• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Same-sex couple can seek damages from Kentucky clerk: U.S. appeals court

JANFU

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
68,565
Reaction score
51,710
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Same-sex couple can seek damages from Kentucky clerk: U.S. appeals court | Reuters

A federal appeals court on Tuesday revived a damages lawsuit against Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who in 2015 refused to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples because it conflicted with her Christian beliefs.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati said a lower court judge erred in finding that damages claims by David Ermold and David Moore became moot, after a new state law last July excused clerks like Davis, from Rowan County, from having to sign marriage license forms.
Click to expand...
Amending a law does not detract from the fact she broke the law and as such consequences follow.
How the Judge arrived at this conclusion is beyond me.
Thoughts are?
 
Skeptic Bob said:
Devil's Advocate: If the federal government legalized marijuana today, should the DEA still be able to arrest and charge someone if they have evidence that someone possessed marijuana yesterday?
Click to expand...

Yes...If the charges were before the day it became legal. Same questions are coming up north here, where it should be legalized, 01 Jul, 2018
 
JANFU said:
Same-sex couple can seek damages from Kentucky clerk: U.S. appeals court | Reuters


Amending a law does not detract from the fact she broke the law and as such consequences follow.
How the Judge arrived at this conclusion is beyond me.
Thoughts are?
Click to expand...

It looks like the court reached the correct decision -- if the damages claim stems from an action by Davis which took place before Kentucky changed the law, then the claim is not rendered moot because the law changed after she did what she did.

There's no decision on the merits of their claim, only that it's not moot.
 
Harshaw said:
It looks like the court reached the correct decision -- if the damages claim stems from an action by Davis which took place before Kentucky changed the law, then the claim is not rendered moot because the law changed after she did what she did.

There's no decision on the merits of their claim, only that it's not moot.
Click to expand...
Yep, exactly.

Also, this is a suit for civil damages arising from the defendant's actions on a specific day or set of days. Based upon those actions (taken by the defendant), the plaintiffs may indeed be due compensation!
 
What damages? Davis was also already punished for this whole mess, so I don't see how this is at all appropriate at this point. The couple should just move on from the whole situation.
 
Henrin said:
What damages? Davis was also already punished for this whole mess, so I don't see how this is at all appropriate at this point. The couple should just move on from the whole situation.
Click to expand...

Did the couple suing punish them? Nope- her actions did
 
JANFU said:
Did the couple suing punish them? Nope- her actions did
Click to expand...

And? Regardless of anything you just said the state will be the party that will be punishing her twice for the same action.
 
Henrin said:
And? Regardless of anything you just said the state will be the party that will be punishing her twice for the same action.
Click to expand...

How is the State punishing her twice??
She broke the law, sent to jail- then was sued, and as a civil suit this is not the State but 2 individuals who launched legal action.
 
JANFU said:
How is the State punishing her twice??
She broke the law, sent to jail- then was sued, and as a civil suit this is not the State but 2 individuals who launched legal action.
Click to expand...

Who do you think actually delivers the punishment in lawsuit cases? Do you think the state finding in their favor and punishing her for the same act again isn't somehow punishing her for the same thing twice?
 
Henrin said:
Who do you think actually delivers the punishment in lawsuit cases? Do you think the state finding in their favor and punishing her for the same act again isn't somehow punishing her for the same thing twice?
Click to expand...

Kerist on a Cross, I knew you would return with that nonsense.
 
JANFU said:
Kerist on a Cross, I knew you would return with that nonsense.
Click to expand...

So what is the lawsuit about? Denial of service. What was she already punished for? Denial of service. Is the two cases about the same denial of service? Yes, they are. So with that mind how is the state not looking to punish her twice for the same thing?
 
Henrin said:
So what is the lawsuit about? Denial of service. What was she already punished for? Denial of service. Is the two cases about the same denial of service? Yes, they are. So with that mind how is the state not looking to punish her twice for the same thing?
Click to expand...

Whose mind are you referring to?
 
apdst said:
The sanctuary cities aren't obeying the law. You support that, so it must be differeeeeeeeeeent.
Click to expand...

Newp. You have no idea what I support, and Kim Davis was in violation of federal case law.

Bummer for you, man.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Newp. You have no idea what I support, and Kim Davis was in violation of federal case law.

Bummer for you, man.
Click to expand...

The courts can't make law. I knew I would get to say that...LMAO!
 
apdst said:
Case law isn't law. Courts can't make law.
Click to expand...

It's OK that you don't understand case law and that decisions by the Supreme Court are final.

You can wish reality away all you'd like, but it won't change a thing.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
It's OK that you don't understand case law and that decisions by the Supreme Court are final.

You can wish reality away all you'd like, but it won't change a thing.
Click to expand...

No, Supreme Court decisions aren't final. Congress can overturn a court decision. It's called, "checks and balances". :lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom