Author Topic: Ted Cruz: 'I Stand With Kim Davis'  (Read 11591 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,616
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Ted Cruz: 'I Stand With Kim Davis'
« Reply #75 on: September 05, 2015, 02:21:51 pm »
The due process and equal protection clauses.


You sound just like Barack Obama when he asserted that nothing in the Constitution forbad him from declaring Congress in recess unilaterally because they weren't sitting on a particular day and then claiming that his appointments were valid recess appointments.

I find it utterly fascinating that someone who has for so long decried Obama's violation of the Constitution is so ready and willing to ignore that same Constitution just because he hates homosexuals.

Your beef and that of this judge is then with the State of Kentucky and NOT Kim Davis!
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Ted Cruz: 'I Stand With Kim Davis'
« Reply #76 on: September 05, 2015, 02:25:45 pm »
Your beef and that of this judge is then with the State of Kentucky and NOT Kim Davis!


Bull.  My beef is with a government official who is using her office to impose her private religious beliefs on private citizens.

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,616
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Ted Cruz: 'I Stand With Kim Davis'
« Reply #77 on: September 05, 2015, 02:27:35 pm »
The due process and equal protection clauses.


You sound just like Barack Obama when he asserted that nothing in the Constitution forbad him from declaring Congress in recess unilaterally because they weren't sitting on a particular day and then claiming that his appointments were valid recess appointments.

I find it utterly fascinating that someone who has for so long decried Obama's violation of the Constitution is so ready and willing to ignore that same Constitution just because he hates homosexuals.

Those parts of the constitution have been there for a VERY long time now but marriage between one man and one woman REMAINS the law in the state of Kentucky and many other places! 5 unelected lawyers in black robes do not get to rewrite those laws!
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Ted Cruz: 'I Stand With Kim Davis'
« Reply #78 on: September 05, 2015, 02:30:05 pm »
Those parts of the constitution have been there for a VERY long time now but marriage between one man and one woman REMAINS the law in the state of Kentucky and many other places! 5 unelected lawyers in black robes do not get to rewrite those laws!


Uh huh.

So you're also saying that you still believe racial segregation is the law of the land because, well, those clauses were in the Constitution for a long time before the Supreme Court "changed the law" by deciding that the Constitution forbade racial segregation.


You can spam every thread you want, but the more spam you post, the more foolish you make yourself appear.

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,616
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Ted Cruz: 'I Stand With Kim Davis'
« Reply #79 on: September 05, 2015, 02:33:52 pm »
Uh huh.

So you're also saying that you still believe racial segregation is the law of the land because, well, those clauses were in the Constitution for a long time before the Supreme Court "changed the law" by deciding that the Constitution forbade racial segregation.


You can spam every thread you want, but the more spam you post, the more foolish you make yourself appear.

YOU and these rouge courts are what look and are foolish!

I find NOTHING in the Constitution that says anything about a grant of power to the federal government regarding the institution of marriage! Therefore they have no say about it at  all! That power remains with the states!
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,616
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Ted Cruz: 'I Stand With Kim Davis'
« Reply #80 on: September 05, 2015, 02:36:26 pm »
And furthermore I will continue to spam threads until it is understood that Judges are not KINGS in this country! They get to render OPINIONS and nothing more!
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Ted Cruz: 'I Stand With Kim Davis'
« Reply #81 on: September 05, 2015, 02:39:47 pm »
YOU and these rouge courts are what look and are foolish!

I find NOTHING in the Constitution that says anything about a grant of power to the federal government regarding the institution of marriage! Therefore they have no say about it at  all! That power remains with the states!



Gee, the Constitution doesn't say anything about having separate drinking fountains for whites and blacks, and yet, reasonable, yea, even barely rational, people agree that the Constitution forbids such segregation.

However, you, all by your lonesome, have now decided that federal law is utterly inapplicable to racial segregation simply because the Constitution doesn't mention separate drinking fountains for whites and blacks.

