KY - Rowan County clerk Kim Davis Jailed for Contempt, 2015

[kimlynn]

For the sake of argument, let's say a suit is filed and won, that the Supreme Court did not have the jurisdiction to make this law. Now it must be put forth in a national election or given back to the states. Now it loses in all or some places. Are people going to feel the same towards the person who is doing the same as KD, but on the other side? My position is that she has a right to her opinion and her beliefs, as do we all. I'm not going to vilify her, or call her a nut job. She may be, but I don't know that for a fact. Everybody is not on the same side of every issue. Our country is founded on the fact that we all have a say. (used to be the majority) I for one, if I lived in KY, would be willing to work out a compromise with her.
We talk a lot about gay/trans rights, black rights, etc, but what about everybody elses rights? The conservatives have rights, whites have rights, rich people have rights, Hispanics, Asians, Alaskans, the list is endless.
I give her credit for standing up for what she believes in, whether I agree with her or not.
All MOO only.

That compromise will cost thousands of dollars if they meet before the three months they are due to meet. She is one person. I don't think that sounds fair minded of her.IMO

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

For the sake of argument, let's say a suit is filed and won, that the Supreme Court did not have the jurisdiction to make this law. Now it must be put forth in a national election or given back to the states. Now it loses in all or some places. Are people going to feel the same towards the person who is doing the same as KD, but on the other side? My position is that she has a right to her opinion and her beliefs, as do we all. I'm not going to vilify her, or call her a nut job. She may be, but I don't know that for a fact. Everybody is not on the same side of every issue. Our country is founded on the fact that we all have a say. (used to be the majority) I for one, if I lived in KY, would be willing to work out a compromise with her.
We talk a lot about gay/trans rights, black rights, etc, but what about everybody elses rights? The conservatives have rights, whites have rights, rich people have rights, Hispanics, Asians, Alaskans, the list is endless.
I give her credit for standing up for what she believes in, whether I agree with her or not.
All MOO only.

The only way to change a Supreme Court ruling is through an amendment to the Constitution.

Ain't gonna happen.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[bwt42]

Media covers the stories that the public take the most interest in. They pay attention to the amount of clicks,comments, and emails on any given subject. I don't suppose it helped that Huckabee and Cruz rushed to her side and kept her in the news.
Just like some missing cases get more coverage than others. IMO

Can't click until the story has been introduced & made interesting by the media.

 

[kimlynn]

Can't click until the story has been introduced & made interesting by the media.

There is coverage of almost everything that happens in our world on various sites. It is the interest of the public that keeps some stories on the front page.IMO

 

[Tulessa]

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

https://www.facebook.com/TheGoodLor....1073741834.157750900979288/1542182479202783/

Guys, I promise not everyone in Kentucky is this dim witted. She's one of the few.

 

[La Louve]

I am not for one second defending Davis. If you go back and look at my earliest posts on this thread, I have been against her actions from the beginning.

However, yes, her case is the one that's getting all the MSM coverage because the court order that she's flouting is one that's popular with MSM. How many of you had even heard of the carry-permit situations in DC and San Diego, as well as other places? Why are there not news stories every day and national MSM coverage of those?

They should all have to follow the law. Not just the ones the MSM likes.

Davis rightfully was sent to jail. The DC police chief and San Diego sheriff should face a similar consequence. They don't even have the fallback position of it being "their religion." They just flat-out don't want people to have or carry guns, and they're taking the law into their own hands to make that happen.

BBM if that were true, then why are we not seeing news coverage of EVERY county clerk in the country that is not in compliance with the Supreme Court decision? Last I heard, there were 13 counties across the country that are not issuing marriage licenses to gay couples or to any couples. If MSM is driving the outrage then I would think by your logic that they would be covering all of the counties where this is occurring.

 

[La Louve]

One thing that would be different in your example- owning guns was legal when the person took the job, not a change after working the job for I believe 26 years.

Marriage is legal in Kentucky. Issuing marriage licenses is part of what Miss Kim's job has entailed for many years.

