Like any other contempt of court case, if she complies with the judge's orders, she will be released.

A few made honest attempts at an explanation for no bail that seemed rational and perhaps were accurate... But where's the fun in that or examining just what is the best possible reason when you can just make negative irrational illogical statements instead?

 

Apparently bail or a fine can be used if judge allows it, but he didn't because he wants to force her to hand out marriage permits.

 

 

U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning has said he jailed Davis without bail in an effort to force her to comply on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling this summer legalizing [sodo]marriage nationally. Allowing her to pay a fine wouldn't have worked, Bunning said, because Davis has a large group of supporters willing to cover the cost.

Political Pistachio: Judge David Bunning Denying Kim Davis Bail

Clyde can you tell me if this is wrong? For the past few nights there are several of my friends, including some laywers who I know( including a judge) been researching this. Unless there is something I am not seeing in how this is SUPPOSED to work, it appears that the American people are being duped to believe somethings that are not working the way the system is set up. I am asking you to show me where in the law that says the Supreme Court rulings are law. Huckabee might be smarter than you think, and not only Huckabee. I will await proof becauseI am no law scholar, but everything is online now and there are alot of people having problems finding this.

 

I will say this, if this has been happening and everyone has just been taking the word for it and its not right we have problems.

But of course you don't see my thinking. Why would you since I don't go along with the rest of society.

 

My saying what I did is because you got a woman in jail for refusing to give marriage license to homosexuals, but yet people who molest and rape little kids can get out of jail on bail.

I don't care if it's contempt or what the rules are, she is in jail while a sex offender is out.

 

Sorry but I don't see it as fair.

 

As the person who asked about bail and after reading some of the responses here and hitting my google key it makes sense. Bail is a tactic used to help ensure that a defendant returns to court for trial.

 

Mrs. Davis has no upcoming trial. She violated the court orders. No trial. Judge could have fined her or put her in jail until compliance. He chose jail. Since there is no upcoming trial to determine innocence or guilt (already decided) there is no need for fail.

 

Make sense?

Clyde can you tell me if this is wrong? For the past few nights there are several of my friends, including some laywers who I know( including a judge) been researching this. Unless there is something I am not seeing in how this is SUPPOSED to work, it appears that the American people are being duped to believe somethings that are not working the way the system is set up. I am asking you to show me where in the law that says the Supreme Court rulings are law. Huckabee might be smarter than you think, and not only Huckabee. I will await proof becauseI am no law scholar, but everything is online now and there are alot of people having problems finding this.

 

I will say this, if this has been happening and everyone has just been taking the word for it and its not right we have problems.

 

I have no idea what you're asking me to show you.

Just read this post on Facebook. I dont know this lady who posted it, but I am going to research this some more. Read and tell me what you think:

 

I was in favor of Kim Davis being jailed last week in Ky because I believed the media when they said she was violating the law by refusing to issue a marriage license to same sex couples. But, I heard a comment from Mike Huckabee that made me wonder if it was true. So I did a little reading. Remember in Civics class where we learned that Congress makes the laws and the Supreme Court interprets them? Ok, in 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) into Federal law stating that marriag was between a man and a woman. There was no Federal Law concerning marriage prior to that, so DOMA became THE Federal statute pertaining to marriage. The Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that PART of DOMA was unconstitutional and some states voted to allow same sex marriage. However, they were in conflict with the remaining articles of DOMA. The way Federal Laws work is that state law can be MORE restrictive but it cannot be less restrictive than Federal law. So, some states, who voted to recognize same sex marriage were in conflict with Federal Law. Which is the reason the Supreme Court heard the issue again this year. We all know their decision. But, what we apparently forgot is that since they can't make law, their decision to declare DOMA unconstitutional resulted in there being NO federal law concerning marriage. Which means, jurisdiction falls to the state. And what that means boys and girls is that Kim Davis IS NOT in violation of ANY law by refusing to issue marriage licenses after the SCOTUS ruling. In fact, if she had issued a license to a same sex couple, she would have been in violation of the state laws of Kentucky, which had voted no on the issue.

Congress failed to be prepared to handle the situation resulting from SCOTUS striking down DOMA by writing a new Federal Law so we are left with the issue being handled at a state level. In the states that voted no on this issue, same sex marriage is not Federally protected.

Like it or not, agree with it or not, that's the way the law works in this country.

 

It was accurate up until "however." Pretty much everything after that is easily debunkable.

I am asking you to show me in the law that this has been handled correctly. I do not mean this smart or condescending when I ask. I am really interested now in this. Just because the Supreme Court issues a opinion and thats only what it is, a opinion, does this make it the "Law of the land" like everyone screams. From everything I have read, Huckabee has a strong point and nobody has yet to stand up and say he is wrong. Everything I can find in regards to how this is supposed to work goes along with what he is saying.

