Posted on 09/02/2015 4:29:48 AM PDT by Nextrush
No "religious tests". Carry on.
The contempt hearing tomorrow will be before US District Court Judge David Bunning. Only Congress can impeach him. Since McConnell won’t even fight to stop funding Planned Parenthood, he sure won’t fight to remove Bunning from the bench.
What they would do would be to send the U.S. Marshals out to arrest her. The charge would be Contempt of Court, and they can keep her in jail as long as they want and fine her as much as they want so long as she continues to refuse.
“Contempt” has to have a basis in law. Any court cannot just arrest someone who refuses to comply with their command.
This woman should remain strong and NEVER submit.
Whether or not the people on this forum agree or disagree with you is irrelevant. The fact is that the Federal courts at all levels disagree with you, and they're the ones who will jail her or fine her.
That is easy for us to say, be we aren’t the ones who would be financially ruined and/or stuck in a jail cell for defying a federal judge. More power to her if she chooses that course of action.
Yes they can. That's the legal definition of "contempt of court".
This woman should remain strong and NEVER submit.
And that is easy for us to say because we're not the ones who might go to jail or be fined large amounts of money. She's the one who will pay the penalty, and that's why regardless of her decision tomorrow then I'm going to respect it.
If the Federal law supersedes, then the Fed’s issue is with Kentucky, not her.
Where is the law that requires a county clerk to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples?
Do you think that the courts cannot be tyrannical and act unconstitutionally?
Are judges too perfect and holy to make mistakes?
We are witnessing judicial tyranny. Are you ok with that?
Did my recent post go unnoticed?
I was responding to your post 51. Was there another I should look at? She is sworn to uphold Kentucky law. There is a specific Kentucky law that conflicts. The action by the Feds should be directed at the Kentucky legislature.
Aside from which, those complaining have been offered an alternative, the remedy the SC mentioned. This works everywhere except these specific couples as they refuse to use it in an effort to force her to violate her current beliefs.
Holy “Scripture Out Of Context”, Batman!
A little history, they picked Rosa Parks to go to court in 1955 but she wasn’t the first black woman to refuse to go to the back of the bus in Montgomery.
The others were ‘single mothers’ who were in public shame and disrepute in that era.
But like I said, if Martin Luther King is honored with a national holiday and has a personal life that is less than reputable, far be it from you, I or anyone else to make a fuss about Kim Davis’s life.
If you or I ended up in a court and a controversy like this, they would look for crap like that in our lives.
I updated at post “61”.
I replied without seeing that. I apologize.
I guess they could cover her fine with a “bonus.”
I would suggest she not leave the state any time soon. The Federales will be waiting for her.
Seems to me she has a good idea of how to get married. //sarc
If she is found to be in contempt of the court, she may find herself in jail.
Depends on the attitude of the judge.
Honest to God, I am not picking a fight. This is a serious question for Constitution folks out there:
Does one part of the Constitution take precedence over another? That is, in this case, is there precedent for the first amendment’s freedom from a state religion clause take precedence over the “equal protection” clause?
I understand the arguments about the equal protection clause—that is not what I am asking. I am asking if there is a formal precedence of parts of the constitution?
No problem. Take care! j
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.