Federal Judge Says He’s Above Natural Law as He Tosses Clerk Kim Davis in Jail

[mystery-ak]

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/09/03/federal-judge-says-hes-above-natural-law-as-he-tosses-clerk-kim-davis-in-jail/

Federal Judge Says He’s Above Natural Law as He Tosses Clerk Kim Davis in Jail
“The idea of natural law superceding this court’s authority would be a dangerous precedent indeed,” said Judge David L. Bunning
   
by Scott Ott
September 3, 2015 - 12:03 pm

Rowan County (KY) Clerk Kim Davis was jailed this morning by a federal judge who said that putting natural law about his authority would set a dangerous precedent.

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. She’s an elected official, and can’t be fired except by voters in her county, so a federal judge had her thrown in jail today. I expected as much. Any true civil-disobedience act must come with the willingness to bear the legal consequences of your extra-legal behavior. Davis politely thanked the judge before being carted off to the clink.

If it were me, I also would have submitted to the governing authority, but not without a resounding “SAY WHAT, YOUR HONOR?!” after he said this…

    “The idea of natural law superceding [sic] this court’s authority would be a dangerous precedent indeed,” U.S. District Judge David L. Bunning told Rowan County clerk Kim Davis.

Actually, your honor, the sovereignty of natural law over man-made authority is a founding principle — a starting point of the underlying political theory — of our constitutional republic. These United States separated from the British monarchy because we were entitled to by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” and not subservient to the alleged divine right of kings, nor to an imperious Parliament.

We ordained and established a Constitution of enumerated powers, not of general legislative authority, and “We, the People” gave Congress authority to legislate only within the powers granted in the Constitution. The rest belongs to the states, to the people and, obviously, to the great lawmaker and judge of us all.

Not only does natural law supersede the court’s authority, the judge’s authority is utterly dependent upon the existence of such a law, and — whether one wishes to acknowledge it or not — upon the authority of God.

This is not to say that each individual person may decide what natural law (or God’s law) shall be for the entire republic. But it certainly does not mean that a federal judge’s authority supersedes the law of God, or “natural law.”

[bkepley]

Praying for her and hoping she's the real deal and others will follow.  I most certainly believe she's a better man than Trump but who knows?

[Oceander]

Ms. Davis was acting lawlessly and in violation of her oath to support the Constitution and to faithfully carry out the duties of her office.  She was ordered to comply with federal law, which is the "supreme law of the land" and trumps Kentucky state law, and she refused.  That is a classic case of contempt of court, and the judge is perfectly within his rights to jail her for contempt.

This is another in a much-too-long line of situations where conservatives/republicans are making jack-a$$es out of themselves and giving the democrats a surfeit of ammunition to use to claim that they are not fit to govern the country.


The country needs solutions to the liberal anchor around our collective necks; we need solutions to the damage Obama has wrought, we need detailed plans on what to do about the impending Obamacare disaster, about the regulatory nightmare that is drowning more and more businesses, particularly small businesses, we need some real leadership in foreign affairs and a plan for how to deal with malefactors like Iran, but all we get is Donald Trump and Kim Davis.

I am truly beginning to despair of conservatives/republicans ever getting their political heads out of their political a$$es and focusing on the real problems, not the red herrings.

[Godzilla]

Ms. Davis was acting lawlessly and in violation of her oath to support the Constitution and to faithfully carry out the duties of her office.  She was ordered to comply with federal law, which is the "supreme law of the land" and trumps Kentucky state law, and she refused.  That is a classic case of contempt of court, and the judge is perfectly within his rights to jail her for contempt.

This is another in a much-too-long line of situations where conservatives/republicans are making jack-a$$es out of themselves and giving the democrats a surfeit of ammunition to use to claim that they are not fit to govern the country.