 

I had a professor in college who for one month challenged us students to prove the earth revolved the sun. He professed the Sun revolved around the Earth and gave us a months worth of proof this was the way it was. To make a long story short, he wanted us to not take just anyones word for something and believe it. He would ask us " who told you that?" Where is the equation to prove what you say?" etc. He challenged us and it made me really think hard. To use that here, when you say I should dismiss anything after that when I saw the name "Huckabee" why do you say that? See my point? So to everyone on here, get out your best browser, find google, go to the Library, talk to really good lawyers and lets see how these actions are supposed to work by how our legal system is set up. I just want the truth. And I dont want to be riduclued by statements like " I cant believe someone on this board dont know this"! I am after facts, they are very important here and very important going forward. If I find this is correct then I am good. If I find we have been duped I am gonna be mad becasue there are going to have to be alot of work done to straighten up our country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/07/opinion/we-dont-need-kim-davis-to-be-in-jail.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

 

Where I think the writer is wrong or misleading:

 

"Mrs Davis didn't cause this - SCOTUS did." That's like saying I didn't do anything wrong - the speed limit is just too low. Supreme Court made a ruling. Was it correct? Fair question. However, they DID make a ruling. So anything following that is 100% on Mrs. Davis

 

"It redefined Mrs. Davis' job." 1000% incorrect. Her job didn't change. Her job is to issue marriage licenses to those that the law say can receive a license. Her job did not change at all.

 

It is not the requirement of the Governor to call a special session with extra costs to a state already hurting financially to take up the cause of re-writing requirements.

 

Would it be great if the state had determined what might be coming down the road and change legislation like NC did? Of course. They didn't so...do your job, quit, or jail. She chose jail.

I am asking you to show me in the law that this has been handled correctly. I do not mean this smart or condescending when I ask. I am really interested now in this. Just because the Supreme Court issues a opinion and thats only what it is, a opinion, does this make it the "Law of the land" like everyone screams. From everything I have read, Huckabee has a strong point and nobody has yet to stand up and say he is wrong. Everything I can find in regards to how this is supposed to work goes along with what he is saying.

 

I had a professor in college who for one month challenged us students to prove the earth revolved the sun. He professed the Sun revolved around the Earth and gave us a months worth of proof this was the way it was. To make a long story short, he wanted us to not take just anyones word for something and believe it. He would ask us " who told you that?" Where is the equation to prove what you say?" etc. He challenged us and it made me really think hard. To use that here, when you say I should dismiss anything after that when I saw the name "Huckabee" why do you say that? See my point? So to everyone on here, get out your best browser, find google, go to the Library, talk to really good lawyers and lets see how these actions are supposed to work by how our legal system is set up. I just want the truth. And I dont want to be riduclued by statements like " I cant believe someone on this board dont know this"! I am after facts, they are very important here and very important going forward. If I find this is correct then I am good. If I find we have been duped I am gonna be mad becasue there are going to have to be alot of work done to straighten up our country.

 

Are you asking me if states have to follow rulings made by the SCOTUS?

Apparently bail or a fine can be used if judge allows it, but he didn't because he wants to force her to hand out marriage permits.

 

Nope. She can resign from her position and doesn't have to hand out a single license.

No I am asking you to provide proof of your statements as to how the legislative branches work and how this is supposed to be handled after the supreme court makes an opinion. All this is easily found. Thats my issue.

No I am asking you to provide proof of your statements as to how the legislative branches work and how this is supposed to be handled after the supreme court makes an opinion. All this is easily found. Thats my issue.

 

Try Google... it's not only available to Clyde.

Try Google... it's not only available to Clyde.

 

I am asking you to BBall fan. Surely we all can find the truth if we look for it. Up to it? Did you not read my post? I have been using it.

No I am asking you to provide proof of your statements as to how the legislative branches work and how this is supposed to be handled after the supreme court makes an opinion. All this is easily found. Thats my issue.

 

A few thoughts even though I'm not sure if this is what you are looking for:

 

SCOTUS rules on Constitutionality. Once they've ruled states cannot disregard the ruling. You'll hear "nullification" used. Nullification has never been ruled legal. So once the SCOTUS rules it's law for all states.

 

Look up the Supremacy Clause as well.

 

You'll hear Mr Huckabee say that states now have to "re-write" marriage laws. Why? All the SCOTUS ruled upon is that one part of the wording was unconstitutional. I've cited Virgina v Loving as an example of SCOTUS striking down a PART of a law and it NOT requiring states to re-write their marriage laws.

 

Again, I would stop reading any argument anyone makes who leads with "SCOTUS is making law." It's simply not true. You may not like what they determined when making their ruling but they did not MAKE law. They simply said "hey, you can't have that one part in there - the rest is fine."

Like any other contempt of court case, if she complies with the judge's orders, she will be released.

 

So another example of people wanting to be treated differently, or better, than those "other" people. The judge had the final say on matters of contempt.

 

If you are in contempt of court there is no bail. She either has to agree that she will do her job, quit, or wait until the next election and get voted out