Questions regarding Kim Davis/Supreme court ruling on marriage

[Njtobknets]

I'm confused and would like to get facts. No bashing or anything here. I read someone say that:

"The Supreme Court does not make law. They can only rule if something is unconstitutional but for it to be law, it has to go back to. Congress and be voted on. Kentucky state law does not allow same-sex marriage. The judge had no authority to put her in jail for upholding a law."

What are the facts regarding this? I thought the Constitution was the supreme law of the land, which in my mind meant that if something was unconstitutional it was illegal. It's been awhile since I knew in depth how the balance of powers worked and all that. So did what the Supreme Court rule have any legal meaning? Is it actually or law, or does it have to go to Congress? I thought the Supreme Court determined the correct interpretation of the Constitution and since it is "the supreme law" then whatever they interpret, is the law.

Also, what was the judge's exact reason for holding her in contempt of court?

[Wells]

Its a bullshit argument. The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution makes it illegal to refuse licenses to gay couples. She refused to abide by that decision and then refused to listen to the local court that told her she had to. Ignoring court orders is a crime.

Its all really simple and she has absolutely no legal ground to stand on.

[Wyrt]

The Supreme Court ruled that bans on gay marriage were unconstitutional thereby removing any laws that banned it. There does not need to be a law passed to legalize gay marriage, it's legal now because there are no laws against it.

She was held in contempt for ignoring a judicial order.

[Wells]

and then multiple appeals courts upheld that decision from what i have heard. So double and triple no foot to stand on.

Yup, and she can't even really plead personal moral objection because she's actively preventing other officials below her from doing it in her stead.

[obdigore]

I'm confused and would like to get facts. No bashing or anything here. I read someone say that:

"The Supreme Court does not make law. They can only rule if something is unconstitutional but for it to be law, it has to go back to. Congress and be voted on. Kentucky state law does not allow same-sex marriage. The judge had no authority to put her in jail for upholding a law."

What are the facts regarding this? I thought the Constitution was the supreme law of the land, which in my mind meant that if something was unconstitutional it was illegal. It's been awhile since I knew in depth how the balance of powers worked and all that. So did what the Supreme Court rule have any legal meaning? Is it actually or law, or does it have to go to Congress? I thought the Supreme Court determined the correct interpretation of the Constitution and since it is "the supreme law" then whatever they interpret, is the law.

Also, what was the judge's exact reason for holding her in contempt of court?

The constitution is the supreme law of the land. When cases come before the Supreme Court of the United States of America, they are ruling on if the laws they are challenging abide by the constitution.

The SCOTUS has the final say regarding any laws passed by the legislative branch, regarding if they abide by the constitution or not.

The SCOTUS recently ruled that the 14th amendment (equal protection/rights for all citizens) means that laws banning gay marriage are not legal.

Kim Davis was held for contempt of court, for refusing to allow her office to issue marriage licenses to gay people, after the court ordered her to follow the laws of the land.

[I Push Buttons]

The method of legalizing gay marriage wasn't the passage of new laws, it was simply the repealing of bans and allowing already in place systems of obtaining marriage licenses to give them to same-sex couples.

The Supreme Court ruled that all bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, thus meaning it was legal everywhere by default.

The judge held her in contempt because he ordered her to fulfill her duties as bound by the law and she refused.

[Caolela]

Except that JAY-zuss told her to. What a fucking tool.

[SL1200]

It's called contempt of court. look it up. You don't have to break a law to be in contempt. That's why she didnt' have to have a trial by jury.

[Njtobknets]

Okay thank you guys, that's what I thought. I hate when people are talking to me about some issue in the world and they spew some shit claiming it's fact when they have no idea how things work.

[unbound]

I'm confused and would like to get facts. No bashing or anything here. I read someone say that:

"The Supreme Court does not make law. They can only rule if something is unconstitutional but for it to be law, it has to go back to. Congress and be voted on. Kentucky state law does not allow same-sex marriage. The judge had no authority to put her in jail for upholding a law."

What are the facts regarding this? I thought the Constitution was the supreme law of the land, which in my mind meant that if something was unconstitutional it was illegal. It's been awhile since I knew in depth how the balance of powers worked and all that. So did what the Supreme Court rule have any legal meaning? Is it actually or law, or does it have to go to Congress? I thought the Supreme Court determined the correct interpretation of the Constitution and since it is "the supreme law" then whatever they interpret, is the law.

