Mon Oct 5, 2020, 11:28 AM
Jose Garcia (2,311 posts)
Supreme Court won't take up ex-Kentucky clerk Kim Davis' case
Source: WCAX-TV
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is leaving in place a decision that allowed a lawsuit to move forward against a Kentucky clerk who was jailed in 2015 after refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The high court said Monday it would not take the case involving Kim Davis, the former clerk of Rowan County, and two same-sex couples who had sued her. Soon after the 2015 Supreme Court decision in which same-sex couples won the right to marry nationwide, Davis, a Christian who has a religious objection to same-sex marriage, stopped issuing all marriage licenses. That led to lawsuits against her, and a judge ordered Davis to issue the licenses. She spent five days in jail after refusing. Davis had argued that a legal doctrine called qualified immunity protected her from being sued for damages by couples David Ermold and David Moore as well as James Yates and Will Smith. Their case will now move forward. Read more: https://www.wcax.com/2020/10/05/supreme-court-wont-take-up-ex-kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-case/
|
26 replies, 3028 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
Jose Garcia | Oct 2020 | OP |
Bayard | Oct 2020 | #1 | |
ihas2stinkyfeet | Oct 2020 | #2 | |
Yeehah | Oct 2020 | #3 | |
bucolic_frolic | Oct 2020 | #4 | |
maxsolomon | Oct 2020 | #11 | |
aggiesal | Oct 2020 | #5 | |
LittleGirl | Oct 2020 | #12 | |
CaptYossarian | Oct 2020 | #19 | |
barbtries | Oct 2020 | #6 | |
sl8 | Oct 2020 | #7 | |
barbtries | Oct 2020 | #10 | |
not_the_one | Oct 2020 | #18 | |
barbtries | Oct 2020 | #20 | |
Griefbird | Oct 2020 | #23 | |
barbtries | Oct 2020 | #24 | |
mwooldri | Oct 2020 | #25 | |
Mike Nelson | Oct 2020 | #8 | |
keithbvadu2 | Oct 2020 | #9 | |
Lucky Luciano | Oct 2020 | #15 | |
tonekat | Oct 2020 | #26 | |
Le Roi de Pot | Oct 2020 | #13 | |
JohnnyRingo | Oct 2020 | #14 | |
rkleinberger | Oct 2020 | #16 | |
11 Bravo | Oct 2020 | #17 | |
Judi Lynn | Oct 2020 | #21 | |
mahatmakanejeeves | Oct 2020 | #22 |
Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)
Mon Oct 5, 2020, 11:31 AM
Bayard (18,861 posts)
1. Justice served
![]() |
Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)
Mon Oct 5, 2020, 11:33 AM
ihas2stinkyfeet (1,400 posts)
2. good precedent. qualified immunity is a pox.
Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)
Mon Oct 5, 2020, 11:40 AM
Yeehah (3,862 posts)
3. I hope they take every penny from the hateful witch
I've come to despise these self-righteous phony Christians.
|
Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)
Mon Oct 5, 2020, 11:44 AM
bucolic_frolic (37,304 posts)
4. No, they only have time for priority cases from Donald Trump
Little people, even those we disagree with, deserve equal access to the courts as the high and mighty
|
Response to bucolic_frolic (Reply #4)
Mon Oct 5, 2020, 12:40 PM
maxsolomon (30,703 posts)
11. she had plenty of access to the courts.
every case doesn't go to SCOTUS.
|
Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)
Mon Oct 5, 2020, 11:50 AM
aggiesal (8,162 posts)
5. Kim Davis relationship diagram ...
A real Christian!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Response to aggiesal (Reply #5)
Mon Oct 5, 2020, 02:33 PM
CaptYossarian (6,448 posts)
19. Nice diagram.
Is this a "tackle-eligible" play--since Kimmie is blocking the tight end?
|
Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)
Mon Oct 5, 2020, 12:20 PM
barbtries (27,886 posts)
6. the best decisions this court makes anymore
are the decisions they take not to hear a case. good news
does this have anything to do with that other headline i just saw about Alito and Thomas writing a paper against same sex marriage? |
Response to barbtries (Reply #6)
Mon Oct 5, 2020, 12:23 PM
sl8 (12,438 posts)
7. Yes, that was their response to the Court denying cert. n/t
Response to sl8 (Reply #7)
Mon Oct 5, 2020, 12:33 PM
barbtries (27,886 posts)
10. thank you.
the post i saw has apparently dropped, but i suspected as much. otherwise it would be very strange for supreme court justices to write an editorial.
|
Response to barbtries (Reply #6)
Mon Oct 5, 2020, 02:33 PM
not_the_one (2,227 posts)
18. Maybe Alito and Thomas should take up the next cause celebre that would really fire up
the turd's core support group (racists, bigots and christians)....
