Kentucky clerk who refused gay couples taken into federal custody; ordered jailed

[Town Heretic]

...She is perfectly justified in deciding what is law and what's not. We all are, we do it every day routinely.

No, we don't. We only decide if we'll follow it and when we don't risk facing the consequences for our actions. The Court has issued its holding and, agree with it or not the only recourse would be Constitutional Amendment. There isn't enough support for that at present and likely won't ever be, given the generations coming up are more strongly behind the idea.

We will also be punished by people pushing such things as laws, and must react to that tyrannical action in morally correct ways.

There's no tyranny in allowing people to make their own choices.

Just like Obama?

Just like anyone, Trad. You're barking up the wrong tree with that approach.

That said, when I read the first complaint on that list: "Obama Administration uses IRS to target conservative, Christian and pro-Israel organizations, donors, and citizens." I wonder that you use it as source material.

"

Launched at the behest of Senate Republicans and initially led by right-wing stalwart C. Boyden Gray, the Committee for Justice exists primarily for the purpose of providing the appearance of "grassroots" support and activism for President George W. Bush's judicial nominees."​

It's a hard right wing pretense. If you want to call the President on the point use a legitimate source and not one dedicated to partisan distortion and advocacy.

 

[Traditio]

Just like anyone, Trad. You're barking up the wrong tree with that approach.

That said, when I read the first complaint on that list: "Obama Administration uses IRS to target conservative, Christian and pro-Israel organizations, donors, and citizens." I wonder that you use it as source material.

Yes, when I reviewed the list, I wasn't entirely impressed by all of them. There are at least some prima facie legitimate complaints on there, though. (In fact, I wonder about the fact that you are so quick to dismiss the IRS thing. Wasn't this a thing a while back? Fox news was all over it.)

If there's even one legitimate complaint, what do you say, TH?

Should Obama either resign or do his job? (E.g., should he start instructing the relevent authorities to start deportation processes on illegals and should he continue work on the Mexican-American border fence, or else, resign if he doesn't want to do so? That is the law, after all, isn't it?)

 

[Town Heretic]

Yes, when I reviewed the list, I wasn't entirely impressed by all of them.

I added some insight to my response. It's a right wing organization that was started to help Bush and continues as another partisan voice of undeniable bias.

There are at least some prima facie legitimate complaints on there, though. (In fact, I wonder about the fact that you are so quick to dismiss the IRS thing. Wasn't this a thing a while back? Fox news was all over it.)

Fox News has one of the worst rates of error in reporting so that's not a huge step up from the first right wing organization.

I don't legitimize the IRS assertion because there's no reason to. If conservatives could hang that on him they would. If there's ever an actual smoking gun then I say hold him accountable.

If there's even one legitimate complaint, what do you say, TH?

What I just said, what I'd say of anyone charged with the job of enforcement of law: do your job, vacate it or suffer the consequences. What court order is he refusing to enforce? What formal charge has been set against him?

Should Obama either resign or do his job? (E.g., should he start instructing the relevent authorities to start deportation processes and should he continue work on the Mexican-American border fence, or else, resign if he doesn't want to do so?)

What law obligates him to erect a fence on our border with Mexico? And are you saying no one is being deported or that you want to see more people deported and think he's dragging feet? Are you referring to his expansion of protection for people who arrived as children illegally? There's so much going on with immigration I may likely have missed something.

 

[moparguy]

No, we don't.

Yes. We do.

Even if our decision is "anything X says is law."

The Court has issued its holding and, agree with it or not the only recourse would be Constitutional Amendment.

Not true.

Again, the ruling is unconstitutional. Not only does the text of the "amendment" cited in no way support the conclusion reached, the 14th amendment isn't even an amendment. The 14th never received the required number of votes to pass constitutional and legal muster, and don't drag out the falsehood that the slave states would never have passed it, because the same legislatures that didn't pass the 14th DID pass the 13th. Do you consider the 13th law? why? Consistency? Bueller? Consistency? Bueller?

