TracerBullet
New member
I took a lesson in debate tactics from you :wave:
Kentucky clerk who refused gay couples taken into federal custody; ordered jailed
- Thread starter GFR7
- Start date
Foxfire
Well-known member
He was appointed.
All Federal judges are appointed by the Pres. and confirmed by congress.
George W. Bush appointed David L. Bunning to the bench on February 19, 2002 after congress confirmed him.
Res? Mas?
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Of course not.
Even though the majority used this approach in their decision it is a no go.
The precedent in that case had nothing to do with changing the definition of marriage.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-556
1.
The majority’s driving themes are that marriage is desirable and petitioners desire it. The opinion describes the “transcendent importance” of marriage and repeatedly insists that petitioners do not seek to “demean,” “devalue,” “denigrate,” or “disrespect” the institution. Ante, at 3, 4, 6, 28. Nobody disputes those points. Indeed, the compelling personal accounts of petitioners and others like them are likely a primary reason why many Americans have changed their minds about whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. As a matter of constitutional law, however, the sincerity of petitioners’ wishes is not relevant.
When the majority turns to the law, it relies primarily on precedents discussing the fundamental “right to marry.” Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 95 (1987) ; Zablocki, 434 U. S., at 383; see Loving, 388 U. S., at 12. These cases do not hold, of course, that anyone who wants to get married has a constitutional right to do so. They instead require a State to justify barriers to marriage as that institution has always been understood. In Loving, the Court held that racial restrictions on the right to marry lacked a compelling justification. In Zablocki, restrictions based on child support debts did not suffice. In Turner, restrictions based on status as a prisoner were deemed impermissible.
None of the laws at issue in those cases purported to change the core definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The laws challenged in Zablocki and Turner did not define marriage as “the union of a man and a woman, where neither party owes child support or is in prison.” Nor did the interracial marriage ban at issue in Loving define marriage as “the union of a man and a woman of the same race.” See Tragen, Comment, Statutory Prohibitions Against Interracial Marriage, 32 Cal. L. Rev. 269 (1944) (“at common law there was no ban on interracial marriage”); post, at 11–12, n. 5 (Thomas, J., dissenting). Removing racial barriers to marriage therefore did not change what a marriage was any more than integrating schools changed what a school was. As the majority admits, the institution of “marriage” discussed in every one of these cases “presumed a relationship involving opposite-sex partners.” Ante, at 11.
In short, the “right to marry” cases stand for the important but limited proposition that particular restrictions on access to marriage as traditionally defined violate due process. These precedents say nothing at all about a right to make a State change its definition of marriage, which is the right petitioners actually seek here. See Windsor, 570 U. S., at ___ (Alito, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 8) (“What Windsor and the United States seek . . . is not the protection of a deeply rooted right but the recognition of a very new right.”). Neither petitioners nor the majority cites a single case or other legal source providing any basis for such a constitutional right. None exists, and that is enough to foreclose their claim.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Not necessarily......
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/07/the_gop_congress_refuses_to_use_the_power_it_has.html
Article III, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution expressly states (emphasis added):
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
This means exactly what it says: the Supreme Court (and by implication, the lesser federal courts) can be stripped from hearing and deciding any issue at all, save only those few issues granted to its original jurisdiction in the language above. Cases in which “a state shall be party” is strictly limited to those controversies between two or more states, or between a state and citizens of another state, or between a state and foreigners (Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 [1821]).
TracerBullet
New member
My marriage hasn't been redefined. Has yours?
kmoney is also okay with same sex marriage
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
well, i'm not going to marry him
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Right ... it is the *reality* of your marriage that makes you so intent on protesting the marriages of complete strangers.
Jose Fly
New member
Except the states, in exercising their authority, cannot violate the constitutional rights of their citizens. And that's what the Obergefell ruling found....that states denying same sex couples marriage licenses was a violation of their constitutional rights to liberty and equal protection.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Same sex marriage is not a constitutional right.:dunce:
Jose Fly
New member
You've been (and as we'll see below, continue to) disputing that issuing marriage licenses is a primary duty of a county clerk. Your position is demonstrably wrong. Issuing marriage licenses is one of the primary duties of a county clerk.
"The county clerk issues marriage licenses (KRS 402.080) and files and records all marriage certificates (KRS 402.220 and 402.230)."
Then by the same reasoning, so was your analogy.
No. You don't see a problem with allowing people to break the law without penalty? Why have laws in the first place then?
It's been fairly well documented that her signature is not required, and the county attorney agrees.
Again, you try and analogize between a person fighting against government discrimination, and a person fighting for government discrimination.
That's nothing but an empty assertion that you're still right, followed by personal attacks. I'll let that speak for itself.
Yes it is (see above link to Kentucky government website).
Seriously? As has been demonstrated, one of the specifically stated duties of a county clerk in Kentucky is to issue marriage licenses. It doesn't say "Only to people of X religion" or "Only to people of X race", nor does it say "Only to people of X orientation". It merely says to issue the licenses.
And apparently you haven't been paying attention to the little fact that since the Obergefell ruling, she has refused to issue any marriage licenses to anyone at all. Therefore, she is refusing to perform a primary duty of her position. The judge ordered her to do her duties as she swore to do under oath, and she still refused. So he found her in contempt of court and put her in jail.
Pretty straight forward.
There is only one party here breaking the law....Kim Davis.
Jose Fly
New member
So we should ban fast food? :think:
Or promote healthy eating?
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Right ... it is the *reality* of your marriage that makes you so intent on protesting the marriages of complete strangers.
Protesting?
Yer a hoot.
This is a logical dialogue aimed at truth finding.
Jose Fly
New member
Why not? The legal objection you raised ("the Federal Supreme Court placed a burden to act upon a state officer without proper constitutional authority") applies in both cases.
In each case, the Supreme Court mandated actions from state officers. In Obergefell it was to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, in Loving it was to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples.
Yes it did. When the Loving decision was issued, 16 states had laws banning interracial marriages, thereby defining marriage as being between members of the same race.
Jose Fly
New member
Then neither is opposite sex marriage.
Jose Fly
New member
As long as you're not Michelle Obama. If someone on your team does it, they're trying to help. If you're Michelle Obama, you're a fascist.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
I said this was a logical discussion.
It is also a discussion for adults who can comprehend what legal precedents are.
When the majority turns to the law, it relies primarily on precedents discussing the fundamental “right to marry.” Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 95 (1987) ; Zablocki, 434 U. S., at 383; see Loving, 388 U. S., at 12. These cases do not hold, of course, that anyone who wants to get married has a constitutional right to do so. They instead require a State to justify barriers to marriage as that institution has always been understood. In Loving, the Court held that racial restrictions on the right to marry lacked a compelling justification. In Zablocki, restrictions based on child support debts did not suffice. In Turner, restrictions based on status as a prisoner were deemed impermissible.
None of the laws at issue in those cases purported to change the core definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The laws challenged in Zablocki and Turner did not define marriage as “the union of a man and a woman, where neither party owes child support or is in prison.” Nor did the interracial marriage ban at issue in Loving define marriage as “the union of a man and a woman of the same race.” See Tragen, Comment, Statutory Prohibitions Against Interracial Marriage, 32 Cal. L. Rev. 269 (1944) (“at common law there was no ban on interracial marriage”); post, at 11–12, n. 5 (Thomas, J., dissenting). Removing racial barriers to marriage therefore did not change what a marriage was any more than integrating schools changed what a school was. As the majority admits, the institution of “marriage” discussed in every one of these cases “presumed a relationship involving opposite-sex partners.” Ante, at 11.