U.S. Supreme Court declines stay 4 clerk refusing to issue gay marriage certificates

[Omni]

There was no law passed!
Of course it was unconstitutional...have you studied our constitution ? I have , and even the other supreme court justices called the ruling the most unconstitutional ruling of our time.... we are not under judges, we are under the constitution which many of us have sworn to defend at all cost.

You obviously haven't studied the constitution enough, and I'm guessing nowhere near as much as a Supreme Court Judge has. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the supreme authority to decide whether any ruling is constitutional; that's their job! If they decide something is constitutional, then, by power vested in them by the constituion, it is constitutional.

You can argue with me all day long, but ultimately, if they say "yes", then "yes" it is. The Supreme Court are the final arbiters of the law of the United States. The country's legal system doesn't have a higher authority other than the consitution, which, I might add allows the Supreme Court authority to decide whether something is constitutional or not.

From Article III of the constitution:

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish ...... The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.


In otherwords, the Supreme Court have the final say in legal matters.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

In the real world, when you refuse to do your job you get fired. If you are on a government payroll and refusing to do your job but you are still drawing a salary then you are stealing government money

One could argue she technically is doing her job and to sign thereof would be to not do her job given the laws in Kentucky defining marriage as a man and woman. Even despite that she is not stealing, she has only been paid her wages and reward for that which the people of Kentucky hired her to do. If they feel they want to fire her and thus cut off such wages, they can do that too, or move her around to another job where she be well suited. Not right for the government to throw her in prison though.

 

[Omni]

Even playing into that argument though, it is not lawful to punish her to the degree of imprisoning her for what is tantamount to a crime of conscience.

If the people of Kentucky want to terminate her employment and benefits thereof, they can do that for even more banal reasons than this. However it may be they do not want to do that just the same. We shall see. Either way it's not good to imprison someone for such things. That's too much punishment for such a small and vain thing as not signing a paper. Get a new clerk if you don't like your current clerk, but the clerk does not need be put in prison for that which very strongly can be argued is not even a crime.

Refusing to uphold the law as a governmental agent of the law, is a pretty serious offence.

Here's Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges:

Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities
(A) Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
(B) Outside Influence. A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.
(C) Nondiscriminatory Membership. A judge should not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

You obviously haven't studied the constitution enough, and I'm guessing nowhere near as much as a Supreme Court Judge has. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the supreme authority to decide whether any ruling is constitutional; that's their job! If they decide something is constitutional, then, by power vested in them by the constituion, it is constitutional.

You can argue with me all day long, but ultimately, if they say "yes", then "yes" it is. The Supreme Court are the final arbiters of the law of the United States. The country's legal system doesn't have a higher authority other than the consitution, which, I might add allows the Supreme Court authority to decide whether something is constitutional or not.

From Article III of the constitution:

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish ...... The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.


In otherwords, the Supreme Court have the final say in legal matters.

Lol, there is a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The Supreme Court has made itself illegitimate trying to interpret marriage illegitimately. It shows their corruption even as they then interpret the the constitution wrongly even since they have no power at all to add to, remove, or redefine something, but only interpret it. The Supreme Court has legitimacy from the Constitution being the law the people have set up over the government and forming it. The Supreme Court also has legitimacy via Theory of Law to act even as a court and therefore must respect religion as indicated by even the art décor of the literal Supreme Court.

In other words the Supreme Court has the say to interpret laws for the government that pertain to the government made under the presumption of the will of the people as delegated to the Legislative and Executive branches and the Bill of Rights. There has not yet been an amendment to nullify the amendment defining marriage in America. The Supreme Court and the current President has only tried to interpret it in a way as to render it somewhat meaningless and ignorable.

It is possible to repeal any amendment to the Constitution and there is precedent, but it is for now not happened no matter anyway anyone interprets America's legal structure. Therefore even if it is so that one unjust judge can issue a marriage license to anyone so it is one may refuse to do such also.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Refusing to uphold the law as a governmental agent of the law, is a pretty serious offence.

Here's Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges:

Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities
(A) Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
(B) Outside Influence. A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.
(C) Nondiscriminatory Membership. A judge should not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin.

This be saying in even the first sentence the judge cannot issue marriage licenses for that which is not marriage. I agree with what you have bolded and shall highlight that which is to my point. Indeed though I like both your counsel, but also consider some of the others' as well.

 

[Mitspa]

You obviously haven't studied the constitution enough, and I'm guessing nowhere near as much as a Supreme Court Judge has. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the supreme authority to decide whether any ruling is constitutional; that's their job! If they decide something is constitutional, then, by power vested in them by the constituion, it is constitutional.

You can argue with me all day long, but ultimately, if they say "yes", then "yes" it is. The Supreme Court are the final arbiters of the law of the United States. The country's legal system doesn't have a higher authority other than the consitution, which, I might add allows the Supreme Court authority to decide whether something is constitutional or not.

