Posted on 09/04/2015 7:33:37 AM PDT by ctdonath2
Methinks a lot of people are confused about the law when the judiciary body-slams them. She (and the plaintiffs!) didn’t expect unilaterally-declared _incarceration_ for her transgression, and so didn’t find a suitably high-priced attorney willing to build a massive legal wall to protect her from every conceivable onslaught. She was acting on religious principles, so proceeded accordingly; fortunately, it’s a high-profile case so she might get a high-powered lawyer to pull a “WTF” on the court and rewind the situation accordingly.
Here’s what I think. My Facebook friends are in no danger of brain burnout.
Kim Davis violated “the law”(their words) by refusing to issue marriage certificates to same sex couples.
Mayor of San Francisco Gavin Newsome violated the law by issuing same sex marriage certificates when it was against the law in California.
So if you are opposed to politicians breaking laws they feel are morally wrong, you are standing on both sides of this issue.
I love my FB friends but when it comes to politics, they avoid thinking too much.
” She was acting on religious principles,”
Correction: She was morally opposed to same sex marriage. Her religion was irrelevant. A smart lawyer would just parade a bunch of Christians before the judge who said they support same sex marriage.
Because a federal law, passed by Congress and signed by the President (back in the 19th Century), says that disobedience to a federal judge's order constitutes contempt of court and is punishable by imprisonment.
And why should a Federal Judge be involved in this at all???
Because the lawsuit was filed to enforce the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
I would sue the hell out of the Judge and the State over this, sounds like they didn’t like her and this was the only way to get rid of her...
Judges have absolute immunity from civil suits. States also have immunity under the 11th Amendment.
After the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, the lower courts began ordering southern public schools to desegregate, even though there were no state laws authorizing that. They didn't order all schools in the South to close.
Where do Article III courts get the power to make or enforce laws? Did they adopt Congress and the Executive?
George W. Bush.
Until 2012, federal courts had held that states did not have to honor individuals' rights under the 2nd Amendment. If a Quaker was elected County Clerk before 2012, can he refuse to issue gun permits?
Federal courts have the power to decide that state laws are unconstitutional if they violate the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court decided that marriage laws that limit the right to marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the 14th Amendment. I don't agree with that ruling but, as a lawyer, I understand that that is now precedent binding on all lower courts.
It binds courts but does not have the power to write state laws. Kentucky can carve out religious exemptions for elected officials and citizens alike. Or they could get out of the marriage business altogether. Hauling this lady is nonsense and a reminder to any level headed American that the courts are no longer deserving of respect and without that courts are useless.
It binds courts but does not have the power to write state laws. Kentucky can carve out religious exemptions for elected officials and citizens alike. Or they could get out of the marriage business altogether. Hauling this lady is nonsense and a reminder to any level headed American that the courts are no longer deserving of respect and without that courts are useless.
They could do either of those things but they haven't, and the Governor has said he sees no need to call the legislature into special session to deal with this situation because the Clerks in all but 2 or 3 of the state's counties have had no problem with issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
This is the problem with an elitist oligarchy all 11 of whom attended two Ivy League university’s and are sequestered in a liberal enclave. No different than King George III. At some point enough citizens will have had enough of the royalty and it will end ugly.
Not the smartest course of action. Anyone trying to "peacefully" free a federal inmate from incarceration, while "fully armed," is very likely to wind up dead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.