In fact, let's get a little closer to the issue to hand:  the Constitution says nothing about giving the government power over who lives with whom, so it must follow that the Supreme Court engaged in unconstitutional lawmaking when it decided that the Constitution prohibited the Commonwealth of Virginia from outlawing interracial couples under its anti-miscegenation law.  See Loving v. Virginia.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2015, 02:46:48 pm by Oceander »

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,616
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Ted Cruz: 'I Stand With Kim Davis'
« Reply #82 on: September 05, 2015, 02:41:57 pm »

Gee, the Constitution doesn't say anything about having separate drinking fountains for whites and blacks, and yet, reasonable, yea, even barely rational, people agree that the Constitution forbids such segregation.



No but actual LAWS do!
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Ted Cruz: 'I Stand With Kim Davis'
« Reply #83 on: September 05, 2015, 02:49:19 pm »
No but actual LAWS do!


Irrelevant.  The Constitution says its unconstitutional and that is all that is both necessary and sufficient.  If a state enacted a law mandating separate drinking fountains for whites and blacks it could not legally be given any effect and any county clerk who insisted that she was just "following the law" when she refused to allow a black man to use the "whites only" water fountain would still be held liable for violating his constitutional rights.

The "just following orders" defense didn't work in Nuremberg and it shouldn't work here, either.

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,804
  • Gender: Male
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Re: Ted Cruz: 'I Stand With Kim Davis'
« Reply #84 on: September 05, 2015, 02:50:03 pm »
Guys?





 :tongue2:
« Last Edit: September 05, 2015, 02:50:33 pm by EC »
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Ted Cruz: 'I Stand With Kim Davis'
« Reply #85 on: September 05, 2015, 02:51:12 pm »

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,804
  • Gender: Male
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Re: Ted Cruz: 'I Stand With Kim Davis'
« Reply #86 on: September 05, 2015, 02:56:39 pm »
 :laugh:

I agree with both of you.

My brother is right in that she was applying state law and the law which "supercedes" State law is unwritten.

I'm also of the mind that if you take coin to do a job you do all of it - even the bits you personally disagree with.
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Ted Cruz: 'I Stand With Kim Davis'
« Reply #87 on: September 05, 2015, 03:00:28 pm »
:laugh:

I agree with both of you.

My brother is right in that she was applying state law and the law which "supercedes" State law is unwritten.

I'm also of the mind that if you take coin to do a job you do all of it - even the bits you personally disagree with.

I disagree that the superseding law is unwritten.  It is written; what has changed is that, in addressing the issue to a concrete set of facts, the court with final authority to apply that written law to the facts has determined that the written law makes it impermissible for states to outlaw same-sex marriage.

This is not something controversial.  It happens every time a court is faced with a set of facts and must decide how the written law applies to those facts.

As far as accepting coin goes:  I agree completely.  As the old adage goes, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.  Otherwise, suck it up and do your job.

Offline aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,916
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ted Cruz: 'I Stand With Kim Davis'
« Reply #88 on: September 05, 2015, 03:04:59 pm »
Bull.  My beef is with a government official who is using her office to impose her private religious beliefs on private citizens.

How did she "impose" anything? She declined to act. How was that imposing anything?

Offline ABX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 900
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Re: Ted Cruz: 'I Stand With Kim Davis'
« Reply #89 on: September 05, 2015, 03:11:24 pm »
Just made the same comment on another thread so please forgive the redundancy. It seems this may be a case where the media has created a completely different narrative. There were some interesting comments by her lawyer on CNN this morning IF true (emphasis on IF).
Apparently Ms. Davis, a Democrat, does not oppose gay marriage. She also wasn't refusing to issue marriage licenses to just gay people but all marriage licenses. Her argument, the ruling took away the authority of her office and rested it with the State therefore, she wanted her name removed from the certificates and they be issued by the State, not the clerk. That was it. It wasn't opposition to gay marriage. (IF true, we know how some lawyers are).

