The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

He won't need to, because the state isn't going to go bankrupt over this.

The farthest this will possibly get is the judge throwing her in jail for contempt (which the US Marshals will happily do), and appointing someone from the office to take over as an acting clerk who will follow the law (likely not her son). She can then rot there till she agrees to do her job, resigns, or is forced out of office one way or the other, collecting fines the entire time.

I wouldn't think the Supreme Court has the power to appoint someone to an elected office. I'd rather expect that the county would have to hold a special election. In the meantime, it'd be likely that her staff continues to hold their leader's line of not issuing marriage licenses due to an overwhelming sense of loyalty - a great benefit to the leader anytime nepotism is the standing rule of the day.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

In the mythical hypothetical world where she takes it all the way to the supreme court on the merits and somehow gets cert granted and a full hearing, even Alito would vote against her because at this point it's not about her religion, it's about defying court orders. No judge is going to countenance that.

That might actually be the best result for the country. A 9-0 slap down that includes Scalia and Alito might actually wake the radicals up that their dream Second Nullification Crisis isn't going to happen. Doubly positive in that they are always draping themselves in their bizarro-world misreadings of the Constitution. The real dead-enders will of course never learn, but there are plenty of solid citizens who just don't have much of a grasp on the Constitution and honestly believe these types are in the right, and this would be a teachable moment for their own side's justices to educate them.

That is: if they did. Alito and Scalia seem so politicized I don't share your optimism that they'd play it straight.

 

[joecct]

The AG refused to defend her, and the current governor told every clerk to do their jobs or resign. What makes you think they'll stand up for her? There's a big difference between the legislature not impeaching, and being willing to go down with the ship.

I think KY will roll over. But one day the Feds will overreach and a State(s) will flip the great North American digit bird at Washington. Then we'll have the (by then) much needed Constitutional Convention.

EDIT: FOUND IT! In 2002 Justice Scalia weighed in.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2002/05/gods-justice-and-ours

 

[unofan]

I think KY will roll over. But one day the Feds will overreach and a State(s) will flip the great North American digit bird at Washington. Then we'll have the (by then) much needed Constitutional Convention.

Sure we will. If the civil rights act didn't cause it, I'm not sure what you think will. Again even the bigoted aren't necessarily stupid. You call a constitutional convention, you're as likely to get laws you hate implemented as much as the ones you like. That's always been the risk, and that's why no one does it.

The derps might want a more explicit second amendment and a repeal of the 14th, but they might wind up with explicit protections for abortion, gay marriage, and minimum wages as well.

 

[joecct]

Sure we will. If the civil rights act didn't cause it, I'm not sure what you think will. Again even the bigoted aren't necessarily stupid. You call a constitutional convention, you're as likely to get laws you hate implemented as much as the ones you like. That's always been the risk, and that's why no one does it.

The derps might want a more explicit second amendment and a repeal of the 14th, but they might wind up with explicit protections for abortion, gay marriage, and minimum wages as well.

Such is the art of compromise that gave us our current Constitution and a more perfect union.

Btw, see the edit of my previous post. It gives Ms. Davis no chance.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Lots of lefty websites are claiming she's been married four times, so if that's true, then Kim Davis is not exactly a poster child for "traditional" marriage. Interestingly, none of the MSM has picked up that tidbit, which has me wondering if it's true or not.

Is US News and World Report mainstream enough? They ran this.

I personally don't care what this woman says anymore to defend herself. She is covered in the stench of hypocrisy and my belief is she just hates (fears) gays. Simple as that.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

According to this:

According to Article V, Congress must call for an amendment-proposing convention, “on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States," meaning 34 state legislatures would have to submit applications. Once an Article V Convention has proposed an amendment or amendments, then the amendment or amendments would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 states) in order to become part of the Constitution.