The country needs solutions to the liberal anchor around our collective necks; we need solutions to the damage Obama has wrought, we need detailed plans on what to do about the impending Obamacare disaster, about the regulatory nightmare that is drowning more and more businesses, particularly small businesses, we need some real leadership in foreign affairs and a plan for how to deal with malefactors like Iran, but all we get is Donald Trump and Kim Davis.

I am truly beginning to despair of conservatives/republicans ever getting their political heads out of their political a$$es and focusing on the real problems, not the red herrings.

This.

I agree completely.

[Bigun]

Can anyone just show me the actual law this woman has violated?  That's all I want to see is the actual LAW she violated!

[Dexter]

Can anyone just show me the actual law this woman has violated?  That's all I want to see is the actual LAW she violated!

http://litigation.findlaw.com/going-to-court/civil-contempt-of-court.html

[Bigun]

http://litigation.findlaw.com/going-to-court/civil-contempt-of-court.html

That is NOT a law!

[Dexter]

That is NOT a law!

The courts are the arbiters of law. Defying their decisions is against the law.

[Bigun]

The courts are the arbiters of law. Defying their decisions is against the law.

The do not write laws! Breaking the LAW is against the law!

[Dexter]

The do not write laws! Breaking the LAW is against the law!

The law says you must obey the decisions of the court.

[Bigun]

The law says you must obey the decisions of the court.

Show me the LAW that says that! IF you can!

[Dexter]

Show me the LAW that says that! IF you can!

I honestly can't point to a specific law that says we must obey the courts. There might be something somewhere, but I don't know what it is or where to find it. I'm surprised we're actually having this conversation, though. I thought it went without saying that the courts decide the law and disobeying the court is against the law.

[aligncare]

MLK defied unconstitutional law and we loved him for it.

[Bigun]

I honestly can't point to a specific law that says we must obey the courts. There might be something somewhere, but I don't know what it is or where to find it. I'm surprised we're actually having this conversation, though. I thought it went without saying that the courts decide the law and disobeying the court is against the law.

Goodnight Junior!

[Oceander]

I honestly can't point to a specific law that says we must obey the courts. There might be something somewhere, but I don't know what it is or where to find it. I'm surprised we're actually having this conversation, though. I thought it went without saying that the courts decide the law and disobeying the court is against the law.

Try the Constitution.  Specifically, Article VI, clause 2:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

It's amazing, and a little depressing, to see how many supposed law-and-order conservatives who have derided Obuttocks for acting lawlessly and ignoring the Constitution will so blithely drop any pretense of obeying the Constitution when it comes to getting their oxen gored.

[Bigun]

Try the Constitution.  Specifically, Article VI, clause 2:
It's amazing, and a little depressing, to see how many supposed law-and-order conservatives who have derided Obuttocks for acting lawlessly and ignoring the Constitution will so blithely drop any pretense of obeying the Constitution when it comes to getting their oxen gored.

Once again show me the actual law that this woman has violated!

I find not one word in the Constitution addressing same sex marriage at all. Is it in a penumbra somewhere where mere mortals cannot read it?

[Oceander]

MLK defied unconstitutional law and we loved him for it.

Uhh, last I checked, MLK wasn't an elected government official who took an oath to uphold the Constitution.  Ms. Davis did.  If she cannot stomache doing her oath-bound duty by issuing licenses in conformity with the Constitution - the supreme law of the land - then she has only one legal, moral, option:  resign.

What she is doing is flatly wrong and she is flagrantly violating the very laws she swore to uphold.  Conservatives/republicans, especially those who have lambasted the lawless Obama administration lo these past 7 years - should be outraged by her equally lawless conduct, not celebrating it.

[Bigun]

Uhh, last I checked, MLK wasn't an elected government official who took an oath to uphold the Constitution.  Ms. Davis did.  If she cannot stomache doing her oath-bound duty by issuing licenses in conformity with the Constitution - the supreme law of the land - then she has only one legal, moral, option:  resign.

