A blog by a "sucker" and a "loser" who served her country in the Navy.
If you're one of the Covidiots who believe that COVID-19 is "just the flu",
that the 2020 election was stolen, or
especially if you supported the 1/6/21 insurrection,
leave now.
Slava Ukraini!
Kim Davis, the former county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses in Kentucky to same-sex couples, must pay a total of $260,104 in fees and expenses to attorneys who represented one couple, according to a federal judge’s ruling.
That is in addition to $100,000 in damages a jury said the former Rowan county clerk should pay the couple who sued.
European Union laws require you to give European Union visitors information about cookies used on your blog. In many cases, these laws also require you to obtain consent.You're here, you've consented. If you don't like it, go read some other goddamn blog. It's not as if you're paying me.
16 comments:
Comrade, welcome to 2024 and happy new year!
Did you need a Bluesky Social invite? I got five to gift out.
And to you, Paul.
Good. If she took the job she should do the job.
Nowhere does it say that you can change the rules due to pollical or religious views.
Resign if you must, but her actions were illegal and just plain wrong.
Now if they'd just do that for folks like the Colorado supreme court idiots. Same same.
One is not the same as the other. County clerks don’t get to decide what the law is. Judges, on the other hand, do.
You know that, but it doesn’t fit into your chosen narrative.
As a judge, they should know better. That "decision" was based on ideology and you know it. Judges aren't gods, nor do they make the laws.
They know it will be overturned. They were simply using their positions to make a statement.
uych actions show their lack of fitment for the office they hold.
Why are you bellyaching, B? I’ve not known you to express a single regret about the ideologically-based decisions of the Roberts court. So it’s only OK when Republicans do it?
For a guy who loves to lecture everyone ele about being intellectually consistent, you’re awfully bad at it, yourself. This would seem to be yet another case if the rules are different for Republicans.
Perhaps, B., if you left the echo chamber, you might learn some facts.
Colorado has a provision in law that demands candidates attest to their eligibility for the Office. Once the Lower Court ruled Trump had engaged in insurrection, the CO Supreme Court was simply deciding if the Office of President of the United States is an “Office” under the 14th Amendment. The precedent of the lower court’s finding of fact always made that the only decision that could be made.
On the other hand, in Minnesota and Michigan, which Trump supporters hold up as deciding correctly to not remove Trump from the primary ballot, they both lack a similar law. Thus, running to enter the Presidential Election via a Party Primary isn’t covered by the 14th in those States, however, both Court’s said that the case could be refilled IF Trump wins a nomination or runs as an Independent, as it would now be appropriate.
In the Colorado result, the Justices voting to strike Trump from the ballot used Alito and Scalia’s theses on Originalism and Texturalism to guide their decision. The dissenting Justices admitted to interpreting intent, thus those should be the ones in your crosshairs, B.
It is depressingly satisfying to see Scalia ride to the rescue in this case, but after reflecting upon his history and behavior, I believe he would have been horrified by the events post election in 2020. That the actions of Bush vs Gore would have eventually devolved into this chaos would have been confusing to him, as he was always a bookworm scholar type, and I still doubt he would have recognized his role in the genesis.
So making a ruling not based on law but rather ideology and dislike is somehow ok for a judge? ?
These are State Supreme Court Justices, not first year law students.
At some point at that level you have to put your ideology aside and be an impartial judge. At least have a bit ow law on the side of your decision to point at.
I'd say the same in similar situations if the parties were reversed. You know it and I know it. There is no law, no precedent, for the ruling. Simply Hate and ideology, both of which are unacceptable for ANY judge to use in a decision.
You like it because you hate Trump. I get that. But the implications that a judge can decide, simply based on ideology, whether a candidate can run is far reaching. You should be smart enough to see why, if you can look past your hate for Trump and see the implications. The end does not justify the means. That way lies anarchy.
Are we a nation of laws or not? Pick one.
b, stop before you embarrass yourself further.
As to nation of laws... first is the obligation to obey
them as your TOFF has not, repeatedly. To that there is
law and enforcement. He does not get a free pass as
you or I certainly would not even in lesser cases.
The earlier you say a clerk is obligated, as in it is
her job. But yet others are not. Obsequious is a word
that covers that. It allows you to do, and not know
why you do. That is a danger, the unknowing or possibly
uncaring. Servility to a lawless master is not freedom.
It is the complete opposite.
Eck!
As to Davis...
Yes, the cult may pay her legal freight.
But as an elected (not a hired employee) official she
was obligated to perform and violated law by not doing.
But she is infamous and employment may be hard and life
is long. Taxes, water bills, electric, gasoline, food,
and heating will have to be paid. I don't think her
followers will pay that, or not for long.
Her 15 minutes may be more costly than expected.
Eck!
B., my point was the Colorado Justices made their decision based upon the precedents provided by the Supreme Court of the United States. If you are arguing that those were thus political decisions, then you have now conceded that the current Supreme Court is guided by politics rather than law. You can’t argue both sides, m8. I personally think originalism and texturalism misses the point with laws, the sausage is made in a rather distasteful manner, and consideration of that manner has to be included.
So, try again, where are the politics in the CO Supreme Court decision? Remember the finding of fact from the District Court, unless that is overturned, they had no choice per SCOTUS. The three dissenting (Democratic) Justices were arguing for a less originalist/texturalist reading, something Republicans say they abhour.
Again, no charges of, nor conviction of insurrection.
None.
How can you be guilty of something of you have not been charged or tried for it?
At that point it is opinion, not fact. And the fact that the judges failed to address that, that they simply chose to FEEL that he had been an insurrectionist, is indicative of their unfitness for the position that they hold.
And Eck: Please list the laws you refer to being broken "repeatedly". Please answer my question: Are we a nation of laws or not?
Let me guess, B: Next up, you’re going to claim that the J6 people were attending an unsanctioned group tour.
B., the District Court in Colorado found Trump guilty of insurrection, and thus he was adjudged to be ineligible to be on the ballot when the Colorado Supreme Court ruled the District Court erred in ruling that President of the United States is not an Officer under the meaning of the 14th Amendment. Let that sink in, the base ruling is that Donald John Trump engaged in insurrection on January 6th, 2020. That’s what is known as being guilty. The trial was not about insurrection charges, but this ruling was been made, and as a consequence, every time you say “no charges, no conviction”, you are simply playing a word game on charges and lying on conviction. The Colorado District Court ruling CONVICTS (“declare (someone) to be guilty of a criminal offense by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge in a court of law”) Trump of insurrection, the fact that those crimes were not being addressed in that case doesn’t invalidate the result. Someone will undoubtedly use this as a basis to push charges against Trump in D.C. if the Supreme Court doesn’t overturn the decision.
b,
Demand all you wish, its a poor argument.
I can not argue with an irrational person.
Eck!
Post a Comment