 

[KaaBoom]

For the sake of argument, let's say a suit is filed and won, that the Supreme Court did not have the jurisdiction to make this law.

The Supreme Court doesn't make laws. They rule on laws, and they are the highest court in the United States. They are the ultimate authority. So your hypothetical doesn't make any sense. It's impossible. Who is going to overrule the Supreme Court?

 

[bwt42]

There is coverage of almost everything that happens in our world on various sites. It is the interest of the public that keeps some stories on the front page.IMO

We are talking MSM. I agree the news media wants readership & therefore money. However, I believe the stories they choose to promote can be influenced by ideology. JMO

 

[kimlynn]

We are talking MSM. I agree the news media wants readership & therefore money. However, I believe the stories they choose to promote can be influenced by ideology. JMO

In some cases,yes. Fox news would be a prime example. But again it goes back to what their viewers and readers want. For instance not many liberals follow Fox so they play to their main audience in their coverage. IMO

 

[TorisMom003]

That compromise will cost thousands of dollars if they meet before the three months they are due to meet. She is one person. I don't think that sounds fair minded of her.IMO

I think she has already proven that she isn't fair minded. She believes it is her way or no way, just like so many other so called "Christians" that believe their religious beliefs trump the beliefs of anyone not like them.

MOO

 

[Donjeta]

For the sake of argument, let's say a suit is filed and won, that the Supreme Court did not have the jurisdiction to make this law. Now it must be put forth in a national election or given back to the states. Now it loses in all or some places. Are people going to feel the same towards the person who is doing the same as KD, but on the other side? My position is that she has a right to her opinion and her beliefs, as do we all. I'm not going to vilify her, or call her a nut job. She may be, but I don't know that for a fact. Everybody is not on the same side of every issue. Our country is founded on the fact that we all have a say. (used to be the majority) I for one, if I lived in KY, would be willing to work out a compromise with her.
We talk a lot about gay/trans rights, black rights, etc, but what about everybody elses rights? The conservatives have rights, whites have rights, rich people have rights, Hispanics, Asians, Alaskans, the list is endless.
I give her credit for standing up for what she believes in, whether I agree with her or not.
All MOO only.

JMO everyone has the right to their opinions and their beliefs and their faith. However, no one has the right to be in contempt of the court, and government officials do not have the right to deny people their legal rights.

MOO.

 

[bluesneakers]

I have seen so many of these lately. Fabio, Han Solo, Winston Zeddemore from Ghostbusters, Dana Scully, and others, but this is the one that made me laugh the loudest so I'm compelled to share.

 

[Donjeta]

(CNN)Kim Davis, America's highest-profile county clerk, returned to work Monday vowing to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

But that didn't stop Carmen and Shannon Wampler-Collins from successfully walking out of the Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk's office with a marriage license in hand.

...

The marriage license that the couple received said "pursuant to federal court order" on it, and instead of listing Davis' name and Rowan County, it says city of Morehead, the county seat.
...
"I'm ... confident and satisfied that the licenses that were issued last week (and) this morning substantially comply with the law in Kentucky," Gov. Steve Beshear told reporters Monday. "And they're going to be recognized as valid in the Commonwealth."
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/14/politics/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage-kentucky/

This may have been posted, it's not a fresh article, but worth a read:

As a prosecutor, I couldn't selectively prosecute individuals based on the laws with which I personally agreed. I was sworn to honor and enforce the laws as they were written. As an elected official, Davis can disagree with the laws, but she can't simply choose to disobey them.

She is not a private baker refusing to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples. She is an elected official with limited autonomy, who is required to perform her official duties, not the least of which includes certifying that a couple meets the legal requirements for marriage.

[video]http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/03/opinions/coates-clerk-same-sex-marriage-contempt/index.html[/video]

She is not being asked to personally condone or philosophically accept homosexuality. She is being asked to confirm whether the applicants meet the statutory criteria for marriage. And, under state law, and the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges in June, the applicants do in fact meet that criteria.

 

[sonjay]

The Supreme Court does not make or pass laws. Never did, never will. As for "jurisdiction." The Constitution of the United States of America assigns the Supreme Court of the United States of America the SOLE authority to decide constitutional issues brought before the Court.