From Article III of the constitution:

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish ...... The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.


In otherwords, the Supreme Court have the final say in legal matters.

NO! it does not give the supreme court authority to usurp the constitution ...how can you claim authority from a document you don't respect and seek to overthrow .... And no the constitution gives the final authority to the people and their elected reps Not tot some unelected judges. When judges reject the constitution the people reject their authority, that how it works in America .

What we have are a group of lawless judges...just as the other law-abiding judges declared.

 

[NBCOGOPCB]

Sin is sin, no matter what the circumstances. One sin is no greater than another. As Christians, we must live in this sinful world, but we do not have to be part of it. We still need to speak out against the sin, but not the sinner. The sinner is still God's child. For that we can always pray that the sinner finally sees the sin, and turns away from it. Remember, there is only one sin which is unforgivable, which is blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

 

[Mitspa]

Sin is sin, no matter what the circumstances. One sin is no greater than another. As Christians, we must live in this sinful world, but we do not have to be part of it. We still need to speak out against the sin, but not the sinner. The sinner is still God's child. For that we can always pray that the sinner finally sees the sin, and turns away from it. Remember, there is only one sin which is unforgivable, which is blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

well we don't excuse and promote sin by pointing to other sin... and in fact the bible makes this sin a sin that proves the reprobate condition of those in it and those that approve it.

 

[Dude653]

But since we're talking about the Bible, let's talk about those scriptures that say woman is not to assert authority over a man.... so all men who have female supervisors at work, you should do your christian duty and quit your job immediately.... Christians love to cherry-pick scriptures.

 

[NBCOGOPCB]

Praise God! Lift your hands, open your mouths in praise and thanksgiving oh peoples. Thank you Jesus for our sisters release yesterday, thank you for giving her the strength to face persecution and stand firm on her beliefs. You are the Supreme Judge, and all the others are like ants under Your feet.

 

[Mitspa]

But since we're talking about the Bible, let's talk about those scriptures that say woman is not to assert authority over a man.... so all men who have female supervisors at work, you should do your christian duty and quit your job immediately.... Christians love to cherry-pick scriptures.

No that relates to the structure of teaching in the church..and even if some get it wrong...its no excuse to embrace and promote sexual perversion.

 

[Dude653]

Oh and have you killed your kids yet for disobedience??? That's in the Bible too. Try explaining that one to the judge

 

[GodIsSalvation]

But since we're talking about the Bible, let's talk about those scriptures that say woman is not to assert authority over a man.... so all men who have female supervisors at work, you should do your christian duty and quit your job immediately.... Christians love to cherry-pick scriptures.

In that case though the supervisor is still subservient often in cases to other supervisors and such in the modern business atmosphere of America. More women getting higher up the chain of subservient positions in this time though which is good, but it is still widely known and somewhat a controversy over the vast majority being men.

One can though make a case for women biblically having at times position of authority or such under certain conditions or at the least basely equal all men and taken-out-of-men are even equal under God. Like for instance Naomi in book of Ruth clearly had the authority over the household and Ruth given the death of her husband and sons when Boaz makes his offer to do business with her as she has advertised and to purchase Mahlon's lot from her and the next of kin that was male that had the right before him by their custom to deal with Naomi.

 

[Nautilus]

I'm just glad some people at that bastion of the far right, fox news, still retain some common sense. Shep SMith is right on the money here.
During Fox News’ live coverage of Kentucky clerkKim Davis‘ release from prison, anchor Shepard Smith suddenly spoke over the press conference to chastise Davis and those who supported her decision to refuse to issue gay marriage licenses.
“They set this up as a religious play again,” he said. “This is the same crowd that says, ‘We don’t want Sharia law, don’t let them tell us what to do, keep their religion out of our lives and out of our government.’ Well, here we go again.”
“When this started, this lawyer said he needed an accommodation for a woman who wanted one. She said she didn’t want her name on a license for gay people,” Smith said. “Now they’ve come up with one, they’ve let her out of jail… But it’s not what they want.”
“This is what they want, what you’re hearing now and this what they’re going to get: stirred up argument and a couple of days in the news cycle, and they’re going to be able to make these claims.”
Smith argued the Supreme Court had already ruled on the issue of gay marriage, and the issued was settled. “This is not unprecedented. They did it when they said black and white people couldn’t marry.”
In the end, he concluded, “Haters are going to hate. We thought what this woman wanted was an accommodation, which they’ve granted her, something that worked for everybody. But it’s not what they want.”

Shep Smith Goes on Rant Against Kim Davis and 'Haters' | Mediaite

 

[Mitspa]

Oh and have you killed your kids yet for disobedience??? That's in the Bible too. Try explaining that one to the judge

you do understand that Christians are not under the Old Testament law..right? and all that means nothing as to this ladies right to stand against the perversion of our society and her stand against this unlawful court ruling.

