How come this woman is put in jail for refusing to uphold the 14th Amendment, while no government official suffers any consequences for refusing to protect me from government abuses that should be covered by the 10th?
This is just a another case of "selective enforcement of the law", where enemies of the State are arbitrarily punished for minor crimes while people with connections pay no price for major crimes. Example: Hillary
So I don't understand the Constitution. OK. Then explain the 10th Amendment to me.
Do we really go around throwing ALL government employees in jail for refusing to do their job? Wouldn't almost all of them be in jail if that were the case?
This is the kind of punishment that should be handed out to University admissions personnel for discriminating against whites and Asians. A few harsh jail sentences would put an end to that crap right away.
not be reelected is a consequence
they have been granted immunity under the Constitution, but I know you don't believe in the Supreme Court and all that jazz
DiscoGary wrote:
So I don't understand the Constitution. OK. Then explain the 10th Amendment to me.
Do we really go around throwing ALL government employees in jail for refusing to do their job? Wouldn't almost all of them be in jail if that were the case?
This is the kind of punishment that should be handed out to University admissions personnel for discriminating against whites and Asians. A few harsh jail sentences would put an end to that crap right away.
so you're saying if the law isn't enforced perfectly then it should never be enforced?
DiscoGary wrote:
So I don't understand the Constitution. OK. Then explain the 10th Amendment to me.
Do we really go around throwing ALL government employees in jail for refusing to do their job? Wouldn't almost all of them be in jail if that were the case?
This is the kind of punishment that should be handed out to University admissions personnel for discriminating against whites and Asians. A few harsh jail sentences would put an end to that crap right away.
or is it a red herring?
oh well, nevermind
alkdfjdasl;fj;asldkjfl;ksadf wrote:
not be reelected is a consequence
they have been granted immunity under the Constitution, but I know you don't believe in the Supreme Court and all that jazz
This woman WAS elected. Why isn't she protected by government employee immunity?
alsdkfjaslk;dfjl;sadfjasdljf wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:So I don't understand the Constitution. OK. Then explain the 10th Amendment to me.
Do we really go around throwing ALL government employees in jail for refusing to do their job? Wouldn't almost all of them be in jail if that were the case?
This is the kind of punishment that should be handed out to University admissions personnel for discriminating against whites and Asians. A few harsh jail sentences would put an end to that crap right away.
so you're saying if the law isn't enforced perfectly then it should never be enforced?
I'm saying selective enforcement of the law to punish political enemies is worse than no law at all.
qualified immunity doesn't protect her here (plus you cannot disobey a court order)
Qualified immunity protects all, except the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 102 S. Ct. 2727, 73 L. Ed. 2d 396 (1982).
Plus, just because the POTUS doesn't go to jail doesn't mean this woman shouldn't. Be consistent in your demands from the government, even if they are not consistent in performing their duties.
DiscoGary wrote:
So I don't understand the Constitution. OK.
Oh Jesus thank you. I thought this day would never come.
FINALLY HE ADMITS IT! wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:So I don't understand the Constitution. OK.
Oh Jesus thank you. I thought this day would never come.
Another graduate of the Fox News School of Law bites the dust.
hey Gary, wasn't it one of her dootys to grant marriage licenses?
isn't she derelickting her dooty?
you cool with that bruh?
"they really wanted to file a lawsuit and attract attention."
You say that as though attracting attention so as to point out injustice is wrong.
But never mind, You started the thread as though you really wanted to understand the legal reasoning, and yet you have rebuffed every sound legal argument presented. And yet, the law will stand no matter how clever you try to be - and you aren't very clever.
DiscoGary wrote:
So I don't understand the Constitution. OK.
I finally agree with one of your posts. Now if you can find the intellectual honesty to also acknowledge your complete lack of understanding of history and economics I think we'll all feel a lot better. The first step is admitting you have a problem.
founding new group LRC AA
letsruncommunity a$$wipes anonymous
NonLawyer wrote:
But it is wrote:But that is exactly it. People have the right to be married anywhere in the United States. They do not have to go to another county to do so. If the public school system in that county didn't want to accept blacks, would you say they have plenty of other counties they can go to school in? I hope not, but this is Lets Run...
Ok, both of your examples are cases where people don't have the right to do something in other counties. You can only vote in the county you live in, except in Chicago. And you only legally have the right to go to public school in the school district you live in, or else you typically have to pay.
Marriage licenses can be obtained anywhere (except this county :) ). So its not like they where denied the right to get married if that is what they wanted, but of course its not what they really wanted, they really wanted to file a lawsuit and attract attention.
Okay wiseguy, eliminate the county factor. Here is a water fountain that says "whites only", and right next to it one that says "colored". I suppose you think "the coloreds" should just walk over and drink from the second fountain only?
Save yourself the continued embarrassment of trying to argue an inarguable position by splitting hairs.
NonLawyer wrote:
Why was this case hear in Federal court?
The clerk didn't issue any marriage licenses. Didn't discriminate against straight or gay. (so I've read)
A marriage license is a state license, not federal.
clerk is a state elected official.
Seems like everything says the federal courts don't have jurisdiction.
Please explain why they do.
A. Gay marriage is a right guranteed under the United States of America
Consitution.
B. Technically, she did. By claiming it was against "God's right" she's
pushing her religious views from performing an elected duty, and
at the same time supporting and upholding the Constiution.
C. Not anymore. See recent news. That's the problem with some of our
states that want to walk on water because they are a state. Doesn't
work that way.
D. Read the U.S. Constiution, know it.
What this woman did was sent precedence that this County and all of
its officials need to audited by federal authorities so that they are
in compliant with the rest of the United States of America. Blind
arrogance will be swiftly punished. And if you want a swifter checkmate,
the recognition of gay unions/partners/marriages is a Universal right.
The citizens of the Earth will not advance beyond the atmosphere
and properly populate untill they can control they religious and discriminatory arrogances.
I ran, see Jane run, Jane ran up the hill and fell down with Jack
at her knees and realized he was a she.
Yee haw!
Though unexpected, the judge's giving her jail time is cruel, but fair. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ygg2KlicnOQ @ 6:07) A simple fine would have been paid by others, no doubt.
Judges *do* tend to get a bit tetchy when people ignore court orders.
Meanwhile, let's cut to the chase. The Bible quotes JC as forbidding the remarriage of divorced persons (in most cases). But did this woman refuse to issue marriage licenses, over the last few years, to divorced people who were remarrying? Of course not.
The simple fact is, a fair number of people find the notion of same-sex...well, *sex*...kind of icky, and they'd like to prevent it if they can. They *don't* find the remarrying of divorces/ees icky. (In particular, this woman herself is clearly okay with it.) So these members of the ImmaDoWhatIWant Church pick parts of the Bible that can support what they want to do anyway, and ignore the rest.
Fortunately, the Bible does not decide questions of jurisprudence in this country.
Can somebody explain why they didn't just fire her for not doing her job? Why criminally prosecute her? If a McDonald's cashier refuses to serve a black person, you just fire that worker.
Came in expected thread to be about KY Jelly lol
asdfasfasdfds wrote:
Can somebody explain why they didn't just fire her for not doing her job? Why criminally prosecute her? If a McDonald's cashier refuses to serve a black person, you just fire that worker.
she was elected, so they are gonna have to hold a special election and fire her 4 marriage ass