Obergefell is not law.

Anyone enforcing it is breaking the law.

 

[ok doser]

It's a hard right wing pretense. If you want to call the President on the point use a legitimate source...

what would satisfy your requirements for legitimacy?

a democrat? :darwinsm:


good one!

 

[Town Heretic]

Yes. We do.

Sorry, but you're factually wrong, so keep saying we do, but the law isn't something we negotiate as individuals. We can only decide to follow or violate the law.

The law is an objective truth. It doesn't rely on your subjective agreement. It's a bit like a wall that you can absolutely run into and head first, but not without cost and to you, not the wall.

Not true.

Completely and absolutely true. The Court has held and the only thing that can alter that is a Constitutional Amendment.

Again, the ruling is unconstitutional.

That's your opinion. It may well be any number of people's opinions. But the fact is the decider of what's Constitutional is the Court that ruled on the point. The legislature can enact law and the executive can enforce law, but the judiciary decides the Constitutionality of the law and it has.

...Obergefell is not law.

It's a holding that negated bad law. Do or don't accept that the wall is there, but be careful of your chin.

 

[ok doser]

The law is an objective truth.

God's Law?

yes


the crap you worship?

nope



and you'll stand before the Judgement Throne soon enough, trying to slither your way out of His Judgement

good luck with that

 

[Traditio]

I added some insight to my response. It's a right wing organization that was started to help Bush and continues as another partisan voice of undeniable bias.

To my mind, this doesn't in and of itself invalidate the source. This strikes me as sheer ad hominem.

Fox News has one of the worst rates of error in reporting so that's not a huge step up from the first right wing organization.

Do you have a non biased source (i.e., a non-liberal, non-democratic leaning source) that indicates this?

I don't legitimize the IRS assertion because there's no reason to. If conservatives could hang that on him they would. If there's ever an actual smoking gun then I say hold him accountable.

If it wasn't "on purpose," it sure was a mighty coincidence that all of those non-profits got targeted by the IRS. Just saying. :idunno:

What I just said, what I'd say of anyone charged with the job of enforcement of law: do your job, vacate it or suffer the consequences. What court order is he refusing to enforce? What formal charge has been set against him?

The fact that he hasn't been issued a court order doesn't really change things. I think that the site does indicate, fairly enough, that he hasn't exactly been gung ho about enforcing every law.

His execution of obamacare comes to mind. He just arbitrarily, on his own, decided to delay the execution of the business mandate, but not the individual mandate? Even though the letter of the law said that it was to be enacted at such and such a time? Without congress acting to change the law and its requirements?

I reiterate your very calls to Kim Davis: "Do your job or resign, Obama. Execute the laws."

What law obligates him to erect a fence on our border with Mexico? And are you saying no one is being deported or that you want to see more people deported and think he's dragging feet? Are you referring to his expansion of protection for people who arrived as children illegally? There's so much going on with immigration I may likely have missed something.

Number 4 on the list reads as follows:

"Obama has refused to build a double-barrier security fence along the U.S.-Mexican border in direct violation of the 2006 Secure Fence Act. This law requires that 'at least two layers of reinforced fencing' be built along America's 650-mile border with Mexico. So far, just 40 miles of this fence have been built – most of it during the Bush Administration."

Is there such a law? Does it make such a requirement? Has Obama executed it?

Number 20 also strikes me as fairly serious:

"Eager to use the killing of Osama bin Laden for political gain, Obama exposed the identity and method of operation of the Navy SEALs team that conducted the operation in Pakistan, thus exposing its members to a lifetime of risk because they have been targeted for assassination by Islamists. A short time after Obama exposed the Navy SEALs' method of operation, 22 SEALs were shot down and killed in Afghanistan. It is a violation of law for the President or any American to reveal classified military secrets."

What part of that strikes you as acceptable?

How about number 3?

"President Obama, throughout his Presidency, has refused to enforce long-established U.S. immigration laws. For example...

