rowan county [KY] court clerk defies supreme court

Page 4 of 9 [ 140 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,635
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

06 Sep 2015, 5:00 pm

auntblabby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
the "states rights" people conveniently change their mind when it is about something they don't like.


Y'know, Hucksterby has gotten the idea in his head that a supreme court decision can't be enforced unless state law supports it. And this guy wants to be President! He apparently hasn't taken notice of the fact that states that had practiced segregation hadn't been able to roll back civil rights legislation, as their state laws certainly hadn't supported the supreme court decision in that instance.

that old-fashioned mindset of "separate and unequal" just refuses to die.


I have to wonder if Hucksterby - if he thought he could get away with it - would declare civil rights laws illegitimate because they weren't supported by state law.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 96,841
Location: the island of defective toy santas

06 Sep 2015, 5:45 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
the "states rights" people conveniently change their mind when it is about something they don't like.


Y'know, Hucksterby has gotten the idea in his head that a supreme court decision can't be enforced unless state law supports it. And this guy wants to be President! He apparently hasn't taken notice of the fact that states that had practiced segregation hadn't been able to roll back civil rights legislation, as their state laws certainly hadn't supported the supreme court decision in that instance.

that old-fashioned mindset of "separate and unequal" just refuses to die.


I have to wonder if Hucksterby - if he thought he could get away with it - would declare civil rights laws illegitimate because they weren't supported by state law.

I would bet on it.



pcuser
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2014
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 913

06 Sep 2015, 6:27 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
the "states rights" people conveniently change their mind when it is about something they don't like.


Y'know, Hucksterby has gotten the idea in his head that a supreme court decision can't be enforced unless state law supports it. And this guy wants to be President! He apparently hasn't taken notice of the fact that states that had practiced segregation hadn't been able to roll back civil rights legislation, as their state laws certainly hadn't supported the supreme court decision in that instance.

Hucksterby now says that you should obey a law "only if it's right". Of course he defines right by God's standards. So he wants a religiously based government, other laws be damned.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 96,841
Location: the island of defective toy santas

06 Sep 2015, 6:27 pm

pcuser wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
the "states rights" people conveniently change their mind when it is about something they don't like.


Y'know, Hucksterby has gotten the idea in his head that a supreme court decision can't be enforced unless state law supports it. And this guy wants to be President! He apparently hasn't taken notice of the fact that states that had practiced segregation hadn't been able to roll back civil rights legislation, as their state laws certainly hadn't supported the supreme court decision in that instance.

Hucksterby now says that you should obey a law "only if it's right". Of course he defines right by God's standards. So he wants a religiously based government, other laws be damned.

"the handmaid's tale" could be his blueprint. IOW American Taliban. as a one-time lawmaker, for him to say that goes beyond understanding. :scratch:



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,635
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

06 Sep 2015, 7:10 pm

pcuser wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
the "states rights" people conveniently change their mind when it is about something they don't like.


Y'know, Hucksterby has gotten the idea in his head that a supreme court decision can't be enforced unless state law supports it. And this guy wants to be President! He apparently hasn't taken notice of the fact that states that had practiced segregation hadn't been able to roll back civil rights legislation, as their state laws certainly hadn't supported the supreme court decision in that instance.

Hucksterby now says that you should obey a law "only if it's right". Of course he defines right by God's standards. So he wants a religiously based government, other laws be damned.


I hope he knows that if people take him seriously, then a lot of them are going to jail. They should be told to call Hucksterby to bail them out. :lol:


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


pcuser
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2014
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 913

06 Sep 2015, 7:31 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
pcuser wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
the "states rights" people conveniently change their mind when it is about something they don't like.


Y'know, Hucksterby has gotten the idea in his head that a supreme court decision can't be enforced unless state law supports it. And this guy wants to be President! He apparently hasn't taken notice of the fact that states that had practiced segregation hadn't been able to roll back civil rights legislation, as their state laws certainly hadn't supported the supreme court decision in that instance.

Hucksterby now says that you should obey a law "only if it's right". Of course he defines right by God's standards. So he wants a religiously based government, other laws be damned.


I hope he knows that if people take him seriously, then a lot of them are going to jail. They should be told to call Hucksterby to bail them out. :lol:

They won't. That's why those people are called fundamentalists...



ghoti
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2012
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,596

06 Sep 2015, 10:33 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
the "states rights" people conveniently change their mind when it is about something they don't like.


Y'know, Hucksterby has gotten the idea in his head that a supreme court decision can't be enforced unless state law supports it. And this guy wants to be President! He apparently hasn't taken notice of the fact that states that had practiced segregation hadn't been able to roll back civil rights legislation, as their state laws certainly hadn't supported the supreme court decision in that instance.

