LAWYER question: Ky clerk case

I work for DoD and for the last 11 years have worked on various mechanical system development, but am now being assigned to a team working on a portion of a weapons system. I'm a Christian and pacifist and feel this work would be against my religious beliefs. Can I refuse to do the work?

K. Davis' Illegitimate Son wrote:

I work for DoD and for the last 11 years have worked on various mechanical system development, but am now being assigned to a team working on a portion of a weapons system. I'm a Christian and pacifist and feel this work would be against my religious beliefs. Can I refuse to do the work?

I'll bite because I actually have a similar job but am not a pacifist.

Essentially, you are not in the same boat as Davis.

She is an elected official who has sworn to uphold the Constitution *presumably* which has been interpreted to give gays a fundamental right to marriage. She is interfering with that right based on their status which is a violation of the Equal Protection clause. She also defied a court order.

You, on the other hand, are not responsible for protecting the fundamental rights of citizens. You are not refusing to do work based on the status of citizens - rather the nature of the work.

Thus, you are not violating the Constitution, which makes it much more likely that you will not be forced to do that work.

Don't see marriage anywhere in this document. If she denied everyone marriage licenses then she did not discriminate. Kentucky law still says marriage is between a man and a woman and she is following Ky. law.

Read article III and you will learn the Supreme Court cannot make law so the cannot make the "law of the land." Ky. should go back to the drawing board and come up with a new law.

James Madison wrote:

http://constitutionus.com/

Don't see marriage anywhere in this document. If she denied everyone marriage licenses then she did not discriminate. Kentucky law still says marriage is between a man and a woman and she is following Ky. law.

Read article III and you will learn the Supreme Court cannot make law so the cannot make the "law of the land." Ky. should go back to the drawing board and come up with a new law.

idiot

clueless

completely lost

she started off denying marriage licenses to gays, and when she realized she couldn't do that, she just started denying to everyone. still discriminating under the context. if you can't figure that out then please just step aside and let the adults discuss this

read marbury v. madison (1803). judicial review has been here for 212 years. SCOTUS isn't making law; it's interpreting the due process clause of the u.s. constitution under a new set of facts.

supremacy clause means that federal interpretation of 14th amendment as applied to the states overrules any contradicting kentucky law that seeks to take away fundamental due process rights. the fact that she is following kentucky law is completely irrelevant and your inability to understand this shows you have no concept for how our legal system works

again you are clueless, go back and take a high school civics class before discussing this subject further

it's not *really* an equal protection violation because homosexuals are not a protected class. best argument that you can make here is that homosexuals are subject to quasi-heightened scrutiny under lawrence v. texas but the better statement of the current state of the law is that EP is inapplicable

this is a substantive due process case because the fundamental right to marry is being infringed upon, pure and simple

(second picture down)

I think the mods mistakenly deleted this picture of Cruz with Davis and Hubby. Its a classic and these are classy people.

Wait...CRUZ is on her side?!?! I understand some Republicans being on her side (incorrectly), but it is COMPLETELY hypocritical for the limited government champion to be siding with Davis in this instance.

I know I am a blithering idiot but where is it written that marriage is a fundamental right? Is it before or after healthcare? Education? Job? Food?

real mans wrote:

Wait...CRUZ is on her side?!?! I understand some Republicans being on her side (incorrectly), but it is COMPLETELY hypocritical for the limited government champion to be siding with Davis in this instance.

Agreed, it is weird.

However, hypocrisy is what Cruz is about. Consider his hard stance on immigration, for example. Not exactly what one would expect from a Cuban-American born in Canada.

Pure and simple . . . what . . . ?

It is both DPC and EPC.

From Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

"(3) The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always co-extensive, yet each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other. This dynamic is reflected in Loving, where the Court invoked both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause; and in Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374 , where the Court invalidated a law barring fathers delinquent on child-support payments from marrying. Indeed, recognizing that new insights and societal understandings can reveal unjustified inequality within fundamental institutions that once passed unnoticed and unchallenged, this Court has invoked equal protection principles to invalidate laws imposing sex-based inequality on marriage, see, e.g., Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U. S. 455 –461, and confirmed the relation between liberty and equality, see, e.g., M. L. B. v. S. L. J., 519 U. S. 102 –121."

. . .

"(4) The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. Baker v. Nelson is overruled. The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. Pp. 22–23."

Can you clarify please?

James Madison wrote:

I know I am a blithering idiot but where is it written that marriage is a fundamental right? Is it before or after healthcare? Education? Job? Food?

I'm not an expert either, but I can google:

From:

The Bill of Rights lists specifically enumerated rights. The Supreme Court has extended fundamental rights by recognizing several fundamental rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, including but not limited to:

The right to interstate travel

The right to intrastate travel

The right to parent one's children [9]

Protection on the high seas from pirates

The right to privacy[10]

The right to marriage [11]

Poor Cruz with this the only picture to put out to the media while Hucksterbee gets to be on the celebratory stage with Davis. Let's all cheer and hope for a theocracy!

I'm a libtard wrote:

real mans wrote:

Wait...CRUZ is on her side?!?! I understand some Republicans being on her side (incorrectly), but it is COMPLETELY hypocritical for the limited government champion to be siding with Davis in this instance.

Agreed, it is weird.

However, hypocrisy is what Cruz is about. Consider his hard stance on immigration, for example. Not exactly what one would expect from a Cuban-American born in Canada.

I'm a libtard wrote:

James Madison wrote:

I know I am a blithering idiot but where is it written that marriage is a fundamental right? Is it before or after healthcare? Education? Job? Food?

I'm not an expert either, but I can google:

From:

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

The Bill of Rights lists specifically enumerated rights. The Supreme Court has extended fundamental rights by recognizing several fundamental rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, including but not limited to:

The right to interstate travel

The right to intrastate travel

The right to parent one's children [9]

Protection on the high seas from pirates

The right to privacy[10]

The right to marriage [11]

I believe he is referring to the text of the Constitution.

The thing is, the Constitution is pretty vague here.

5th Amendment: [N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .

14th Amendment:

[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . . this just incorporates the limitations of the 5th Amendment (which applies to the feds) with limitaitons on state governments)

Art. III gives SCOTUS the authority to interpret what things like "life, liberty, or property" mean in real-world situations.

Textualists don't often like those interpretations.

loving dealt with a suspect class - race-based classifications are subject to strict scrutiny analysis under the equal protection clause, which means that the government must assert a compelling governmental interest and a law that is narrowly tailored (aka least restrictive means test) to achieve that compelling gov't interest

zablocki is an EP case - dealt with a suspect class also, but the suspect class there is children born to unmarried fathers, to put it simply. these kids get intermediate scrutiny -- gov't must prove that an important gov't interest is in play, and that the law is substantially related to the furthering of that interest

homosexuality has never been found to be a suspect class, really. if you don't have a suspect class, EP is really inapplicable, because you only get rational basis review -- burden is on plaintiff in a case to prove that no rational basis exists for the law, but this is the SAME TEST that is used for substantive due process, it overlaps for both -- there's really no distinction between the EP and DP clauses in this respect

obergefell as it stands is pretty much a substantive due process case, but the court is basically going over the top and saying it could have been decided on EP too because banning same-sex marriage is completely irrational and maybe can't even pass rational-basis muster

but substantive due process works a little differently -- if a fundamental right is in play, it's not just rational basis, the burden shifts to the government to prove that a compelling interest is furthered and is narrowly tailored to further that interest (similar to strict scrutiny with EP)

and it seems to me that the court relied on substantive due process here. though any other lawyers can chime in if they disagree

I really don't know how else to explain this . . . the Court has asserted that the EPC allowed same-sex couples to get married. It is very clear in the opinion.

When I went to school in 2008 the levels of scrutiny (as explained in broad strokes) were as you said, but now it seems that they are a protected class with respect to marriage. This signifies a substantial shift in the law, and I'm sure the casebooks are being updated as such.

I don't know how you separate EPC and DPC so easily here. They clearly rely on both clauses here. The right to marry is a fundamental right under the SDPC. A specific class of people are being denied that fundamental right based on their class alone. They are being treated differently than others, and not being afforded Equal Protection based on their class. The Court now says they - as a class - can not be denied that right.

I don't think the Court would just reference the Equal Protection Clause to go "over the top" . . . I am sure the decision was crafted very carefully and is painfully clear IMO. DPC and EPC are the foundation of the decision.

I'm gonna have to agree here.

Doesn't seem like there is much room for interpretation:

"The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty."

Equal Protection and Due Process both directly apply.

the least dangerous branch wrote:

Yes; she was in jail for civil contempt. This is not a crime. Criminal contempt is a crime, and being charged with it means that you're entitled to counsel, a jury trial, confrontation of witnesses, and any other protections afforded by the constitution.

It is not bad that you are ignorant of the difference, but the fact that you fail to understand your ignorance is.

ignorance indeed

"A person held in civil contempt by a federal judge may stay behind bars for up to 18 months, or less if a judge becomes satisfied that the person is no longer disobeying a court order. A person may be held longer if a judge finds the person in criminal contempt and issues a formal sentence."[/i[]

You need to listen to DiscoGary.

Anything less?

A motherf*cking derilicktion of DOOTY!!!

Are you really a lawyer or just a law student?

You pretty much just stated the tests for levels of scrutiny. Very little analysis.

Not trying to be mean, but do you actually do any motion work?