More than 300,000 captured illegal aliens had been processed and were awaiting deportation. But, incredibly, Obama stopped these deportations and ordered the U.S. border patrol to release many of these illegal aliens in violation of law and without explanation.

Congress rejected Obama's so called DREAM ACT – which would have granted permanent residency to many illegal aliens. So Obama enacted his own version of the DREAM ACT by Executive Order, thus directly defying Congress. According to Obama's Executive Order, illegal aliens can stay in America if they are under the age of 30, have been in America for at least five years, are enrolled in school or have graduated from high school, and have committed no felonies."

Do you deny that these are facts? If not, then why don't you reiterate your call, but this time, to Obama? "Do your job or resign."

 

[Town Heretic]

To my mind, this doesn't in and of itself invalidate the source. This strikes me as sheer ad hominem.

I don't care how it strikes you Trad. It's not an ad hom if it's true and with the least research you could ascertain that for yourself...or do this instead. It's of no particular matter to me how you paint yourself, so long as you know what you're doing.

Do you have a non biased source (i.e., a non-liberal, non-democratic leaning source) that indicates this?

I'm just not interested in playing this game with you. Look into it yourself. You'll find numerous examples like the following:

Fox News has...formally apologized for an “expert” who claimed last week that large swaths of European cities have been taken over by Muslim extremists. The completely unsubstantiated assertion drew the ire of many Europeans, including British Prime Minister David Cameron, who called Fox News terrorism expert Steven Emerson “a complete idiot.”​

I use it because here Fox is noting its own error. But you noted Fox looking at an allegation as though it somehow legitimized the concern. Not necessarily so.

If it wasn't "on purpose," it sure was a mighty coincidence that all of those non-profits got targeted by the IRS. Just saying. :idunno:

I don't know how objectively true the statement is on the whole, who was responsible to the extent it is true if it is, but I know that until there's actual proof of wrongdoing on the part of the President it doesn't amount to an indictment of him.

The fact that he hasn't been issued a court order doesn't really change things.

What things? It certainly invalidates it as much of a parallel to the current situation.

I think that the site does indicate, fairly enough, that he hasn't exactly been gung ho about enforcing every law.

Is that indictable? Do you know anything about prosecutorial discretion and how it's exercised? He's not gung-ho enough for you?

Sweet mother of pearl, form a posse.

His execution of obamacare comes to mind. He just arbitrarily, on his own, decided to delay the execution of the business mandate, but not the individual mandate? Even though the letter of the law said that it was to be enacted at such and such a time?

Sorry, but I don't have the specifics on that in front of me. What law are you alleging he violated and what, if anything, has Congress done about whatever the outrage was?

I reiterate your very calls to Kim Davis: "Do your job or resign, Obama. Execute the laws."

Well, that's a nice echo, but it needs particular teeth (I don't think your gung-ho is quite rising to it).

Number 4 on the list reads as follows: "Obama has refused to build a double-barrier security fence along the U.S.-Mexican border in direct violation of the 2006 Secure Fence Act. This law requires that 'at least two layers of reinforced fencing' be built along America's 650-mile border with Mexico. So far, just 40 miles of this fence have been built – most of it during the Bush Administration."

Is there such a law? Does it make such a requirement? Has Obama executed it?

It took me all of a minute to find the answer here. Maybe before you rest your hopes on it you might look into it as well. Mostly it's a question of funding. Congress said build it then failed to fund it sufficiently to finish it.

I'll hold off on any more of these until you spend at least as much effort as I just did to realize your alarm and scrutiny was misplaced. Given this and the first one we both realized was problematic I'm not placing a great deal of faith in the ability of this brain trust to keep their bias from overwhelming their judgment.

Do you deny that these are facts?

So far, yes. I skipped over the remainging for the reasons given, both in terms of your approach and the demonstrated untrustworthiness of the source.

why don't you reiterate your call, but this time, to Obama?