Also, what was the judge's exact reason for holding her in contempt of court?

That is a common right-wing meme right now, but it is not how law works. For example, there is no law allowing me to eat ice cream, and there doesn't need to be one.

The constitution is indeed the law of the land. The system of checks and balances were written into the constitution in 1787 and makes all three branches of the government equal. None of them stand above the others. The one thing that is above the 3 branches is the constitution itself, which is what American law is built on.

Every state in the union has agreed to abide by the US Constitution (they have to) including the amendments. If and when a provision of a state constitution conflicts with the US Constitution, that portion of the state constitution is automatically unconstitutional.

The determination of whether a state constitution is unconstitutional is determined by the US Supreme Court (by virtue of Marbury v Madison) via judicial review. Judicial review is the doctrine under which legislative and executive actions are subject to review by the judiciary. A court with judicial review power may invalidate laws and decisions that are incompatible with a higher authority, such as the terms of a written constitution. Judicial review is a natural, logical consequence of the function of the judiciary as described in the US Constitution.

Judicial review is what happened that decided the Obergefell case (marriage equality - which the conservatives hate) as well as the Citizens United case (unlimited corporate spending - which everyone not a CEO should hate). The moment the Supreme Court made their ruling, it became the law of the land.

So, ultimately, the fact that Kentucky law doesn't allow for gay marriage is irrelevant. The same way that they don't have a law allowing me to eat ice cream.

In regards to the contempt of court ruling, Kim Davis had a job to perform which she wasn't doing. The court told her to do her job, which she refused (furthermore, she prevented anyone else in her office from doing the job). This was a slam dunk contempt of court ruling for which the judge could either impose financial penalties until she complied or throw her jail. He decided to throw her in jail because he didn't think financial pressure would get her to comply (BTW, the judge is a strong conservative who almost certainly disagrees with the Supreme Court ruling himself, but he knows that he has a professional duty that he swore to do his job...something that Kim Davis forgot).

The judge released her a few days later because the marriage certificates were being issued again. However, if Kim Davis interferes again on Monday (when she stated she would return to work), she will face contempt charges again.

[Caolela]

This is sort of basic critical thinking, something we seem to be in short supply of lately:

The Kim Davis story raises a basic question: To what extent should we allow people to break the law if their religious views are in conflict with it? It’s possible to take that question to an extreme that even Senator Paul might find absurd: imagine, for example, a jihadist whose interpretation of the Koran suggested that he should be allowed to behead infidels and apostates. Should he be allowed to break the law? Or—to consider a less extreme case—imagine an Islamic-fundamentalist county clerk who would not let unmarried men and women enter the courthouse together, or grant marriage licenses to unveiled women. For Rand Paul, what separates these cases from Kim Davis’s? The biggest difference, I suspect, is that Senator Paul agrees with Kim Davis’s religious views but disagrees with those of the hypothetical Islamic fundamentalist.

The problem, obviously, is that what is sacred to one person can be meaningless (or repugnant) to another. That’s one of the reasons why a modern secular society generally legislates against actions, not ideas. No idea or belief should be illegal; conversely, no idea should be so sacred that it legally justifies actions that would otherwise be illegal. Davis is free to believe whatever she wants, just as the jihadist is free to believe whatever he wants; in both cases, the law constrains not what they believe but what they do.

In recent years, this territory has grown murkier. Under the banner of religious freedom, individuals, states, and even—in the case of Hobby Lobby—corporations have been arguing that they should be exempt from the law on religious grounds. (The laws from which they wish to claim exemption do not focus on religion; instead, they have to do with social issues, such as abortion and gay marriage.) The government has a compelling interest in insuring that all citizens are treated equally. But “religious freedom” advocates argue that religious ideals should be elevated above all others as a rationale for action. In a secular society, this is inappropriate.

The Kim Davis controversy exists because, as a culture, we have elevated respect for religious sensibilities to an inappropriate level that makes society less free, not more. Religious liberty should mean that no set of religious ideals are treated differently from other ideals. Laws should not be enacted whose sole purpose is to denigrate them, but, by the same token, the law shouldn’t elevate them, either.

(emphasis mine)

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-d...d-most-popular

[Kujako]

Supreme Court decision was that same sex marriage was legal under the 14th Amendment and had been since 1868. No new laws were passed, however any law making same sex marriage illegal was struck down as unconstitutional.

[Goobadin]

I'd have agreed that the supreme court had no legal authority on the matter... Up until the point certain people pushed DOMA, escalating the question to Federal Jurisdiction.

[Kujako]

I'd have agreed that the supreme court had no legal authority on the matter... Up until the point certain people pushed DOMA, escalating the question to Federal Jurisdiction.

Well "the mater" is the US Constitution, which is exactly what the US Supreme Court has authority over.

[Healing Rain]

The Constitution does not say anything about marriage at all. The court opinion was wrong and the 5 justices should be impeached for overstepping their authority.

[Goobadin]

Well "the mater" is the US Constitution, which is exactly what the US Supreme Court has authority over.

As the person above said, marriage was always a state issue. Until DOMA, which opened the door to a federal ruling.

Also, impeaching justices.... Just stop.


Edit: also, what's with the "air quotes"?

[Njtobknets]

After providing what you guys have said to the person that I quoted in the OP, here's what they responded with:

" No, the Supreme Court does not make laws. They are not supposed to blanket laws. There is a process. The Supreme Court can state something is unconstitutional but that does not make it law. And the issue is also that when these laws were made way back when there was no gay community, it was not thought of or made public so there was no.need to make a law for or against it. This is not about religion-did she uphold Kentucky state law by denying the license? Yes, she did.


Im.not.interested in.her beliefs. Im.interested in.the black and white of the law.

The Supreme Court cannot put a blanket on individual state laws. The state votes.

As recently as two years ago, the Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Windsor ruled explicitly that state governments remain the primary authority to define marriage and its benefits."

[Xar226]

What are the facts regarding this? I thought the Constitution was the supreme law of the land, which in my mind meant that if something was unconstitutional it was illegal. It's been awhile since I knew in depth how the balance of powers worked and all that. So did what the Supreme Court rule have any legal meaning? Is it actually or law, or does it have to go to Congress? I thought the Supreme Court determined the correct interpretation of the Constitution and since it is "the supreme law" then whatever they interpret, is the law.

So, here's the just-the-facts-ma'am version:

You are basically correct. No law can stand in opposition to the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has the final say on what the Constitution says and how it applies to a given situation. Both sides of the aisle will rail agains their rulings from time to time, but it's essentially meaningless. Unless the Supreme Court changes its mind later on, their decision is the final say on a given matter. The Supreme Court doesn't create law per se, but if they say that any attempt to restrict gay couples from marrying is unconstitutional it doesn't leave much wiggle room for how to proceed other than issuing the certificates.

So, the Supreme Court ruled that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage were unconstitutional on a number of grounds. The new argument coming from the right is that by forcing them to issue marriage certificates to gay couples, you are violating their religious liberty which is also protected by the Constitution.

Kim Davis refused to issue marriage certificates to gay couples on religious grounds. She was sued by those couples in a federal court for violating their Constitutional rights. The judge agreed; the Supreme Court had ruled, and the clerk must issue the certificates. She was ordered to do so. She filed an appeal with a higher court asking for a stay--to put his order on hold while she filed a full formal appeal--which was turned down. She filed the same appeal with the Supreme Court, which was turned down. That means that she had used up all of her chances to get the decision put on hold, and the judge's ruling was in full effect. Ultimately she refused to follow the order.

Those same couples went back to the judge and informed him that she was defying his order, which is illegal. They wanted her to be fined for every day she refused to obey his order. She was hauled back in front of the judge and asked if she intended to comply with his order. She said no. The judge decided that a fine would have no effect on making her comply, because the issue had become such a political hot potato that some outside group would just pay the fines for her; he ordered her jailed for contempt of court for refusing to obey a legal order of the court.

While she was in jail, her clerks began issuing marriage certificates to gay couples. He ultimately released her with an order not to interfere with that. Whether that is the end of this saga from a legal standpoint remains to be seen.

[Endus]

We have an active thread on Kim Davis here, and while this is a tangent, it's still related to the topic in that thread, so discussion should be kept there. Locking this one.