What she is doing is flatly wrong and she is flagrantly violating the very laws she swore to uphold.  Conservatives/republicans, especially those who have lambasted the lawless Obama administration lo these past 7 years - should be outraged by her equally lawless conduct, not celebrating it.

Then you ought to be able to just show me the actual LAWS that she is flagrantly violation of shouldn't you?

[Charlespg]

MLK defied unconstitutional law and we loved him for it.

Massive civil disobedience is exactly whats needed

[Dexter]

Try the Constitution.  Specifically, Article VI, clause 2:

I had a feeling it would be covered in the Constitution. I was being lazy because I figured you would come along and do it for me. 

[Oceander]

Once again show me the actual law that this woman has violated!

I find not one word in the Constitution addressing same sex marriage at all. Is it in a penumbra somewhere where mere mortals cannot read it?

Don't be such an effing idiot.  The Fourth Amendment says nothing about cars, so by your logic the police don't need a warrant or probable cause to search your car.  Is that really what you believe?  The broad range of protections we enjoy under the Fourth Amendment are there because the Supreme Court's jurisprudence conceptualizes the overarching theory of the amendment as being based on a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.  Since the Fourth Amendment doesn't contain the actual word "privacy" or even "private" then you are necessarily committed to the position that the Fourth Amendment doesn't protect a person's reasonable expectation of privacy, but only his person, his house, his papers, and his effects (i.e., clothing and household goods such as furniture and the like).

In fact, the Constitution says nary a word about telephones or computers or the internet, so by your logic the NSA is perfectly free to collect the contents of whatever electronic communication is wishes to collect.

Is that really what you believe?

[Oceander]

I had a feeling it would be covered in the Constitution. I was being lazy because I figured you would come along and do it for me. 

It's not laziness, it's efficiency!

[Godzilla]

Don't be such an effing idiot.  The Fourth Amendment says nothing about cars, so by your logic the police don't need a warrant or probable cause to search your car.  Is that really what you believe?  The broad range of protections we enjoy under the Fourth Amendment are there because the Supreme Court's jurisprudence conceptualizes the overarching theory of the amendment as being based on a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.  Since the Fourth Amendment doesn't contain the actual word "privacy" or even "private" then you are necessarily committed to the position that the Fourth Amendment doesn't protect a person's reasonable expectation of privacy, but only his person, his house, his papers, and his effects (i.e., clothing and household goods such as furniture and the like).

In fact, the Constitution says nary a word about telephones or computers or the internet, so by your logic the NSA is perfectly free to collect the contents of whatever electronic communication is wishes to collect.

Is that really what you believe?

Thank you for saying this better than I could.

[Bigun]

Don't be such an effing idiot.  The Fourth Amendment says nothing about cars, so by your logic the police don't need a warrant or probable cause to search your car.  Is that really what you believe?  The broad range of protections we enjoy under the Fourth Amendment are there because the Supreme Court's jurisprudence conceptualizes the overarching theory of the amendment as being based on a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.  Since the Fourth Amendment doesn't contain the actual word "privacy" or even "private" then you are necessarily committed to the position that the Fourth Amendment doesn't protect a person's reasonable expectation of privacy, but only his person, his house, his papers, and his effects (i.e., clothing and household goods such as furniture and the like).

In fact, the Constitution says nary a word about telephones or computers or the internet, so by your logic the NSA is perfectly free to collect the contents of whatever electronic communication is wishes to collect.

Is that really what you believe?

Chaff! Nothing but trying to muddy the water!

Here is the text of Article 6 Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Explain to me how that applies to what we are talking about here.

[Paladin]

Praying for her and hoping she's the real deal and others will follow.  I most certainly believe she's a better man than Trump but who knows?

No matter what the subject, no matter what has been said, no matter how irrelevant, this particular poster simply has to get in some cheap shot at Trump. It's like a sick addiction with him and helps explain why so many on here are threatening to withdraw. They are fed up with it and rightfully so.