Current breakdown of state leg majorities is 33 GOP, 16 Democratic. Nebraska has a non-partisan unicameral leg but I don't think anybody's going to complain if we put them in the GOP column. So in theory the GOP has the strength right now to force an Article V convention, at which they would need to move just 4 Democratic states to push through a given amendment.

It's doable, but God help us if we ever do it. Adams, Jefferson and Madison are not walking through that door.

 

[joecct]

Is US News and World Report mainstream enough? They ran this.

I personally don't care what this woman says anymore to defend herself. She is covered in the stench of hypocrisy and my belief is she just hates (fears) gays. Simple as that.

I would not go that far. She believes that marriage should be between one man and one woman (at a time). She is offended (but not harmed) when two people of the same sex present themselves to be married.

In this I agree with her.

But, in her position, she needs to issue the license or quit.

She can work tirelessly in her free time to get the law changed - that is her Constitutional right and no one can take it away from her. But she now must fish or cut bait.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

I think it is a valid act of protest to refuse to issue the license and take the consequences. The process is working inexorably towards those consequences. I have no problem with what anybody's doing in this situation.

I have no idea if she's motivated by faith or attention-seeking or a cash grab once she gets on the derp gravy train. It doesn't matter. Individuals ought to be able to throw themselves down on the track in front of the onrushing train if they want. I assume each of us can construct a situation in which we'd wholly approve of doing that. In supporting one we must support the right of all, regardless of how loathsome that individual and/or their cause is.

 

[unofan]

According to this:



Current breakdown of state leg majorities is 33 GOP, 16 Democratic. Nebraska has a non-partisan unicameral leg but I don't think anybody's going to complain if we put them in the GOP column. So in theory the GOP has the strength right now to force an Article V convention, at which they would need to move just 4 Democratic states to push through a given amendment.

It's doable, but God help us if we ever do it. Adams, Jefferson and Madison are not walking through that door.

Your numbers are a little off since it only counts lower houses and not state Senates. I think there's 10 or so that are split.

 

[LynahFan]

You're supposing that the State will roll over. What if they say "Enough is enough!" and tell the Feds to pound sand?

hHahhahahhahahahahhaa. I bet you creamed your pants a little just typing that. Even in KY, fewer than 60% of people oppose SSM. The State isn't going to challenge the SCOTUS with such tepid voter support.

 

[unofan]

I think it is a valid act of protest to refuse to issue the license and take the consequences. The process is working inexorably towards those consequences. I have no problem with what anybody's doing in this situation.

I have no idea if she's motivated by faith or attention-seeking or a cash grab once she gets on the derp gravy train. It doesn't matter. Individuals ought to be able to throw themselves down on the track in front of the onrushing train if they want. I assume each of us can construct a situation in which we'd wholly approve of doing that. In supporting one we must support the right of all, regardless of how loathsome that individual and/or their cause is.

I disagree. She went beyond conscientious objector when she refused to resign once her essential job functions conflicted with her religion. A Quaker doesn't enlist in the military, get assigned to the infantry, go to Iraq, and then claim he's a pacifist and can't actually shoot anyone.

She can protest as a citizen all she wants. She can't refuse to do her job, though. That's not how it works.

 

[LynahFan]

According to this:



Current breakdown of state leg majorities is 33 GOP, 16 Democratic. Nebraska has a non-partisan unicameral leg but I don't think anybody's going to complain if we put them in the GOP column. So in theory the GOP has the strength right now to force an Article V convention, at which they would need to move just 4 Democratic states to push through a given amendment.

It's doable, but God help us if we ever do it. Adams, Jefferson and Madison are not walking through that door.

Exactly. I can't think of a single politician in the last 60 years I would trust anywhere near a Framer's pen. Heck, I wouldn't even trust myself. You want to read what a modern constitution looks like, check out the Swiss one - if you have enough space on your hard drive to store it.

If Congress can stretch Obamacare to 2700 pages, I shudder to hink...

 

[geezer]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

I disagree. She went beyond conscientious objector when she refused to resign once her essential job functions conflicted with her religion. A Quaker doesn't enlist in the military, get assigned to the infantry, go to Iraq, and then claim he's a pacifist and can't actually shoot anyone.