 

[Mitspa]

I'm just glad some people at that bastion of the far right, fox news, still retain some common sense. Shep SMith is right on the money here.
During Fox News’ live coverage of Kentucky clerkKim Davis‘ release from prison, anchor Shepard Smith suddenly spoke over the press conference to chastise Davis and those who supported her decision to refuse to issue gay marriage licenses.
“They set this up as a religious play again,” he said. “This is the same crowd that says, ‘We don’t want Sharia law, don’t let them tell us what to do, keep their religion out of our lives and out of our government.’ Well, here we go again.”
“When this started, this lawyer said he needed an accommodation for a woman who wanted one. She said she didn’t want her name on a license for gay people,” Smith said. “Now they’ve come up with one, they’ve let her out of jail… But it’s not what they want.”
“This is what they want, what you’re hearing now and this what they’re going to get: stirred up argument and a couple of days in the news cycle, and they’re going to be able to make these claims.”
Smith argued the Supreme Court had already ruled on the issue of gay marriage, and the issued was settled. “This is not unprecedented. They did it when they said black and white people couldn’t marry.”
In the end, he concluded, “Haters are going to hate. We thought what this woman wanted was an accommodation, which they’ve granted her, something that worked for everybody. But it’s not what they want.”

Shep Smith Goes on Rant Against Kim Davis and 'Haters' | Mediaite

Shep is just another deviant liberal...and Fox don't decide right and wrong...God does

 

[Nautilus]

Lol, there is a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

I would like to know what amemdment this is...there are only 27 it shouldn't be hard for you to tell me which one it is.

Now there is the Federal Marriage Amendment which has failed four times to be ratified but surely you wouldnt be talking about that which isn't actually an amendment? Would you?

 

[PennEd]

I'm just glad some people at that bastion of the far right, fox news, still retain some common sense. Shep SMith is right on the money here.
During Fox News’ live coverage of Kentucky clerkKim Davis‘ release from prison, anchor Shepard Smith suddenly spoke over the press conference to chastise Davis and those who supported her decision to refuse to issue gay marriage licenses.
“They set this up as a religious play again,” he said. “This is the same crowd that says, ‘We don’t want Sharia law, don’t let them tell us what to do, keep their religion out of our lives and out of our government.’ Well, here we go again.”
“When this started, this lawyer said he needed an accommodation for a woman who wanted one. She said she didn’t want her name on a license for gay people,” Smith said. “Now they’ve come up with one, they’ve let her out of jail… But it’s not what they want.”
“This is what they want, what you’re hearing now and this what they’re going to get: stirred up argument and a couple of days in the news cycle, and they’re going to be able to make these claims.”
Smith argued the Supreme Court had already ruled on the issue of gay marriage, and the issued was settled. “This is not unprecedented. They did it when they said black and white people couldn’t marry.”
In the end, he concluded, “Haters are going to hate. We thought what this woman wanted was an accommodation, which they’ve granted her, something that worked for everybody. But it’s not what they want.”

Shep Smith Goes on Rant Against Kim Davis and 'Haters' | Mediaite

Shep is completely unwatchable. Aside from the fact that he himself is a homosexual, which makes his rant unsurprising, he fumbles and stumbles over almost every text he reads.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

I would like to know what amemdment this is...there are only 27 it shouldn't be hard for you to tell me which one it is.

Now there is the Federal Marriage Amendment which has failed four times to be ratified but surely you wouldnt be talking about that which isn't actually an amendment? Would you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

Initially introduced in May 1996, DOMA passed both houses of Congress by large, veto-proof majorities and was signed into law by PresidentBill Clinton in September 1996. By defining "spouse" and its related terms to signify a heterosexual couple in a recognized marriage, Section 3 codified non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, social security survivors' benefits, immigration, bankruptcy, and the filing of joint tax returns, as well as excluding same-sex spouses from the scope of laws protecting families of federal officers (18 U. S. C. §115), laws evaluating financial aid eligibility, and federal ethics laws applicable to opposite-sex spouses.[SUP][[/SUP]

Clinton – along with key legislators – later advocated for DOMA's repeal. The Obama administration announced in 2011 that it had concluded Section 3 was unconstitutional and that although the administration would continue to enforce the law while it existed, it would no longer defend the law in court. In United States v. Windsor (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court declared Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

My bad though, it is not an amendment to the Bill of Rights you are correct, but is still law despite trying to interpret it as meaningless and thus factions of the government have right to not defend it as a law. It does speak though to the folley of the government by trying to define marriage at all. The government has no ability to define marriage to begin with since marriage is self-defined as between a man and a woman and pertains to religion being under God and cannot be redefined.

 

[crossnote]

Fox far right? Ha! Even Hannity breezed over this topic in favor of his 'Stop Hillary' tirade (hasn't he heard yet?) and 'Push Trump'..another closet lib.