Thread: Supreme Court will not review Kim Davis case involving same-sex marriage licenses

.
See: Supreme Court rejects bid to overturn same-sex marriage ruling

The Supreme Court rejected a long-shot effort Monday to overturn its ruling guaranteeing same-sex marriage nationwide.

.
What is so obnoxious about our Supreme Court refusing to hear the appeal in the Kim Davis case is, its refusal lets stand a $100,000 damages verdict against her, plus $260,000 for attorney’s fees, for allegedly violating the law in 2015 by refusing to issue a marriage license to a Kentucky same-sex couple, when Kentucky’s constitution would be violated by issuing such a license.

In 2004, the people of Kentucky, acting under the Tenth Amendment’s reserved powers of the States, adopted an amendment to their Constitution that made it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages. The referendum was approved by 75% of the voters.

The text of the Amendment reads as follows:

“Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

Shortly before Kim Davis began refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, reversing the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which upheld, on November 6, 2014, Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriage.

What is stunning to realize is, nowhere in the majority opinion, Obergefell v. Hodges, written by Justice Kennedy, is there sufficient evidence that by the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection or due process clause, is a State required to perform and recognize same-sex marriages on the same terms as opposite-sex marriages.

The amendment declares “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..”

The due process reference applies to State action and to “any person” [singular] as opposed to “citizens of the United States” and it expressly forbids each State to deprive any “person” [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of . . . ” a State’s laws. Due process of law refers to procedure and the administration of justice in accordance established procedural rules.

And, with reference to ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” this wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person [singular] within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal application of those specific laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State with regard to sex or age, the State may not deny to any person, blacks and whites alike, within its jurisdiction, the equal application of those specific laws.

Justice Kennedy, falsely suggests the Fourteenth Amendment was violated, along with Justices Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan who sided with Justice Kennedy ___ Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito dissenting.

Seems quite clear that a majority on our Supreme Court has usurped legislative functions, set itself up as an unelected, omnipotent and unreviewable, policy making branch of government, and is now pretending our Constitution means whatever it chooses it to mean.

I think, at the very least, Justice Kennedy ought to compensate Kim Davis for all of her legal fees, give her an apology for his actions, and simply explain he was on a mission to undo what 75% of the votes, who he apparently disagrees with, dared to do in the State of Kentucky when exercising their Tenth Amendment guaranteed reserved powers.

JWK

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

From below:

"Seems quite clear that a majority on our Supreme Court has usurped legislative functions, set itself up as an unelected, omnipotent and unreviewable, policy making branch of government, and is now pretending our Constitution means whatever it chooses it to mean."

This does not sound good at all.

What recourse do we have in a situation like this?

Originally Posted by GaiaGoddess

From below:

"Seems quite clear that a majority on our Supreme Court has usurped legislative functions, set itself up as an unelected, omnipotent and unreviewable, policy making branch of government, and is now pretending our Constitution means whatever it chooses it to mean."

This does not sound good at all.

What recourse do we have in a situation like this?

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The ball is in the people's court. The question is, will they rise to the occasion and exercise their right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances? I suspect they will roll over once again while their constitution is subjugated inch by inch, clause by clause, by those who took an oath to support and defend it.

The sad thing is, we were aptly warned with respect to this very concern.

”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nation’s ruin.” ___ THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787.

JWK

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,”

From below:

"What is so obnoxious about our Supreme Court refusing to hear the appeal in the Kim Davis case is, its refusal lets stand a $100,000 damages verdict against her, plus $260,000 for attorney’s fees, for allegedly violating the law in 2015 by refusing to issue a marriage license to a Kentucky same-sex couple, when Kentucky’s constitution would be violated by issuing such a license."

This should definitely be appealed, and the Supreme Court should be in trouble for refusing to hear the case, to do their job.

Since the State has defined the parameters and Kim Davis was within her rights to refuse to issue the license, then the Supreme Court is in the hot seat as to why they would NOT honor the State's own laws.

Something should be done.

Originally Posted by GaiaGoddess

From below:

"What is so obnoxious about our Supreme Court refusing to hear the appeal in the Kim Davis case is, its refusal lets stand a $100,000 damages verdict against her, plus $260,000 for attorney’s fees, for allegedly violating the law in 2015 by refusing to issue a marriage license to a Kentucky same-sex couple, when Kentucky’s constitution would be violated by issuing such a license."

This should definitely be appealed, and the Supreme Court should be in trouble for refusing to hear the case, to do their job.

Since the State has defined the parameters and Kim Davis was within her rights to refuse to issue the license, then the Supreme Court is in the hot seat as to why they would NOT honor the State's own laws.

Something should be done.

Unfortunately, we have a major problem... a FIFTH COLUMN media and their Yellow Journalists refuse to report on the perversion of the Fourteenth Amendment by our Supreme Court with reference to same sex marriage. As a matter of fact, they take great pleasure in reporting the Fourteenth Amendment was violated by Kim Davis when in fact it is our Supreme Court which violates the text and documented legislative intent of the Fourteenth Amendment with reference to same-sex marriage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourte...s_Constitution

Guess we need a deep dive on the 14th Amendment as it pertains to this topic

14th Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.

Considered one of the most consequential amendments, it addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law at all levels of government.

The Fourteenth Amendment was a response to issues affecting freed slaves following the American Civil War, and its enactment was bitterly contested.

