Posted on 09/16/2015 6:03:07 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Embattled Kentucky clerk Kim Davis "has not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success" in her legal bid to exempt her office from licensing same-sex marriages, a federal appeals court reiterated Tuesday.
One day after Davis returned to work following a stint in jail for defying a federal judge, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals shot down another of her requests to delay issuing the licenses.
After four couples sued Davis for refusing them licenses, she filed a counter lawsuit against Gov. Steve Beshear, alleging that he improperly instructed clerks to abide by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in June that legalized gay marriage. The appeals court rejected her request to delay that directive, but also declined to toss the appeal entirely, as Beshear had requested.
Davis cited her Christian faith and religious freedom when she defied a series of court orders and refused to issue the licenses. U.S. District Judge David Bunning found her in contempt and jailed her for five days, propelling Davis to folk-hero status among some on the religious right.
One of her deputies began issuing licenses while she was in jail. When she returned to work Monday, Davis announced that she would not block the deputies from issuing licenses. But she ordered her office to alter the templates to remove her name and title, substituting "pursuant to federal court order," and said she had "grave concerns" that the issued licenses would be legally valid.
Though the governor and attorney general said they believe the licenses are valid, lawyers with the American Civil Liberties Union who sued Davis on behalf of four couples also are concerned. They said they would wait to consider any legal action, however, until the pending appeals are resolved.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Repubs exploded....and Dems are sooooo quiet. Why isn't Hillary at her side??
What do you think the title of her book will be?
a substantial likelihood of success”
So this is what our courts have come down to?
She is a courageous Christian who deserves the respect of all true Christians. I really like her suit against the state...force the bastards to at least fight against the constitution...
From our Declaration, the purpose of government is to secure our rights, and its powers are those we grant it.
Legitimate Law:
1.) Is consistent with God's Law and the Law of Nature.
2.) Has our consent.
Simple concept.
Therefore, “law” derived from Obergefell v. Hodges is illegitimate. Fag marriage violates the Laws of God and Nature, and its establishment was made without our consent.
At least three licenses issued in Rowan County were altered so they did not include the name of the County Clerk, Kim Davis. Instead “Rowan County” was entered as the name of the County Clerk.
“Rowan County” is not the name of the Rowan County County Clerk. Listing “Rowan County” as the name of the County Clerk is a violation KRS 402.100(1)(c), 402.110
Persons issuing these licenses have committed multiple misdemeanors. KRS 402.990
For a properly filled license see “Exhibit A” - https://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/attachments/2015/080515_Complaint_-_Davis_Third_Party_Complaint_against_Gov_Beshear_FINAL.pdf
Exhibited below is a properly filled marriage license. The date issued is "6/16/2015", the place issued is "in the office of KIM DAVIS, ROWAN COUNTY County Clerk, MOREHEAD, Kentucky", and the signature of the county clerk or deputy clerk issuing the license is "BRIAN MASON, DEPUTY CLERK"
“Persons issuing these licenses have committed multiple misdemeanors. KRS 402.990”
And yet the Attorney General of KY says they are valid. Who will challenge their validity?
Read the statutes.
That’s the threshhold for an injunction BEFORE trial. It makes sense, otherwise cranks would request injunctions, get court orders, etc., on a case that has little or no merit.
That happens at divorce or bigamy cases.
She's been through the various levels of the judicial system up to the Supreme Court and has been shot down every time. I'd say her chances of success are low to nonexistent.
She wasn’t conscripted, she was elected to perform an administrative duty which by necessity must be performed impartially, this necessity was understood when the job was accepted.
However, the long standing definition of marriage has been altered. This is unexpected and does pose a religious liberty problem, she may never have sought the position had this new and radical definition been in place. Despite that, I think it is going to be very difficult to prevail with a religious liberty argument.
I think another more straightforward argument is to reject the illegal order of the court.
Haven't they questioned the legality of the order in their appeals and have gotten nowhere?
They used similar terminology in rejecting Terri Schiavo’s
briefs.
It does seem like a conflict of interest, no?
If the judge agrees to hear the case, does that mean he’s
biased toward the plaintiff?
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.