scotus: kentucky clerk must issue same-sex marriage licenses.
by ariane de vogue, cnn supreme court reporter.
updated 8:02 pm et, mon august 31, 2015. let's hope this is the final screech from the haters who wrap themselves in the bible - or their egoist political philosophy i doubt it will be, but let's hope..
Well, you're still wrong and uninformed
What is wrong with that ?
and seem to have no plans to change either of those things.
That is not true.
There is exactly zero point in talking to you as it's an absolute waste of time, energy and information.
What specifically do you want me to change about myself that you feel is bad?
scotus: kentucky clerk must issue same-sex marriage licenses.
by ariane de vogue, cnn supreme court reporter.
updated 8:02 pm et, mon august 31, 2015. let's hope this is the final screech from the haters who wrap themselves in the bible - or their egoist political philosophy i doubt it will be, but let's hope..
you not being sure about the validity of her argument is irrelevant.
Sure it is.
She is not upholding the law or her oath. That is fact.
It is not a fact
She IS only doing her job when she feels like it.
No she is not..
You not being sure, remaining uninformed, trying to muddy the waters have nothing to do with the facts.
Argumentative. More assertions
The fact is she swore to uphold the law.
She did not swear to kill her mother and father if it became law or curse God or violate her beliefs if they ever became law or endorse gay marriage licences.
Yet another fact is that judges cannot do whatever they want.
I explained to you what I meant by that.
A final fact is that she in no way has to endorse a marriage to sign it,
That is not a fact. It is your opinion. She has hers.
As far as knowing whether or not her claim is invalid, she has lost every challenge and no more are left. She lost, her claim is invalid. Every single person who actually understands the issues grasped that. That you didn't, freely admit that you are uninformed on the matter and have made no attempt to bother to learn the facts makes your laughing little more than personification of the phrase "ignorance is bliss". And trust me, you were never arguing to win. Heck, you don't even have an argument. You've nothing but being uninformed and happy about that.
So you are not a lawyer. I am not laughing. I only said that I would.
In essence, you're why we can't have nice things.
You hurt me. Sad If I am giving you the wrong impression about me with my posts. That is unfair to say that about me based on my posts and not having all of the facts about the person that I am.
scotus: kentucky clerk must issue same-sex marriage licenses.
by ariane de vogue, cnn supreme court reporter.
updated 8:02 pm et, mon august 31, 2015. let's hope this is the final screech from the haters who wrap themselves in the bible - or their egoist political philosophy i doubt it will be, but let's hope..
I mean if you did not want to disclose it.
Also, looking things up on the internet does not mean you have all of the facts.
And when viv says something is a fact does not make it a fact
scotus: kentucky clerk must issue same-sex marriage licenses.
by ariane de vogue, cnn supreme court reporter.
updated 8:02 pm et, mon august 31, 2015. let's hope this is the final screech from the haters who wrap themselves in the bible - or their egoist political philosophy i doubt it will be, but let's hope..
scotus: kentucky clerk must issue same-sex marriage licenses.
by ariane de vogue, cnn supreme court reporter.
updated 8:02 pm et, mon august 31, 2015. let's hope this is the final screech from the haters who wrap themselves in the bible - or their egoist political philosophy i doubt it will be, but let's hope..
Viv, are you an attorney?
All you post are assertions.
scotus: kentucky clerk must issue same-sex marriage licenses.
by ariane de vogue, cnn supreme court reporter.
updated 8:02 pm et, mon august 31, 2015. let's hope this is the final screech from the haters who wrap themselves in the bible - or their egoist political philosophy i doubt it will be, but let's hope..
Her signature is not an endorsement
Depends on how you are defining endorsement.
scotus: kentucky clerk must issue same-sex marriage licenses.
by ariane de vogue, cnn supreme court reporter.
updated 8:02 pm et, mon august 31, 2015. let's hope this is the final screech from the haters who wrap themselves in the bible - or their egoist political philosophy i doubt it will be, but let's hope..
Her argument is invalid.
I am not sure about that
Her oath said she agreed to uphold the laws, not uphold the laws except when she felt like it.
She is not upholding laws when she feels like it.
Because "reasonable accomodation" doesn't mean "don't have to do a core component of your job after you've sworn an oath to do so".
She never swore to endorse gay marriages as a core component of her job..
So what?
Exactly my point
Reality differs from your statements.
It does not. The reality is that the Court has case law to support whatever decision it likes. Obviously, a judge cannot commit a crime or impeachable conduct, but besides that, judges are very powerful and within the ambit of their power in their jurisdiction they have the power to decide what the Court deems just and proper. In other words, like. or sometimes bunk.
Sixty one federal judges have been impeached or investigated in the United States. Several were removed. That's not counting at all state and local judges.
So what. Tell that to the judge when he tells you that it is his Court room.
Also, judges had limited power and authority based on their position and region.
Subject matter.
They cannot "do whatever they want", no matter how many times or how much you think that to be true.
Depends on what I mean. I said "like" not want.
I do know so much,
If you are an attorney, I believe you. If not, I laugh at you.
I do not want to argue for the sake of winning. I do not know all of the facts about her case. I am not a supporter of her either. Or any public official using religion as an excuse not to do their job. . You have posted a lot of your assertions but in all objectivity, you have not invalidated her claim.
scotus: kentucky clerk must issue same-sex marriage licenses.
by ariane de vogue, cnn supreme court reporter.
updated 8:02 pm et, mon august 31, 2015. let's hope this is the final screech from the haters who wrap themselves in the bible - or their egoist political philosophy i doubt it will be, but let's hope..
She doesn't have to endorse gay marriages. She simply has to make sure paperwork is in order and file it for marriage as she agreed to.
She does. The license requires her signature
scotus: kentucky clerk must issue same-sex marriage licenses.
by ariane de vogue, cnn supreme court reporter.
updated 8:02 pm et, mon august 31, 2015. let's hope this is the final screech from the haters who wrap themselves in the bible - or their egoist political philosophy i doubt it will be, but let's hope..
Judges can do whatever they like. I have heard judges say: "The law ties my hands." and then do whatever they like anyway, erring deliberately. They can and will err when they like and the heck with you. Go around in circles and spend all your money in appeals.. They do not have to tell you they are doing so. But sometimes they will tell you straight out. You think you know so much? Go try a judge. "The Court erred. SO WHAT! The heck with you."
You do not have any Court exposure. Divorce maybe. If you did, when I said bunk, you would know.
scotus: kentucky clerk must issue same-sex marriage licenses.
by ariane de vogue, cnn supreme court reporter.
updated 8:02 pm et, mon august 31, 2015. let's hope this is the final screech from the haters who wrap themselves in the bible - or their egoist political philosophy i doubt it will be, but let's hope..
Because she refuses to do the job she agreed and swore to do.
When did she agree to endorse gay marriages? I can see her argument if she claims " I agreed to do my job and I also agreed to do my job when laws change. But I never agreed to do my job when it violates my religion. You are saying that I did so derivatively, but I disagree."
Why should everybody else be legally forced to accommodate, but not in her case?
If lot of other people get Reasonable Accommodations- even public officials, then why shouldn't she. I know some elected officials that get special accommodations so they can practice their religion at work, or not work so they can practice their religion. I know of laws that have been changed to accommodate .religious beliefs.
Some JW are clerks of the Court (not all officers of the Court are elected) In the US attorneys are officers of the Court.