Iterracial Marriage. Oh. Wait...... ![]() |
Response to not_the_one (Reply #18)
Mon Oct 5, 2020, 02:37 PM
barbtries (27,886 posts)
20. right?
that would be fun eh
|
Response to barbtries (Reply #6)
Mon Oct 5, 2020, 05:02 PM
Griefbird (87 posts)
23. Their logic is reversable.
Alito's and Thomas' complaint that Christianity is harmed by the "homosexual agenda" isn't nearly as valid as the fact that same sex relationships are harmed by the Fundamentalist Christian agenda.
|
Response to Griefbird (Reply #23)
Mon Oct 5, 2020, 05:15 PM
barbtries (27,886 posts)
24. exactly.
also, this is not a christian country and we don't live in a theocracy. rights are for everyone. if you don't like same sex marriage, don't marry someone of your own sex.
|
Response to Griefbird (Reply #23)
Mon Oct 5, 2020, 05:16 PM
mwooldri (10,188 posts)
25. That is what I was thinking too.
What if I have a firmly held religious belief that heterosexual marriage was a sin and refused to issue marriage licenses to heterosexual couples? Fortunately I don't have such belief... But you're right, I believe their logic is reversible.
|
Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)
Mon Oct 5, 2020, 12:25 PM
Mike Nelson (9,461 posts)
8. Yay!
... this woman has no business handing out marriage licenses ... she should have been fired instantly.
![]() |
Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)
Mon Oct 5, 2020, 12:31 PM
keithbvadu2 (31,949 posts)
9. The sanctity of Holy matrimony for conservative Christians - Kim Davis
The sanctity of Holy matrimony for conservative Christians - Kim Davis
![]() |
Response to keithbvadu2 (Reply #9)
Mon Oct 5, 2020, 01:04 PM
Lucky Luciano (11,092 posts)
15. I still think she looks like Dick Cheney in drag.
Response to Lucky Luciano (Reply #15)
Mon Oct 5, 2020, 06:32 PM
tonekat (1,613 posts)
26. She's got a forehead like a '48 Packard!
She hit every branch when she fell out of the Ugly Tree.
|
Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)
Mon Oct 5, 2020, 12:50 PM
Le Roi de Pot (744 posts)
13. No respite for Mrs. Potato Head
Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)
Mon Oct 5, 2020, 12:54 PM
JohnnyRingo (17,859 posts)
14. Wonder who's paying her legal fees?
Whoever it is, they aren't getting much for their investment. At least not if she loses the lawsuits.
|
Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)
Mon Oct 5, 2020, 01:46 PM
rkleinberger (155 posts)
16. However, one should pay attention to the descent by Thomas and Alito!
The descent by these throwbacks should have everyone seriously concerned. They have projected that they believe that Obergefell should be overturned. They will have control of SCOTUS. If Dems take control of the White House and Senate, they better immediately pass legislation that cannot be reviewed by the SCOTUS to protect marriage equality. The Equality Act needs to passed and then expand the SCOTUS and limit their terms!
|
Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)
Mon Oct 5, 2020, 01:55 PM
11 Bravo (23,740 posts)
17. Good. Fuck her. She had a job and refused to do it.
Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)
Mon Oct 5, 2020, 03:36 PM
Judi Lynn (157,238 posts)
21. Clearly, she had friends in high places.
![]() Kim Davis with a husband, Joe Davis, and the majestic Ted Cruz. ![]() Kim and another of her guardian angels, Gov. Mike Huckabee, father of Trump's beloved Sarah Huckabee Sanders. |
Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)
Mon Oct 5, 2020, 03:45 PM
mahatmakanejeeves (52,278 posts)
22. Anyone who thinks marriage equality is safe, or that Barrett won't further erode it ...
Dan Savage Retweeted
Anyone who thinks marriage equality is safe, or that Barrett won't further erode it and be joined by others on the court, here you go. Link to tweet https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100520zor_3204.pdf Scroll down to page 55: {snip}
Davis may have been one of the first victims of this Court’s cavalier treatment of religion in its Obergefell decision, but she will not be the last. Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other antidiscrimination laws. It would be one thing if recognition for same-sex marriage had been debated and adopted through the democratic process, with the people deciding not to provide statutory protections for religious liberty under state law But it is quite another when the Court forces that choice upon society through its creation of atextual constitutional rights and its ungenerous interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause, leaving those with religious objections in the lurch. {snip} |