Anyone?

 

Marriage

I don't really care if we get rid of it. My problem is the judicial supremacy that has happened, first at the SCOTUS and their newly created law (which they have no authority over). Second, Bunning going by the SCOTUS case, ignored KY law regarding gay marriage. Also, what's the point of the KY Religious Freedom Act if it isn't even going to be taken into consideration in court....is it not applicable in this case?

 

You don't understand how it works. It has been covered exhaustively in this thread. In short, states cannot take away rights granted by the Federal Government, no matter how much people want their state to. And again...slavery, women's suffrage, discrimination against ethnicities and all sorts of other groups would still exist in some states if we followed your logic that state law trumps Federal.

I don't really care if we get rid of it. My problem is the judicial supremacy that has happened, first at the SCOTUS and their newly created law (which they have no authority over). Second, Bunning going by the SCOTUS case, ignored KY law regarding gay marriage. Also, what's the point of the KY Religious Freedom Act if it isn't even going to be taken into consideration in court....is it not applicable in this case?

 

Post #391

That's why I came back with the poorly worded post. I didn't mean to equate the level of rights being denied as the same. Just the acts of protest to me are the same.

 

Both groups are protesting civil rights being denied to them.

 

No argument there.

You don't understand how it works. It has been covered exhaustively in this thread. In short, states cannot take away rights granted by the Federal Government, no matter how much people want their state to. And again...slavery, women's suffrage, discrimination against ethnicities and all sorts of other groups would still exist in some states if we followed your logic that state law trumps Federal.

 

Let's hope that another state doesn't enact a law legalizing slavery. That darned ol' activist SCOTUS might decide it's unconstitutional.

 

I couldn't take another eleventy billion posts on the finer points of constitutional law.

I don't really care if we get rid of it. My problem is the judicial supremacy that has happened, first at the SCOTUS and their newly created law (which they have no authority over). Second, Bunning going by the SCOTUS case, ignored KY law regarding gay marriage. Also, what's the point of the KY Religious Freedom Act if it isn't even going to be taken into consideration in court....is it not applicable in this case?

 

As regards the Kentucky Religious Freedom Act, Bunning considered it in his opinion of whether or not to grant the injunction.

 

"Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs. She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible Study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County Jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do. However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk. The Court therefore concludes that Davis is unlikely to suffer a violation of her free exercise rights under Kentucky Constitution § 5." (Miller v. Davis, Memorandum Opinion and Order, pp. 27-28.

 

This is the conflict. Where do her rights infringe on the rights of others? She denied licenses to everyone, straight or gay. Fifty percent of the plaintiffs in this case are straight people who want to get married. Why does she get to decide they're not allowed?

 

You can believe the courts have no authority over it, the principle of who's exercising the power disagrees with you. Call me a terrible realist or a pragmatist if you want, but I'd say that if he chucked her into jail for violating the court order, Judge Bunning had the authority.

 

If the government wants to not recognize marriage as an institution by which people are categorized or receive benefits and protections, then that's another thing, but as long as they do, governments don't get to not allow people to enter into it without a compelling reason as to why.

I don't really care if we get rid of it. My problem is the judicial supremacy that has happened, first at the SCOTUS and their newly created law (which they have no authority over). Second, Bunning going by the SCOTUS case, ignored KY law regarding gay marriage. Also, what's the point of the KY Religious Freedom Act if it isn't even going to be taken into consideration in court....is it not applicable in this case?

 

The Supreme Court did not write a new law. They said marriage laws must provide to same-sex couples what they provide to opposite-sex couples: "...State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples." There's no confusion or mystery here. Marriage is extended to same-sex couples.

I have no idea. All I know is there is no federal law on the books and Bunning's jail sentence on Davis most likely wouldn't have stuck with a higher court.

 

The only reason the Bunning changed his mind and freed Davis is because he didn't want his ruling overturned.

 

Marvel, back here in these pages is a wonderful post by either GetSlow, Habib or someone else that did an excellent job legally articulating the law Purple speaks of. I would love to dig it out but that should be your job since you are one asking the question and seem to be late to the party. :lol2:

I have no idea. All I know is there is no federal law on the books and Bunning's jail sentence on Davis most likely wouldn't have stuck with a higher court.

 

The only reason the Bunning changed his mind and freed Davis is because he didn't want his ruling overturned.

 

That's funny. The SCOTUS already upheld his ruling. It was appealed as soon as he ruled.

Post #391

 

Thank you. I was just too tired to look it up.

As regards the Kentucky Religious Freedom Act, Bunning considered it in his opinion of whether or not to grant the injunction.

 

"Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs. She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible Study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County Jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do. However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk. The Court therefore concludes that Davis is unlikely to suffer a violation of her free exercise rights under Kentucky Constitution § 5." (Miller v. Davis, Memorandum Opinion and Order, pp. 27-28.

 

This is the conflict. Where do her rights infringe on the rights of others? She denied licenses to everyone, straight or gay. Fifty percent of the plaintiffs in this case are straight people who want to get married. Why does she get to decide they're not allowed?

 

You can believe the courts have no authority over it, the principle of who's exercising the power disagrees with you. Call me a terrible realist or a pragmatist if you want, but I'd say that if he chucked her into jail for violating the court order, Judge Bunning had the authority.

 

If the government wants to not recognize marriage as an institution by which people are categorized or receive benefits and protections, then that's another thing, but as long as they do, governments don't get to not allow people to enter into it without a compelling reason as to why.

 

Thank you again. :thumb:

So you're saying the SCOTUS ruling has been codified into law? Can you please give me a link?

 

I could have sworn Congress can only vote laws into effect.

 

Someone has been "Huckabeed".

Someone has been "Huckabeed".

 

Always entertaining when a new verb makes its way into the lexicon.

Judicial review.

 

Well now I am confused. The only argument I have ever heard against Supreme Court authority is that the court just made up the right to do things in Marbury vs. Madison. While in some respects, the court received their power because they said they had it, (1) this happened in the early 1800s and has been followed since, (2) Article VI named the constitution the supreme law of the land, and (3) Article III named the SC as the highest level of judicial power.

 

If you already believe that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review (which it does), then they interpret the constitution. Have a disagreement about a federal law, SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter. Have a disagreement between two states, SCOTUS. Case about the constitution, SCOTUS.

 

Of course Congress, hasn't passed a law saying that the Supreme Court can write sections of the U.S. Code, but the Supreme Court can say if Congress has run afoul of the constitution. In the spirit of checks and balances, each branch has their own rule-making power. Congress writes laws and can impeach presidents or SC justices. The president can issue executive orders that Congress or the court can overrule, and he can veto most any statute. The court is nominated by the president, appointed by the Senate, and if enough disagree with a ruling, Congress can ratify a new amendment to the constitution.

 

Your argument fails because you are essentially saying that the court has no power. If SCOTUS says something in unconstitutional and states don't amend their laws, you are saying that they are still in effect. It wasn't until this decade that Alabama took laws off the books criminalizing oral and anal sex or prohibiting integrated schools. Or course those laws carry no effect.

 

With your line of thinking there might be other options, but I only see it a couple ways. Either (1) the court has no power because states could just ignore its rulings and sit back or just enact whatever legislation they wish, (2) whenever a law violates the constitution, the court must order a state to pass a specific law, or (3) the court has to just say yay or nay to any given issue.

You don't understand how it works. It has been covered exhaustively in this thread. In short, states cannot take away rights granted by the Federal Government, no matter how much people want their state to. And again...slavery, women's suffrage, discrimination against ethnicities and all sorts of other groups would still exist in some states if we followed your logic that state law trumps Federal.

 

 

You bet it would.