Because despite your best lazy efforts this isn't about the President and what you've offered isn't standing up. Else and if something does I've already answered on the point, for him or anyone.

 

[moparguy]

Sorry, but you're factually wrong, so keep saying we do,...

The Court has issued its holding and, agree with it or not the only recourse would be Constitutional Amendment.

Which is it; you DO decide what is law, or you DON'T? You here give the clear appearance of having decided that what the court has said, in alignment with what you (falsely) think is the constitutional standard *is law.*

Are you seriously going to try and have us believe the farce that you wouldn't/couldn't decide that a mafia goon pushing the protection scheme was or wasn't trying to enforce law? That you would have no internal standard for doing so?

We all routinely decide what is and what is not the law.

but the law isn't something we negotiate as individuals. We can only decide to follow or violate the law.

Only individuals can "negotiate law." Groups can't and don't make decisions or think.

Completely and absolutely true. The Court has held and the only thing that can alter that is a Constitutional Amendment.

Are you really that ignorant? Or that stupid?

If the people on the court said that the constitution gave everyone the right to knowingly and willfully kill everyone else they don't agree with, would you say "the court has ruled?" Would you also think that the constitution must mean what they said?

If you wouldn't, WHY? Would you try and appeal by saying anything like "that's not what the constituion means?"

Or are you really just a tyrannist, who prefers the oligarchy of 5 of 9 people, and you don't care one whit what the language of the constitution means?

That's your opinion. It may well be any number of people's opinions. But the fact is the decider of what's Constitutional is the Court that ruled on the point. The legislature can enact law and the executive can enforce law, but the judiciary decides the Constitutionality of the law and it has.

Not only is it my opinion, it's also THE TRUTH.

"The fact" ... if you're making appeal to the constitution, again, there IS NO 14th and even if there was the text of that false-non-amendment does not justify in any way the illegal ruling of the majority in obergefell.

It's a holding that negated bad law. Do or don't accept that the wall is there, but be careful of your chin.

Amazingly, you seem to be able to judge that a law is bad, when you've said that we can't decide what the law is. Wait, lemme guess, word games about "bad" now?

The *fact* is that the constitution in no way supports the obergefell majority.

 

[ok doser]

It's a holding that negated bad law.

but before it was negated, that "bad law" was good law?

 

[moparguy]

Apparently "the law" is only "the law" when it enforces what any given secularist/irrationalist agrees with.

The sexual anarchist rights movement was against the law. In fact, it's against "the law" in russia right now, yet I don't think these people would say the people should just "take it."

 

[Town Heretic]

Which is it; you DO decide what is law, or you DON'T?

There's no confusion or contradiction in what I've written. We were talking about individuals, first about the clerk. I said and it remains true that we don't as individuals decide what laws are valid. The laws are objective restraints and guarantees relating to right. Those rights and laws begin with the Constitution and the Court is charged with determining what meets or runs afoul of it.

So if you don't care for that you'll have to change the Constitution itself. And there's just not the will or numbers to do it.

You here give the clear appearance of having decided that what the court has said, in alignment with what you (falsely) think is the constitutional standard *is law.*

Rather, I'm just telling you the plain fact of it independent of your desire and belief.

We all routinely decide what is and what is not the law.

Just as demonstrably wrong as the first time you wrote it, supra and prior.

Are you really that ignorant? Or that stupid?

Well, I'm having a conversation with you, so I understand the speculation, but no. I have no more reason to think I'm either than I do to believe you're capable of sustained civil discourse.

If the people on the court said that the constitution gave everyone the right to knowingly and willfully kill everyone...

You don't have to go to hypothetical extremes for that point though. We have laws that legalize killing right now. Abortion. Is it the law? Absolutely. Is it morally objectionable? I believe so. Would I perform an abortion if someone added it to my duties as an attorney? No, I wouldn't. And I'd take whatever consequence came with that position. Wouldn't alter the fact of the law though.

Or are you really just a tyrannist, who prefers the oligarchy of 5 of 9 people, and you don't care one whit what the language of the constitution means?

As I said to someone earlier, allowing people the freedom to make choices relating to their own personal and moral consequence isn't tyranny. Denying them that can be.

Not only is it my opinion, it's also THE TRUTH.

No, but with all the shouting and name calling I can tell you believe it. I've told you the truth. You just don't like it. Well, you don't have to. I don't always, but it doesn't alter it.

I'm continuing to step around your notions regarding constitutionality because it just doesn't control anything and given the name calling and shouting I'm fairly sure you wouldn't listen to me anyway.

Amazingly, you seem to be able to judge that a law is bad, when you've said that we can't decide what the law is.

I've said we don't determine the law as individuals. I've never said anyone isn't free to an opinion about whether a law is just or unjust, well reasoned or idiotic.

 

[bybee]

but before it was negated, that "bad law" was good law?

He didn't say that. You are back putting words in other peoples posts that they did not say?
He is just giving the facts of law. If we don't like a law we may seek to change it. Or we may disobey it and take the consequences of that choice.
There are certainly laws with which I disagree. Speed limits and lane closures when no one is working on the road for instance.
Legalized abortions also stupefy me and as a nurse I would not participate.
Some laws simply force us to play fair whether we want to or not.
I value my own freedom to choose my life style, my religion and my family commitments. So, to play fair means I must protect that freedom for all or it may cease to exist for me.
Standing up for freedom does not mean nor imply approval of all possible choices.
God has granted us freedom of choice and I do believe He must be appalled most of the time by our choices.
So we have Jesus Christ the righteous as our mediator and advocate.

 

[patrick jane]

There is so much misinformation floating around these days... That is correct - "the law is the law"... and Kim Davis was following the law to the T. Number 6 of the Marriage License law of Kentucky states, that same sex marriages are prohibited.

Unfortunately, we in the United States, currently have a renegade government and Supreme Court which chooses to ignore the laws of the land.

The Supreme Court overstepped its bounds when it redefined marriage to include same sex unions, as it did when it made healthcare a taxable requirement.

The Supreme Court cannot make laws... It can only offer opinion, and the only Marriage License Law that is current and active today in the state of Kentucky, states that same sex marriages are prohibited.

So Kim Davis was following the law, and Judge Bunning should be removed from the bench for allowing his personal feelings to cloud his judgement to the point of imprisoning a sworn official for upholding the law.

good post.

and, with 1 post you are already well respected by your peers, very good. zero rep and 1 post, still well respected - welcome !

 

[ok doser]

He didn't say that.

hence the question mark ---> ? , denoting a question


and he can answer for himself

 

[moparguy]

There's no confusion or contradiction in what I've written.

You said that you don't decide what is law. Than you said something was the law. You determined that something was law. I presume it's now onto word-games about "determined," when what you meant was clear.

We were talking about individuals, first about the clerk. I said and it remains true that we don't as individuals decide what laws are valid.

And yet you have, as in individual, DECIDED that obergefell IS LAW. Note, to avoid stupid word games, I mean that you internally thought about obergefell and decided that it was indeed law.

You've clipped out: Are you seriously going to try and have us believe the farce that you wouldn't/couldn't decide that a mafia goon pushing the protection scheme was or wasn't trying to enforce law? That you would have no internal standard for doing so?

Well? Could you decide if the protection racket wasn't law? If you could, you'd than be determining, as an individual, that something isn't law.

The laws are objective restraints and guarantees relating to right. Those rights and laws begin with the Constitution and the Court is charged with determining what meets or runs afoul of it.

You are here expressing standards for determining what is and what is not law. There is no silly infinite regress here, at some point you decided internally for whatever reason what was/was not law.

So if you don't care for that you'll have to change the Constitution itself. And there's just not the will or numbers to do it.

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT NEVER PASSED AND THE TEXT OF IT DOES NOT GIVE ANY JUSTIFYING GROUNDS FOR THE OBERGEFELL RULING.

