• 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

No, Supreme Court decisions aren't final. Congress can overturn a court decision. It's called, "checks and balances". :lamo

Wow. Fell asleep for both years of 7th and 8th grade civics, I see.

My point stands uncontested. Sorry that's a cruel reality.
 
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.

And sadly the Supreme Court has on occasion changed its mind. That in itself should scare anyone believing them to be GOD!
 
Wow. Fell asleep for both years of 7th and 8th grade civics, I see.

My point stands uncontested. Sorry that's a cruel reality.

Yeah, keep believing that court decisions can't be overturned by Congress. This is going to be fun! :lamo
 
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?

In America, only if he is black.
 
Why are you so ignorant of our system of government?

I'm not. I'm the one exposing your utter ignorance of it.

You seem really, really confused, and I'm always happy to lend a hand. How can I help you out?
 
I'm not. I'm the one exposing your utter ignorance of it.

You seem really, really confused, and I'm always happy to lend a hand. How can I help you out?

You said the Supreme court has the final word. That isn't true.
 
What are the damages? I absolutely agree that the clerk got what she had coming, but what "damages" are they suing for? It's all about the money after all.

No it is about being denied their rights.
 
In order to sue for damages you have to show them. Im not sure what kind of damages they can show from her actions. I do agree that they can sue of they want to but it comes across as a publicity stunt more than anything else.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
In order to sue for damages you have to show them. Im not sure what kind of damages they can show from her actions. I do agree that they can sue of they want to but it comes across as a publicity stunt more than anything else.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Agreed, the suing party must show material harm, and with that showing, made whole. That is the foundation of civil liability in this nation and has been for centuries. The Plaintiffs must show harm, not hurt feelings, that doesn't count, never has.


Tim-
 
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?

This particular clerk went out of her way to stop others in her office from issuing the licenses as well. If it weren't for that, perhaps I could see your point. Since she did, I am not sure even the new law would shield her from that part of her actions.
 
This particular clerk went out of her way to stop others in her office from issuing the licenses as well. If it weren't for that, perhaps I could see your point. Since she did, I am not sure even the new law would shield her from that part of her actions.

She broke the law, even as mentioned had others doing the same thing. The first and most important is she broke the law, was ordered to perform SSMs, did not, and she deserves what she got. Sued.

Now this is a small county, approx 23 K. Many people know of or know someone in such a small area. I have no doubt this couple suffered some personal verbal abuse from the original court case and would include being blamed for causing it.
So in my books, she earned it, the stupid and bigoted way
 
She broke the law, even as mentioned had others doing the same thing. The first and most important is she broke the law, was ordered to perform SSMs, did not, and she deserves what she got. Sued.

Now this is a small county, approx 23 K. Many people know of or know someone in such a small area. I have no doubt this couple suffered some personal verbal abuse from the original court case and would include being blamed for causing it.
So in my books, she earned it, the stupid and bigoted way

Then you are not looking at this just from the legal question if you think she is somehow personally responsible for comments other people made to this couple as a result of their politcal stunt. IIRC this is the case where the couple weren't even from that county and went to that same clerk's office repeatedly because they knew they would get denied because they wanted to fashion themselves victims, knowing full well that clerk's offices in the surrounding counties had already been issuing the licenses. I am not defending her position, but this couple clearly invited any "personal verbal abuse" and "blame".
 
Then you are not looking at this just from the legal question if you think she is somehow personally responsible for comments other people made to this couple as a result of their politcal stunt. IIRC this is the case where the couple weren't even from that county and went to that same clerk's office repeatedly because they knew they would get denied because they wanted to fashion themselves victims, knowing full well that clerk's offices in the surrounding counties had already been issuing the licenses. I am not defending her position, but this couple clearly invited any "personal verbal abuse" and "blame".

Pls read my post again. My first line was she broke the law, she also failed to obey the Judges orders.
My last line was she was bigoted and stupid. Stupid as she repeatedly interfered, failed to follows the courts rulings. She deserves what she gets.
My comments on the rural aspect is what happens when you go against the grain. Even when you are right, you will pay a social price.
I have no information they repeatedly went to her. IIRC it was due to location and they resided in that county.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Davis

A few months later, Obergefell v. Hodges was decided and all county clerks were ordered to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Davis refused, citing her religious opposition to same-sex marriage. Couples represented by the American Civil Liberties Union who had been denied marriage licenses from Davis filed and won a lawsuit against her, Miller v. Davis, and she was ordered to comply with the decision of the U.S. District Court and start issuing marriage licenses. Her lawyers tried to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the application to appeal was denied. Davis continued to defy the court order, refusing to issue marriage licenses, and was ultimately jailed for contempt of court. She was released from jail five days later, under the condition that she not interfere with the efforts of her deputy clerks, who had started issuing marriage licenses to all couples. Davis then modified the Kentucky marriage licenses to no longer mention her name. The Attorney General of Kentucky said that because the matter was already being handled by the federal court, there would be no appointment of a special prosecutor to pursue charges of official misconduct against her. Several weeks later, Davis announced she had met with Pope Francis in Washington, D.C.; the Holy See Press Office clarified that the Pope met with many others and that the meeting was not a form of support for her actions.
 
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?

If clerk Davis violated the law prior to the law being amended, you can't "grandfather" her into the new provisions of law that would now make her exempt and, thus, not liable for her unlawful action(s).

The appeals court was right to overturn the verdict. Mrs. Davis should be held liable under the law as it existed at the time the violation(s) was/were committed.
 
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?

Actually, that's a catch-22.

DEA (or other law enforcement) may have evidence that you broke the law by possessing marijuana before said possession became legal, BUT if the perpetrator was not arrested and/or detained prior to the law being changed, having evidence of the commission of the crime in this case (I would think) would become void the moment marijuana possession became legal.

The evidence, for example, could simply be surveillance photographs or an audio record of you claiming to already be in possession of an illegal substance but trying to obtain more from a drug dealer. Of course, if law enforcement hadn't made the arrest prior to the law being changed, I don't think they can charge you with the crime once the law has been changed.

Having said that, this situation w/Mrs. Davis is quite different in that she was already taken to court and the judge initially ruled against her. Her verdict was overturned not because some new evidence was found making her innocent or some legal procedure wasn't followed that would have gotten her off the hook. Her ruling was overturned only because the law she violated was amended after the fact. Sorry, but unless the amendment "grandfathered" her in (which I seriously doubt happened), her original conviction should stand.

The 6th Court of Appeals was right to flip the verdict back to the original conviction.
 
Last edited:
Actually, that's a catch-22.

DEA (or other law enforcement) may have evidence that you broke the law by possessing marijuana before said possession became legal, BUT if the perpetrator was not arrested and/or detained prior to the law being changed, having evidence of the commission of the crime in this case (I would think) would become void the moment marijuana possession became legal.

Good thing Kim Davis was arrested and/or detained prior to the law being changed huh.
 
Back
Top Bottom