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.
"To defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic"
Since Kim Davis is defying the constitution, seems like a bunch of off-purpose attention whoring to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1984
I love the irony.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
Problem is that the Oathkeepers don't understand the irony.
As been stated numerous times in this thread, the Oath Keepers were willing to get involved because they believe that jailing someone for contempt of court is a violation of the due process clauses in the Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
Maybe next time you guys could go to the Oath Keepers website, and see for yourselves why they are getting involved in any particular situation, as opposed to getting your information from a bias source, or applying your own bias slant.
As been stated numerous times in this thread, the Oath Keepers were willing to get involved because they believe that jailing someone for contempt of court is a violation of the due process clauses in the Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
Maybe next time you guys could go to the Oath Keepers website, and see for yourselves why they are getting involved in any particular situation, as opposed to getting your information from a bias source, or applying your own bias slant.
Do you realize how many contempt of court orders are issued, now why do you suppose they picked this one when there are so many better causes. How does the Oathkeepers determine which court judgements they dislike.
Do you realize how many contempt of court orders are issued, now why do you suppose they picked this one when there are so many better causes. How does the Oathkeepers determine which court judgements they dislike.
They chose a high profile case to get involved in, it makes perfect sense. I have never heard the Oath Keepers state that they supported Kim Davis's position. They were only going to protect her from re-arrest, not from any other court actions.
You also have to understand that this was a civil lawsuit, not a criminal case, Kim Davis broke no laws. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would support the idea that a judge can imprison someone (indefinitely if they choose) without breaking any laws, and without a trail by a jury of their peers.
They chose a high profile case to get involved in, it makes perfect sense. I have never heard the Oath Keepers state that they supported Kim Davis's position. They were only going to protect her from re-arrest, not from any other court actions.
You also have to understand that this was a civil lawsuit, not a criminal case, Kim Davis broke no laws. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would support the idea that a judge can imprison someone (indefinitely if they choose) without breaking any laws, and without a trail by a jury of their peers.
It isn't like the Judge didn't give her any options, he did The options were
1. Do your job
2. Resign
3. Do not interfere with your staff from issuing the licenses
4. Jail
It isn't like the Judge didn't give her any options, he did The options were
1. Do your job
2. Resign
3. Do not interfere with your staff from issuing the licenses
4. Jail
She CHOSE jail.
Yep. Then she lied to the judge by assuring him she would do nothing further to obstruct the law if he would let her out. And the very first thing she did when she went back to the office was tamper with the marriage licenses and order her deputy to change the process so that he was no longer acting in his capacity as a county deputy. She has quite an inflated sense of herself, believing that she should be allowed to disobey the court at her own whim. I hope the judge disabuses her of that notion.
They chose a high profile case to get involved in, it makes perfect sense. I have never heard the Oath Keepers state that they supported Kim Davis's position. They were only going to protect her from re-arrest, not from any other court actions.
You also have to understand that this was a civil lawsuit, not a criminal case, Kim Davis broke no laws. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would support the idea that a judge can imprison someone (indefinitely if they choose) without breaking any laws, and without a trail by a jury of their peers.
Yes they choose cases so they can gain attention and increase income, but their venue seems to be either the religious right or red necks, I don't expect to see them defending minorities anytime soon.
People have been jailed for not paying alimony, disclosing sources, why go to a lengthy trial for something so obviously blatant. The legislature probably won't do anything because there is an excellent possiblitiy they feel the same way, meanwhile no one get's a license. Thank god it isn't gun licenses that would really get their attention.
Last edited by Goodnight; 09-23-2015 at 12:09 PM..
Looks like Ms. Davis is going to be called on to account for her actions.
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.
