Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The judge will keep her in jail until she complies.
Though I believe the woman is wrong, the judge's actions also give me a shivering moment of pause. Anyone else?
No.
It was clear that there were people waiting to hand her cash if the judge simply imposed fines. That shows me the judge is fully aware of how the modern world works. Jail time is for her alone and no one can do it for her.
All law enforcement is selective. There isn't enough money in the world to pay for enforcement of every single legal infraction. Decisions are routinely made on what and what not to enforce.
And yes, I vote - in the real world, where I live, where prioritizing the spending of government money happens every single day, and many things end up getting left off the list.
My example of the Marijuana laws is not a minor/jaywalking infraction. Not in any other sense except that it's a job the Feds aren't doing that they'd swore they'd do when taking office. Back to picking/choosing again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
She has been challenging it. All the way up to the Supreme Court. It didn't take long at all. The Supreme Court wasn't interested in her arguments.
In my view, this speaks volumes on court bias.....we'll pick this law to enforce, but not this one.
I bet if she gets someone to argue using the Marijuana laws example on why she should be able to do what's she's doing(thumb her nose against federal law), she'd either get those state "laws" overturned in WA/OR or get her way in KY. If that doesn't occur, again, shows a bias towards what law should or shouldn't be enforced. If this is the case, instead of picking/choosing which laws to enforce, the law should be taken off the books via the proper legal channel and stop playing "I will enforce this set of laws/but not this set".
The judge will keep her in jail until she complies.
Though I believe the woman is wrong, the judge's actions also give me a shivering moment of pause. Anyone else?
Not I.
I'd much prefer she not be in jail and instead either being doing the job she is paid to do or no longer be holding that office. But she was given those choices and she declined. The notion that she should be allowed to ignore the law - as a public official, no less - and violate the oath of her office by denying the civil rights of the public while collecting $80,000 a year from that same public is absurd.
She is not being held against her will. She is being held because she refuses to either comply with the law or resign the position which requires her to obey that law.
I once took an oath to serve this country. And you know what? I fulfilled that oath. She should do the same. I haven't a shred of pity for her. Just contempt.
It was clear that there were people waiting to hand her cash if the judge simply imposed fines. That shows me the judge is fully aware of how the modern world works. Jail time is for her alone and no one can do it for her.
Sounds too much like reeducation camp to me. Can we not find a way to compromise rather than jail people of faith? Why the rush to imprison this Christian woman? Because the mob demanded it?
It seems to me that Americans have turned into a bunch of hot heads who act first and think later. I find this entire incident sad, sad, sad, all the way around.
My example of the Marijuana laws is not a minor/jaywalking infraction. Not in any other sense except that it's a job the Feds aren't doing that they'd swore they'd do when taking office. Back to picking/choosing again.
In my view, this speaks volumes on court bias.....we'll pick this law to enforce, but not this one.
I bet if she gets someone to argue using the Marijuana laws example on why she should be able to do what's she's doing(thumb her nose against federal law), she'd either get those state "laws" overturned in WA/OR or get her way in KY. If that doesn't occur, again, shows a bias towards what law should or shouldn't be enforced. If this is the case, instead of picking/choosing which laws to enforce, the law should be taken off the books via the proper legal channel and stop playing "I will enforce this set of laws/but not this set".
Wow, you really want her to be able to discriminate against people, huh?
Sounds too much like reeducation camp to me. Can we not find a way to compromise rather than jail people of faith? Why the rush to imprison this Christian woman? Because the mob demanded it?
It seems to me that Americans have turned into a bunch of hot heads who act first and think later. I find this entire incident sad, sad, sad, all the way around.
(1) She is not jailed for practicing her faith, but for contempt of court …
(2) She is a government official and is not allowed to use her governmental power and authority to impose he religious faith on others (First Amendment) …
Must it be explained for the 1000th time that she is being jailed for defying a court order? That *she* chooses to explain that it is because of her religion is meaningless to the rule of law.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
