution.
it is interesting how much support kim is getting here at tol
God bless kim
yep exactly which is what i said a few days back, the wheat and chaff are being separated.
republicanchick
New member
the courts NEED to be given the finger.
God bless her
that thug judge made a martyr of her
"If you deny Me before men, I will deny you before the Father"
--Jesus
+++