She can protest as a citizen all she wants. She can't refuse to do her job, though. That's not how it works.

I pretty much agree, however in retrospect, the one thing that might get her a little sympathy is that the job requirements changed after she took it. I might listen to an argument about how she took the job, went through the training, and accumulated years of experience in her field (probably accruing benefits toward a retirement) with a certain understanding of what was required of her... then the rug was yanked out. That is to say, I'd listen to this argument for 3 or 4 minutes before firing her.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

hHahhahahhahahahahhaa. I bet you creamed your pants a little just typing that. Even in KY, fewer than 60% of people oppose SSM. The State isn't going to challenge the SCOTUS with such tepid voter support.

The other interesting tidbit is that her county actually appears to be one of the rare locations in Kentucky with a more liberal bent to it. http://www.politico.com/2014-election/results/map/senate/kentucky/#.VecXu5e0dgN

And, on a wholly unrelated note, while looking for the above link I discovered the Kentucky Secretary of State is kind of hot!

 

[Foxton]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

I pretty much agree, however in retrospect, the one thing that might get her a little sympathy is that the job requirements changed after she took it. I might listen to an argument about how she took the job, went through the training, and accumulated years of experience in her field (probably accruing benefits toward a retirement) with a certain understanding of what was required of her... then the rug was yanked out. That is to say, I'd listen to this argument for 3 or 4 minutes before firing her.

It'd take her far longer to come up with that justification, if she even could.

Video of her not doing her job and not understanding who she gets her authoritaaa from.
https://twitter.com/HillaryWKYT/status/638687018835423232

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

And, on a wholly unrelated note, while looking for the above link I discovered the Kentucky Secretary of State is kind of hot!

She's the woman who lost to McConnell in the last Senate election. She's hard-looking in real life, but hey, tastes vary.

 

[GrinCDXX]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

She's the woman who lost to McConnell in the last Senate election. She's hard-looking in real life, but hey, tastes vary.

And for about five minutes, there were even people entertaining the notion that she'd be able mount a serious challenge.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

And for about five minutes, there were even people entertaining the notion that she'd be able mount a serious challenge.

She's so purple she could convincingly run as a Republican in the first world states. But her campaign was amateurish and she wasn't going to get grassroots Democratic support for what was essentially a 1994 GOP platform that only looks left relative to a 2014 GOP platform.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Interesting take on whether Davis will become the next poster child for conservative victimhood entitlement.

Money shot:

What’s increasingly clear is that Davis’s legal team, which is being provided by the fringe right group Liberty Counsel, thinks that they are going to (turn) her case into a cause célèbre for the right to rally around, restoring the anti-gay momentum the right had just a few years ago. In their eagerness to make this happen, as Mark Joseph Stern of Slate points out, they are violating their basic duties as lawyers to look out for the best interest of their client. “When a federal judge ordered Davis to issue licenses or be held in contempt of court, the Liberty Counsel advised her to disobey the ruling,” he points out, even though doing so puts their client at real risk of going to jail for no good reason.

“Yet the Liberty Counsel didn’t mind putting their client at risk—perhaps because the idea of a middle-aged woman being hauled off to jail for purportedly following her conscience would send thousands of anti-gay Americans reaching for their pitchforks (and checkbooks),” Stern concludes.

Their behavior isn’t just unethical, but stupid. The mood on the right when it comes to this issue has clearly shifted. Conservatives still don’t support gay marriage, but they aren’t trying to ban it, either. At the recent Fox News Republican debate, Gov. John Kasich brought down the house by articulating this point of view, by saying he has attended a same-sex wedding and would even accept a child who was gay. So the issue is turning into one of those things, like cohabitation or listening to rap music, where conservatives will assert their right to pass judgment and be a pain in the *** about it, but they probably aren’t going to try to stop you anymore.