States of the defeated Confederacy were required to ratify it to regain representation in Congress.

The amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark Supreme Court decisions, such as
- Brown v. Board of Education (1954; prohibiting racial segregation in public schools)
- Loving v. Virginia (1967; ending interracial marriage bans)
- Roe v. Wade (1973; recognizing federal right to abortion until overturned in 2022)
- Bush v. Gore (2000; settling 2000 presidential election)
- Obergefell v. Hodges (2015; extending right to marry to same-sex couples)
- Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023; prohibiting affirmative action in most college admissions)

Originally Posted by GaiaGoddess

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourte...s_Constitution

Guess we need a deep dive on the 14th Amendment as it pertains to this topic

In order to confirm the true meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, as stated by those who framed the amendment, the starting place is THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE, 39TH CONGRESS

.
Have Justices Kagan and Sotomayor engaged in misfeasance and nonfeasance resulting in an injustice being inflicted on Kim Davis?


It seems to me our Supreme Court including Kagan and Sotomayor, in Obergefell v. Hodges , set itself up as members of an unelected, omnipotent, constitutional convention, and substituted their personal feelings and predilections as being within the terms and conditions under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to, while Article V [with the people's consent] is the only lawful way to alter the enforceable terms and conditions our Constitution?



So, how did Kagan and Sotomayor, in Obergefell v. Hodges determine that our federal Constitution forbids the States from making distinctions in law based upon sex?

A reason why I ask the above questions is, a Senate Report in 1872, during the 42 Congress, answered the above question in crystal clear language:

“In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it…A construction which would give the phrase…a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution.” Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

And, our very own Supreme Court emphatically provides a procedure answering the same question:

“The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.”_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

It should also be noted that our U.S. Supreme Court has never officially reversed the decision in Bradwell v. The State, 83 U.S. 130 (1872) in which the State of Illinois refused to grant a license to a woman to practice law in Illinois, on the ground that females were not eligible under the laws of that state. The USSC upheld the law as not violating the Fourteenth Amendment!

So, considering the Fourteenth Amendment was not violated in 1872 by by Illinois making distinctions in law based upon sex, when was our Constitution amended to henceforth forbid the States to make distinctions in law based upon sex?

The only amendment to be found in our Constitution since 1872 with reference to sex is the Nineteenth Amendment, adopted in 1920. But that amendment, is narrowly worded and limits the protection against “sex” discriminations as follows:

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

Is it now obvious that the American people have never adopted a constitutional amendment in our federal constitution, forbidding our States from making distinctions in law based upon “sex” other than the Nineteenth Amendment?

Is it not also true that the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, which would have forbid the States to make distinctions in law based upon sex, was rejected in 1982 by an insufficient number of States approving the amendment?

Now, in view of the historical evidence provided, is it now crystal clear that Kagan and Sotomayor, in Obergefell v. Hodges , in essence, set themselves up (along with three other S.C. Justices) as members of an unelected, omnipotent, constitutional convention, and substituted their personal feelings and predilections as being within the terms and conditions under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to, while Article V is the only lawful way to alter our Constitution?

Do the actions of these two, Kagan and Sotomayor, not fall within the four walls of misfeasance and nonfeasance, and effectively resulted in wrongfully letting stand a $100,000 damages verdict against Kim Davis, plus $260,000 for attorney’s fees, for allegedly violating the law in 2015 by refusing to issue a marriage license to a Kentucky same-sex couple, when Kentucky’s constitution would be violated by issuing such a license?

A majority on our Supreme Court is not vested with power to alter the terms and conditions set forth in the Fourteenth Amendment. Article V is the only lawful way to alter the terms and conditions set forth in the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court has never taken up and formally reversed the decision in BRADWELL V. THE STATE, 83 U. S. 130 (1872)

Bradwell v. The State is apparently still good law and essentially confirmed a State has authority to make distinctions based upon sex, and that refusing to issue a license based upon sex violates no provision of the federal Constitution.

Kentucky’s Constitutional Amendment states:

“Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”


Keep in mind our U.S. Supreme Court has never taken up and reversed the decision in Bradwell v. The State, 83 U.S. 130 (1872) in which the State of Illinois refused to grant a license to a woman to practice law in Illinois, on the ground that females were not eligible under the laws of that state. The USSC upheld the law as not violating the Fourteenth Amendment!

Kim Davis should sue Justices Sotomayor and Kagan under the Seventh Amendment for Sotomayor and Kagan’s misfeasance and nonfeasance in Obergefell v. Hodges which has led to a $100,000 damages verdict against her, plus $260,000 for attorney’s fees, for allegedly violating the law in 2015 by refusing to issue a marriage license to a Kentucky same-sex couple, when Kentucky’s constitution would be violated by issuing such a license.

The Seventh Amendment states:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Keep in mind Sotomayor and Kagan took an oath to support and defend our written Constitution which does not allow them to substitute their personal feelings and predilections as the rule of law, which is what they did in Obergefell v. Hodges . . . they ignored fundamental rules of constitutional construction.


“In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it…A construction which would give the phrase…a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution.” Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Additionally, our very own Supreme Court points to Sotomayor and Kagan’s fundamental duty:

"The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it."_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

Let a jury decide whether or not Sotomayor and Kagan engaged in misfeasance and nonfeasance.