Godzilla

  • Guest
Re: Ted Cruz: 'I Stand With Kim Davis'
« Reply #90 on: September 05, 2015, 03:31:11 pm »
I don't see that in this case, Kim Davis is trying to control anyone's life but her own.  She is simply following her Christian beliefs and values based on the teachings of the Bible.  She shouldn't be forced to issue a license to a gay couple when the union of same sex is considered an abomination in the Bible.  Perhaps most importantly she should have protection of her religious beliefs under the first amendment; instead she was thrown in jail.

The Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the law, but they CANNOT make or create new laws, nor can they amend laws or the Constitution.   

As for Ted Cruz and reading the many (now famous) Supreme Court cases that he has won and his respect to uphold the Constitution, along with the other justices who dissented against this ruling, this "controversy" was bound to continue and many see it as changing law rather than interpreting the law.

----------
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) claims the recent Supreme Court decisions on same-sex marriage and Obamacare are the "very definition of tyranny."

The 2016 presidential candidate, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts, convened a hearing Wednesday to investigate what he called "abuses" by the highest court in the land.

"If any of us believes in democracy, in the constitutional rule of law, then whether we agree or disagree with a policy ... we should be horrified at the notion that five unelected judges can seize authority from the American people," he said.

"We did not establish philosopher kings in this country," Cruz added, before calling for term limits on Supreme Court justices.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-gay-marriage_55b00157e4b07af29d57677c

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/an-angry-ted-cruz-wants-to-rewrite-the-constitution-to-bring-back-same-sex-marriage-bans/

She is dictating, to the extent of her authority, who may (or may not) be married.  Solely based on her religious convictions.

It is no different than if a muslim in the same position stated that no marriage would be granted unless conducted by an imam.

Godzilla

  • Guest
Re: Ted Cruz: 'I Stand With Kim Davis'
« Reply #91 on: September 05, 2015, 03:39:10 pm »
Just made the same comment on another thread so please forgive the redundancy. It seems this may be a case where the media has created a completely different narrative. There were some interesting comments by her lawyer on CNN this morning IF true (emphasis on IF).
Apparently Ms. Davis, a Democrat, does not oppose gay marriage. She also wasn't refusing to issue marriage licenses to just gay people but all marriage licenses. Her argument, the ruling took away the authority of her office and rested it with the State therefore, she wanted her name removed from the certificates and they be issued by the State, not the clerk. That was it. It wasn't opposition to gay marriage. (IF true, we know how some lawyers are).

That is actually false.

She initially refused only homosexuals seeking marriage licenses.  When the press scrutiny became too great, she changed her tune to all marriage licenses.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2015, 04:33:15 pm by Godzilla »

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Ted Cruz: 'I Stand With Kim Davis'
« Reply #92 on: September 05, 2015, 04:04:08 pm »
How did she "impose" anything? She declined to act. How was that imposing anything?

Her job is issuing licenses for, inter alia, legal marriages.  Same-sex marriages are legal marriages now (in fact, they now enjoy constitutional protection), and since she refused to perform her job because of her private religious beliefs, she is imposing those beliefs on the people to whom she is obliged to issue licenses.

Should a DMV clerk be allowed to stop issuing licenses to Italian Americans because she doesn't like wops?

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,616
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Ted Cruz: 'I Stand With Kim Davis'
« Reply #93 on: September 05, 2015, 04:22:24 pm »
You can bow to judicial tyranny all you please! I will not!
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,616
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Ted Cruz: 'I Stand With Kim Davis'
« Reply #94 on: September 05, 2015, 04:28:01 pm »
SCALIA IN GAY MARRIAGE RULING DISSENT: WHERE ARE THE PROTESTANTS?

by THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, PH.D

In all the Sturm und Drang following last Friday’s landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that discovered a right to same-sex marriage in the American Constitution, a fascinating and disturbing observation by Justice Antonin Scalia was largely overlooked: U.S. Protestants had no say whatsoever in the new social order enacted by the Court.