And ignores the Supremacy Clause:

Article VI, Clause 2

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.



cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,349
Location: Boulder CO

06 Sep 2015, 11:12 pm

If I get married, it won't be to a guy but I sure do not appreciate the sick notion that anyone needs a government license. Are that many people really such extremist capitalists?


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 96,841
Location: the island of defective toy santas

06 Sep 2015, 11:14 pm

cberg wrote:
If I get married, it won't be to a guy but I sure do not appreciate the sick notion that anyone needs a government license. Are that many people really such extremist capitalists?

I had no idea it had anything to do with capitalist economics.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,671
Location: Seattle

06 Sep 2015, 11:25 pm

Murihiku wrote:
Still, I wonder what the article that Dox47 posted meant about officials refusing to enforce Prop 8 after it passed. As much as I support legalising SSM, I hate to see people breaking the law while advocating it.


Actually, I think the more relevant portions are the mentions of sanctuary cities, states that have legalized marijuana in defiance of federal law, and the DIA Chick-fil-A fiasco, all situations where liberals, such as many of those in this thread, support local officials breaking federal laws, despite all the mentions of SCOTUS and the supremacy clause and such. You don't get to call your ideological foes hypocrites while speaking out of both sides of your mouth depending on whether you agree with the federal law being violated, that's, well, hypocritical.

In case anyone cares, I think the clerk ought to have stepped down or requested a transfer, I just don't think that gives people a license to be intellectually dishonest.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

07 Sep 2015, 12:06 am

Dox47 wrote:
Murihiku wrote:
Still, I wonder what the article that Dox47 posted meant about officials refusing to enforce Prop 8 after it passed. As much as I support legalising SSM, I hate to see people breaking the law while advocating it.


Actually, I think the more relevant portions are the mentions of sanctuary cities, states that have legalized marijuana in defiance of federal law, and the DIA Chick-fil-A fiasco, all situations where liberals, such as many of those in this thread, support local officials breaking federal laws, despite all the mentions of SCOTUS and the supremacy clause and such. You don't get to call your ideological foes hypocrites while speaking out of both sides of your mouth depending on whether you agree with the federal law being violated, that's, well, hypocritical.

In case anyone cares, I think the clerk ought to have stepped down or requested a transfer, I just don't think that gives people a license to be intellectually dishonest.


It's an elected position. She can't request a transfer. She can just resign the $80k/yr job that she essentially inherited from her mother.

but what is your problem with state's rights about?



cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,349
Location: Boulder CO

07 Sep 2015, 12:36 am

auntblabby wrote:
I had no idea it had anything to do with capitalist economics.


I was mostly referring to the implications on taxation and the fact that lots of people, straight or not, have a wealth threshold for potential mates. I'd rather get married on the moon than in America, just because some people out there are deluded enough to think they're wielding actual power when they demand paperwork from people who obviously have better priorities.

For all care about this parlance, any girl I marry can have a harem all her own, and visit them on some tax haven island through Cuba.


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 96,841
Location: the island of defective toy santas

07 Sep 2015, 12:41 am

cberg wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
I had no idea it had anything to do with capitalist economics.


I was mostly referring to the implications on taxation and the fact that lots of people, straight or not, have a wealth threshold for potential mates. I'd rather get married on the moon than in America, just because some people out there are deluded enough to think they're wielding actual power when they demand paperwork from people who obviously have better priorities.

I shoulda thought o' that :duh:



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,671
Location: Seattle

07 Sep 2015, 2:42 am

blauSamstag wrote:
but what is your problem with state's rights about?


Who said I have a problem with states rights? What I have a problem with is inconsistency, such as being all for states rights when it comes to issues that you think the feds are wrong on, but cheer-leading federal supremacy when the states do things you don't like. I also have a problem with willful obtuseness.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

07 Sep 2015, 2:48 am

Dox47 wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
but what is your problem with state's rights about?


Who said I have a problem with states rights? What I have a problem with is inconsistency, such as being all for states rights when it comes to issues that you think the feds are wrong on, but cheer-leading federal supremacy when the states do things you don't like. I also have a problem with willful obtuseness.


Prosecutorial discretion is absolute and unreviewable in this nation. A state (or the federal government) can decline to bring charges for any or no reason. This is a cornerstone of our judicial system and enshrined in over 200 years of case law.

So i ask again. What is your problem with states rights?



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,671
Location: Seattle

07 Sep 2015, 3:21 am

blauSamstag wrote:
So i ask again. What is your problem with states rights?



Point out where I demonstrate personally having a problem with states rights; I'll wait.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit