News Article: Kentucky Clerk Is Due In Federal Court For Contempt Hearing

[81usaf92]

Succinctly put, the public will just have to deal with it. Public sentiment is not a reason to deny rights. That would be an endorsement of the "tyranny of the majority". That is precisely why we are a democratic constitutional republic and NOT a democracy.

While the the military is a small entity it still comprised of citizens of the us from all 50
States and us territories. So it is a decent size to experiment on social actions and reactions. But I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on what the rate of speed social change should be implemented as long as it eventually changes.

This is probably my last post here because this thread has gone past jumping the shark, and is teetering into the nuking the fridge category.

 

[Tide1986]

Succinctly put, the public will just have to deal with it. Public sentiment is not a reason to deny rights. That would be an endorsement of the "tyranny of the majority". That is precisely why we are a democratic constitutional republic and NOT a democracy.

Oligarchical rule versus majority rule...interesting dilemma.

 

[cbi1972]

Upholding equal protection is not tyrannical.

Preventing you from forcing your beliefs on others is not oppression.

If you don't feel comfortable doing what your job requires, quit.

 

[92tide]

Upholding equal protection is not tyrannical.

Preventing you from forcing your beliefs on others is not oppression.

If you don't feel comfortable doing what your job requires, quit.

you monster

 

[NationalTitles18]

Oligarchical rule versus majority rule...interesting dilemma.

The judicial branch is merely doing the job it was created to do. That is not oligarchy. Add to this the fact that the courts have upheld the right of the individual over the right of the majority and the oligarchy angle makes even less sense. Individual rights are inherent. They do not need a majority to approve them. Sometimes they do need a court to recognize them.

 

[Tide1986]

The judicial branch is merely doing the job it was created to do. That is not oligarchy. Add to this the fact that the courts have upheld the right of the individual over the right of the majority and the oligarchy angle makes even less sense. Individual rights are inherent. They do not need a majority to approve them. Sometimes they do need a court to recognize them.

When rights are manufactured out of thin air, I think oligarchical is an appropriate characterization.

 

[Jon]

When rights are manufactured out of thin air, I think oligarchical is an appropriate characterization.

no rights were manufactured out of thin air. Legal adults have always had the right to marry in this country all that happened was these rights were extended to everyone finally. Again this exactly what happened in Loving in 1967. It was right then, it's right now though its a shame it took so freaking long.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

When rights are manufactured out of thin air, I think oligarchical is an appropriate characterization.

"A form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few." If we are governed by the few, it's located on Wall St., not in the court system...

 

[NationalTitles18]

When rights are manufactured out of thin air, I think oligarchical is an appropriate characterization.

no rights were manufactured out of thin air. Legal adults have always had the right to marry in this country all that happened was these rights were extended to everyone finally. Again this exactly what happened in Loving in 1967. It was right then, it's right now though its a shame it took so freaking long.

No right was manufactured. It was always there. The court only recognized that the right included the ability to marry someone of the same sex. Government can neither grant nor rescind rights. It can recognize them or fail to do so. It had before failed to do so. How is protecting the individual from the tyranny of the majority oligarchical? If anything, it empowers the individual, which is just the opposite.

 

[Tide1986]

No right was manufactured. It was always there. The court only recognized that the right included the ability to marry someone of the same sex. Government can neither grant nor rescind rights. It can recognize them or fail to do so. It had before failed to do so. How is protecting the individual from the tyranny of the majority oligarchical? If anything, it empowers the individual, which is just the opposite.

The fact that people over the centuries have gotten "married" does not in and of itself mean that marriage is an inalienable right.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

The fact that people over the centuries have gotten "married" does not in and of itself mean that marriage is an inalienable right.

Nothing about your argument will change anything.

The law of the land is that any two people can get married. A publicly-elected official is sworn to uphold the law of the land. She can (1) abide by the SCOTUS ruling, (2) resign (or be barred from office) and presumably try to get SCOTUS to reverse itself, or (3) be held in contempt.

The law of the USA is what SCOTUS says it is. I don't always agree with it, but thus far I don't have the power to nullify the highest court we have.

You can live with it, try to change it (good luck there), or move to a country that bans same-sex marriage. But if you do, rent.

Don't buy because it won't be that way for long. Then you'll have to sell and move to yet another country. The realtor commissions alone will eat you alive.

 

[Tide1986]

Nothing about your argument will change anything.

To be clear, I have never been under the impression that my musings would.

 

[TRUTIDE]

When rights are manufactured out of thin air, I think oligarchical is an appropriate characterization.

You are right. The result of five judges biased opinions has created a new right that did not exist before. Everyone has always had the right to marry anyone of the opposite sex regardless of what state you live in. This ruling created new, special rights to a particular group based entirely on sexual preference. What type of precedent does this set?

Just two years ago, the SCOTUS affirmed that marraige was a issue to be defined by the states. Was that ruling unconstitutional? If these state,s laws are deemed unconstitutional today, what were they two months ago? Constitutional? The court has become too politicized to be the balancing power it was intended to be. What does it say for our SCOTUS when two of the justices in the majority of this opinion had already been presiding over same sex marriages? Has the SCOTUS become so powerful in this country that it is above judicial ethics?

 

[4Q Basket Case]

You are right. The result of five judges biased opinions has created a new right that did not exist before. Everyone has always had the right to marry anyone of the opposite sex regardless of what state you live in. This ruling created new, special rights to a particular group based entirely on sexual preference. What type of precedent does this set?

Just two years ago, the SCOTUS affirmed that marraige was a issue to be defined by the states. Was that ruling unconstitutional? If these state,s laws are deemed unconstitutional today, what were they two months ago? Constitutional? The court has become too politicized to be the balancing power it was intended to be. What does it say for our SCOTUS when two of the justices in the majority of this opinion had already been presiding over same sex marriages? Has the SCOTUS become so powerful in this country that it is above judicial ethics?

The Constitution and judicial ethics are what the Supreme Court say they are.

This is why the selection of justices is so important.

But guys, this is nowhere near their worst decision.

Second worst is upholding Obamacare.

The worst in 150 years was one several years ago allowing the use of imminent domain to force the sale of privately-owned property to a private entity that would generate more property tax than would be accomplished under the former use.

I'm in favor of imminent domain for public works...bridges, widening roads, interstates, publicly owned sewage treatment plants and the like. But force sale of private property so some other private entity can turn a profit, under the guise that it will pay higher taxes? Worst decision since Dred Scott.

 

[Tide1986]

The Constitution and judicial ethics are what the Supreme Court say they are.

This is why the selection of justices is so important.

But guys, this is nowhere near their worst decision.

Second worst is upholding Obamacare.

The worst in 150 years was one several years ago allowing the use of imminent domain to force the sale of privately-owned property to a private entity that would generate more property tax than would be accomplished under the former use.

I'm in favor of imminent domain for public works...bridges, widening roads, interstates, publicly owned sewage treatment plants and the like. But force sale of private property so some other private entity can turn a profit, under the guise that it will pay higher taxes? Worst decision since Dred Scott.

Wickard v. Filburn (1942) was pretty egregious.

 

[Jon]

The Constitution and judicial ethics are what the Supreme Court say they are.

This is why the selection of justices is so important.

But guys, this is nowhere near their worst decision.

Second worst is upholding Obamacare.

The worst in 150 years was one several years ago allowing the use of imminent domain to force the sale of privately-owned property to a private entity that would generate more property tax than would be accomplished under the former use.

I'm in favor of imminent domain for public works...bridges, widening roads, interstates, publicly owned sewage treatment plants and the like. But force sale of private property so some other private entity can turn a profit, under the guise that it will pay higher taxes? Worst decision since Dred Scott.

Kelo V New London a terrible ruling. Last I saw the land that was taken from Kelo (and others) still hadn't been developed this was a year or two ago

 

[TRUTIDE]

It is hard to argue that the Kelo judgement is not the worst. It went against established precedent. If anthing good came out of it, it was the safeguards put in place by many states and the executive order it produced (not sure if the executive order carried through to current admin).

At one time , I had thought that it was a good thing that all of the Republican appointees were not hard core, party line conservatives (some but certainly not all). I thought of it as a benefit for the court. When this is not practiced on the other side, it can lead to some of the illogical rulings we are seeing today. Even though the Kelo decision was under the Rehnquist court, many of the same are still on the Robert's court and Roberts hisself seems to be as activist as any of them. Even if he was on the dissenting side of this recent ruling, he has lost all credibility as a objective jurist. It shows in his court.

 

[cbi1972]

The fact that people over the centuries have gotten "married" does not in and of itself mean that marriage is an inalienable right.

You're right, but only trivially. The longevity of an activity doesn't automatically legitimize it. People have always done awful things they aren't entitled to do, but marriage is not in that category. In fact, we deliberately incentivize it. And we, as a nation, are founded on the ideals of liberty, and the idea that if there is insufficient reason to prohibit something, then it should be permitted. I wish people took this more seriously, instead of always wanting to control others when they might do something they personally disagree with.

 

[bamabelle1991]

Sure they are. I could give you several examples that have happened within the last few years, but that will continue to throw the thread off of the issue at hand. I will give you just one. There is a particularly loud LGBT rights advocate in our area that knows me very well. I live in a pretty solid bastion of religious belief where the vast majority believe very closely with me. I was having a bible study with a friend of my daughter in a nice little public park. She happened to be driving by and saw me. Knowing me, and seeing what I was doing she stopped her car, got out and informed me that I was not allowed to do this in a public place paid for by her tax money, that she would disrupt until I stopped, then started in on my daughter and her friend with her own views.

Wow!! I'm a supporter of LGBT rights, but what this idiot doesn't understand is that you BOTH have the right to be in the public park and do whatever you please!! What she did just set her argument back. That is what an extremist doesn't understand--when you bombard and harass people to get your viewpoint across, you risk turning people off. I hope you continued on with your Bible study and told her to mind her own business.

 

[cbi1972]

I'm still curious as to the moral obligations of government workers. If you are the magistrate judge after Dred Scott, the train conductor on the way to a German death camp, or a bus driver in 1950s Montgomery, does morality require you to simply step aside and let someone else do the thing you find morally reprehensible, or does it require you to take a stand? I still think that is the interesting question out of all this. For better or worse, the actual issue of gay marriage is settled.

The law isn't really interested in the moral obligations that government workers believe they have.

Sure you can take a stand.

Taking a stand is about living with the consequences of your actions, deeming the principle important enough to risk life and liberty over.

In my opinion, history will not treat obstruction of gay rights as a noble cause. Characterizing it as a battle of religious freedom makes a mockery of actual issues of religious persecution.