In his nine-page dissent, Scalia ripped into the majority opinion, calling it a “judicial Putsch” that poses a “threat to American democracy.” He added that a “system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”

The Court’s “naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power” bulldozed the right of the People to self-government, said Scalia, who then turned to the peculiarly unrepresentative composition of the Supreme Court itself.

Scalia noted that “the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America.”

“Take, for example, this Court,” he said, “which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east-and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between.”

Scalia then observed that not “a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination” is to be found on the Court, which currently consists of six Catholics and three Jews.

How can such an elite, homogeneous committee presume to legislate over a constituency that finds itself as wholly unrepresented as do American Protestants? he suggested.

“The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges,” Scalia continued. “But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis.”

To underscore the gravity of the Court’s action, Scalia compared it to England’s treatment of the American colonies before the war of independence. The justice said that in its hubris, Friday’s majority decision had perpetrated a more serious offense than the one that ignited the American Revolution.

Indeed, “to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation,” he said.

“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court,” Scalia said.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/01/scalia-in-gay-marriage-ruling-dissent-where-are-the-protestants/

Scalia's full dissent for those who might care to read it: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Godzilla

  • Guest
Re: Ted Cruz: 'I Stand With Kim Davis'
« Reply #95 on: September 05, 2015, 04:30:31 pm »
SCALIA IN GAY MARRIAGE RULING DISSENT: WHERE ARE THE PROTESTANTS?

by THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, PH.D

In all the Sturm und Drang following last Friday’s landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that discovered a right to same-sex marriage in the American Constitution, a fascinating and disturbing observation by Justice Antonin Scalia was largely overlooked: U.S. Protestants had no say whatsoever in the new social order enacted by the Court.

In his nine-page dissent, Scalia ripped into the majority opinion, calling it a “judicial Putsch” that poses a “threat to American democracy.” He added that a “system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”

The Court’s “naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power” bulldozed the right of the People to self-government, said Scalia, who then turned to the peculiarly unrepresentative composition of the Supreme Court itself.

Scalia noted that “the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America.”

“Take, for example, this Court,” he said, “which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east-and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between.”

Scalia then observed that not “a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination” is to be found on the Court, which currently consists of six Catholics and three Jews.

How can such an elite, homogeneous committee presume to legislate over a constituency that finds itself as wholly unrepresented as do American Protestants? he suggested.

“The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges,” Scalia continued. “But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis.”

To underscore the gravity of the Court’s action, Scalia compared it to England’s treatment of the American colonies before the war of independence. The justice said that in its hubris, Friday’s majority decision had perpetrated a more serious offense than the one that ignited the American Revolution.

Indeed, “to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation,” he said.

“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court,” Scalia said.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/01/scalia-in-gay-marriage-ruling-dissent-where-are-the-protestants/

Scalia's full dissent for those who might care to read it: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Why are you listening to an unelected busybody who can only provide opinions (as you state so often)?

Railing against the Supreme court... and then citing them as support for your disregard *OF* them... tends to cancel your argument out.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2015, 04:32:23 pm by Godzilla »

Offline ABX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 900
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Re: Ted Cruz: 'I Stand With Kim Davis'
« Reply #96 on: September 05, 2015, 04:32:38 pm »
That is actually false.

She initially refused only homosexuals seeking marriage licenses.  When the press scrutiny became too great, she changed her vtune to all marriage licenses.

That's why I put the big IF caveat in that statement.  I figured this is the lawyer trying to position her in the best possible way to deal with the legal aspects she is about to face.

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Ted Cruz: 'I Stand With Kim Davis'
« Reply #97 on: September 05, 2015, 04:38:59 pm »
You can bow to judicial tyranny all you please! I will not!