Now, either we can keep going back and forth, or we can move forwards and start assessing the justification of our statements. Or you can engage in games-playing for no good reason.

Rather, I'm just telling you the plain fact of it independent of your desire and belief.

I know what your position is. You say "it's the law" and "the court has ruled" and make vague references to the constitution; that's your stated position. Are you simply unable or unwilling to move on from that point to justify your position? Or did you make a more full statement of your position and I missed it?

Just as demonstrably wrong as the first time you wrote it, supra and prior.

And yet you refuse to demonstrate why it's wrong. I'm beginning to suspect/believe you don't even know what my words mean, and that you're seeing a bit of text, deciding it doesn't agree with you, and just putting the same thing onto the screen, again and again, in response only to the vague idea in your head. *can you* make a semi-concise statement of what you think is my position, in your own words? Or will you make some sort of excuse and back out of doing so? Or just say nothing and shirk the very idea?

Well, I'm having a conversation with you, so I understand the speculation, but no. I have no more reason to think I'm either than I do to believe you're capable of sustained civil discourse.

If you were civil, I'd be civil to you. "Civil" includes more than being "sweet."

You don't have to go to hypothetical extremes for that point though. We have laws that legalize killing right now. Abortion. Is it the law? Absolutely. Is it morally objectionable? I believe so. Would I perform an abortion if someone added it to my duties as an attorney? No, I wouldn't. And I'd take whatever consequence came with that position. Wouldn't alter the fact of the law though.

I don't know you well enough to know what you'd object to for sure, so I chose something that I was pretty sure you'd object to.

You selectively (and quite handily for yourself) clipped this section out: would you say "the court has ruled?" Would you also think that the constitution must mean what they said? If you wouldn't, WHY? Would you try and appeal by saying anything like "that's not what the constituion means?"
Why are you avoiding this?

The state can not enforce immorality; to enforce such is not to enforce law, *by definition of what law is.*

As I said to someone earlier, allowing people the freedom to make choices relating to their own personal and moral consequence isn't tyranny. Denying them that can be.

What you've just stated gives no appearance of having anything at all to do with the content of what I posted.

I'm continuing to step around your notions regarding constitutionality because it just doesn't control anything and given the name calling and shouting I'm fairly sure you wouldn't listen to me anyway.

Are you saying that the constitution has no control over what is and what is not law? If you mean something else, it's not clear what you mean. Why the shouting and blunt questions? You're uncivil. You don't hand the mint-julep tea and parasol and be oh-so-sweet to the local troll under the bridge if you want an intellectually honest and hopefully worthwhile interaction with him. Yes, i just unfavorably compared you to a troll; mostly because you play word-games, not only with my words but your own as well.

I've said we don't determine the law as individuals. I've never said anyone isn't free to an opinion about whether a law is just or unjust, well reasoned or idiotic.

Now it's word games over "determined." If only you'd use your thinking ability to do something besides being intellectually dishonest and hypocritical to keep out of a corner you've painted yourself into.

Your opinion about what is and is not law is what you think is and is not law. You have just admitted yet again that you determined what you will and will not call law. Calling it "opinion" doesn't let you off the hook.

You determine what is and is not law, than you say you've not done so, than you give a standard for determining what is and is not law.

 

[bybee]

I interpreted his words to state that the law is determined by our elected officials and defined by the Judicial system.
What we as citizens decide is whether or not we shall obey the law.
We also decide whether or not we shall work to change the laws with which we disagree.
We live in society. I have believed that the laws are written so as to obtain the greatest good for the most people and protect us from those with intent to harm.

 

[bybee]

hence the question mark ---> ? , denoting a question


and he can answer for himself

This is an open discussion forum. We are all free to make comments.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Of course, then you need to present an argument for why homosexuality is immoral. Citing the Bible is not an argument.

Citing the Bible to prove homosexuality is immoral is a perfectly fine argument.
The reason: Homosexuality is listed as being worthy of the death penalty.