Same- sex marriage was brought before the Court in the same manner all cases are ever brought before the Court. The Court justices then heard oral arguments, deliberated, and issued their ruling that same sex marriage is a constitutional right.

That is the END of the discussion about its legality. All done. Decided and over with.

Yep. SCOTUS decisions are final. Not because they're necessarily always right, but just because they're final. (In this case, I do believe they're right.)

Unless the holy-roller types manage to amend the constitution. Which the gun-grabber faction admits, when they're honest, they would have to do in order to ban guns. If the anti-gay-marriage faction has enough staying power, that will be on their agenda.

Fortunately, our constitution is very difficult to amend. The gun-grabbers won't be able to do it, and the holy-roller anti-gay-marriage people won't be able to do it. I hope.

 

[sonjay]

Media covers the stories that the public take the most interest in. They pay attention to the amount of clicks,comments, and emails on any given subject. I don't suppose it helped that Huckabee and Cruz rushed to her side and kept her in the news.
Just like some missing cases get more coverage than others. IMO

I disagree. IMO, media cover the stories that they're interested in.

I remember one of my journalism professors in college (I majored in journalism) used to say, "The media don't necessarily tell us what to think, but they tell us what to think about."

 

[bluesneakers]

Yep. SCOTUS decisions are final. Not because they're necessarily always right, but just because they're final. (In this case, I do believe they're right.)

Unless the holy-roller types manage to amend the constitution. Which the gun-grabber faction admits, when they're honest, they would have to do in order to ban guns. If the anti-gay-marriage faction has enough staying power, that will be on their agenda.

Fortunately, our constitution is very difficult to amend. The gun-grabbers won't be able to do it, and the holy-roller anti-gay-marriage people won't be able to do it. I hope.

The anti-gay marriage faction has its eyes set on turning America into its own theocracy. Simply changing the Constitution doesn't go far enough.

JMO.

 

[sonjay]

BBM if that were true, then why are we not seeing news coverage of EVERY county clerk in the country that is not in compliance with the Supreme Court decision? Last I heard, there were 13 counties across the country that are not issuing marriage licenses to gay couples or to any couples. If MSM is driving the outrage then I would think by your logic that they would be covering all of the counties where this is occurring.

Because they pick and choose. In their defense, they do have to pick and choose; there's simply not the time nor resources nor space to cover everything.

Why does one violent crime get major coverage and not another?
Why does Bruce->Caitlyn get huge coverage, but my trans brother didn't get any?
Why does one dead criminal get to be a hero in MSM, and another is just another dead criminal?
Why, for that matter. does W-S have major 100+-page threads on some crimes, but not a peep about others?

In this case, the media have their perfect poster child. KD is an apostolic something-or-other. So.... fundie. She's not very attractive. She dresses dowdy because of her religion. She's both a beneficiary and a dispenser of nepotism. She's been divorced multiple times. She's a great poster child because of the hypocrisy of someone like her judging the morality of other people's marriages.

MSM isn't covering all the counties where this is happening because they don't need all the counties to make it a huge story. They only need one good one. And this is indeed a good one.

 

[bluesneakers]

I disagree. IMO, media cover the stories that they're interested in.

I remember one of my journalism professors in college (I majored in journalism) used to say, "The media don't necessarily tell us what to think, but they tell us what to think about."

My journalism professor told us "The news is what people want and need to know." (Then we memorized a list to see if what we wanted to talk about met the criteria.)

Unfortunately a lot of media corps and journalists care more about pushing agendas, bottom line, and celebrity than they do about reporting news, so viewers who want to stay informed are stuck with limited options and have to triple-check everything.

 

[sonjay]

The Supreme Court doesn't make laws. They rule on laws, and they are the highest court in the United States. They are the ultimate authority. So your hypothetical doesn't make any sense. It's impossible. Who is going to overrule the Supreme Court?

Sometimes a later Supreme Court does.

Plessy vs. Ferguson was a SCOTUS decision.

Brown vs. Board of Education overruled it.