I tire of this game.  Whak-a-mole gets boring quickly.  I'll just repost what I already posted elsewhere because it addresses the same point:
Quote
Are you kidding me?  You really do not understand how the law, or a court, works, do you.  (no, that isn't a question).

Firstly, as far as state courts are concerned, yes, judges do make law.  Where do you think the common law came from?  That was crafted out of whole cloth by judges, beginning many centuries ago in England.  The English common law was carried over in this country at the Revolution (a natural thing to do since the colonies were British).  That tradition continues in the various states to this day, and while it varies from state to state, most state courts - usually the highest court - do make new law.

Second, what you're calling "making law" is nothing of the sort.  The Supreme Court took already existing written law - the Constitution - and decided how that written law applied to the particular set of facts before it.

Tell me, what does the phrase "due process of law" mean in this first section of the 14th Amendment:
Quote
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The amendment itself doesn't provide even a hint about what "due process of law" is, nor how much is sufficient (i.e., constitutionally mandated).

The only way that abstract clause gets any meaning is when a  court has to decide whether, on the facts before it, "due process of law" was granted or denied.  That necessarily means that the judge will end up holding that a particular action is, or is not, sufficient due process.  If that set of facts has not been the subject of a court case before, or if the judge has been persuaded that the arguments for changing the result of the prior cases are strong enough, then the judge will be issuing an opinion that for the first time declares that "due process of law" requires X, or that it does not require X.

Whether one calls it how the law evolves, or "making law," that is the essential aspect of applying the law to the facts.  For example, the first time the Supreme Court decided whether wiretaps violated the Fourth Amendment, it held that they did not.  Olmstead v. United States (1928).  It was a 5-4 decision and this is what Chief Justice Taft had to say about it:
Quote
"The amendment itself shows that the search is to be of material things - the person, the house, his papers or his effects.  The amendment does not forbid what was done here for there was no seizure.  The evidence was secured by the sense of hearing and that only.  There was not entry of the houses. T he language of the amendment cannot be extended and expanded.  Since the evidence was a conversation and no entry was made into Olmstead's home, there was therefore no violation of his rights against unreasonable search and seizure."

However, the Court ultimately decided that the better arguments favored protecting communications under the Fourth Amendment, although it took until 1967, in the case of Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).

So, at what point did the Supreme Court "make law"?  The Fourth Amendment itself doesn't expressly cover wiretaps, or even eavesdropping, so was it making law when it said that the Fourth Amendment did not protect telephonic conversations?  Or was it making law when it reversed itself 39 years later and said that the Fourth Amendment did protect telephonic conversations?

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Ted Cruz: 'I Stand With Kim Davis'
« Reply #98 on: September 05, 2015, 04:39:30 pm »
Why are you listening to an unelected busybody who can only provide opinions (as you state so often)?

Railing against the Supreme court... and then citing them as support for your disregard *OF* them... tends to cancel your argument out.


Very good point!


:thumbsup:

Offline ABX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 900
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Re: Ted Cruz: 'I Stand With Kim Davis'
« Reply #99 on: September 05, 2015, 04:39:52 pm »
I am very mixed on this one.
First of all, she should NOT be jailed. However, she was elected to do a specific job and her job is to represent the office, not personal beliefs. She should have resigned as being unable to fulfill her job due to her beliefs when the job description changed. If she was unwilling to do that, like any employee or official, that would result in disciplinary action up to removal of office.  The legal punishment against her through contempt and jailing has a big Constitutional problem due to Ex Post Facto restrictions. She came into office and agreed to the position, swearing to it, when it aligned with her beliefs. The requirements of the position changed after she came into office and those requirements conflicted with her beliefs. She shouldn't be held in any legal jeopardy because the requirements changed.

A good analogy would be a nurse being hired to care for elderly patients, when the law is changed requiring euthanasia of the terminally ill. If that conflicts with her beliefs, she should quit or leave the position. However, there is no legal justification to force her to continue the job under threat of imprisonment.