The USSC was not established to legislate, nor was it intended that they would be more powerful than any other branch. Judicial activism is a tool used by the proponents of big government to increase government's power, a dangerous tool used against freedom. That's why the Left had to kill federalism, if the states have the power to reject federal intrvention in local matters then big government cannot be all powerful.

Or in simpler terms, SCOTUS made a ruling that forbids denying of some rights to people. She is violation of the law and is paying the price. The right now has people running that are supporting violating the law. Not surprising really.

---

The USSC was not established to legislate, nor was it intended that they would be more powerful than any other branch. Judicial activism is a tool used by the proponents of big government to increase government's power, a dangerous tool used against freedom. That's why the Left had to kill federalism, if the states have the power to reject federal intrvention in local matters then big government cannot be all powerful.

The Supreme Court was established to answer the question of what is and isn't permitted under the Constitution of the United States. It can be overridden by Congress passing a Constitutional amendment, and the President controls who sits on it. Likewise, it has the ability to invalidate laws by declaring them as unconstitutional, and it can override Presidential actions in much the same way. It's a critical check and balance against the other two branches of government.

 

In this instance, the Supreme Court was presented with the question of whether laws blocking same-sex marriage were unconstitutional. The Court found that they were, invalidating the laws and establishing that under the 14th Amendment, same-sex marriage is legal and all government officials are required to authorize, license and recognize those marriages.

 

This clerk chose to argue in court that her religious beliefs excuse her from having to issue marriage licenses for gay couples, or to have any issued in her office with her name on them as the county clerk. That's her right to do so, but every single court she took it to found the same way: the right to freedom of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment is a personal right, not a governmental right. By accepting a government job, she is bound to uphold the laws of our nonreligious government without regard to her personal beliefs, and the right of homosexuals to be married by government (and her sworn duty to issue those marriage licenses) overrides her misgivings.

 

She was instructed to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and tried to sidestep it by not issuing licenses to anyone. She was told repeatedly by the courts that she had no choice but to issue the licenses or resign. She refused to do either, and after weeks of going back and forth, the plaintiffs who had been trying to get married in her courtroom asked that she be held in contempt of court and fined. The judge decided to incarcerate her instead. Not because she doesn't believe that gay marriage is right, but because she took an oath of office swearing to uphold the laws of the land--not just the ones she agreed with--and she consistently ignored that oath and the law to the point where locking her up was the only way to get her attention.

 

The Supreme Court didn't legislate anything here. It did what it's always done. It took the law and interpreted it through the lens of the US Constitution, ultimately coming to a decision on whether the law was reconcilable with the Constitution or not. In this case, it wasn't. In other cases, it has been. It's not judicial activism to say that a certain law or set of laws is unconstitutional; it's what they're supposed to do!

 

Let's throw this out there: if the Supreme Court were to somehow get its hands on the Iran treaty and declare it unconstitutional, would you be complaining about judicial activism then? Because that sort of decision would be far outside the realm of what the Supreme Court is supposed to do, and far closer to judicial activism than ruling on same-sex marriage or jailing a county clerk who's spent the last two months in contempt of court.

---

Or in simpler terms, SCOTUS made a ruling that forbids denying of some rights to people. She is violation of the law and is paying the price. The right now has people running that are supporting violating the law. Not surprising really.

In general I support rejecting the encroachment of the federal government on state's rights issues. In this particular matter I am opposed to government encroachment on individual rights period. IOW, no government entity should have the authority to say who may or may not get married. That certainly doesn't put me on the right.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The Supreme Court was established to answer the question of what is and isn't permitted under the Constitution of the United States. It can be overridden by Congress passing a Constitutional amendment, and the President controls who sits on it. Likewise, it has the ability to invalidate laws by declaring them as unconstitutional, and it can override Presidential actions in much the same way. It's a critical check and balance against the other two branches of government.


In this instance, the Supreme Court was presented with the question of whether laws blocking same-sex marriage were unconstitutional. The Court found that they were, invalidating the laws and establishing that under the 14th Amendment, same-sex marriage is legal and all government officials are required to authorize, license and recognize those marriages.


This clerk chose to argue in court that her religious beliefs excuse her from having to issue marriage licenses for gay couples, or to have any issued in her office with her name on them as the county clerk. That's her right to do so, but every single court she took it to found the same way: the right to freedom of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment is a personal right, not a governmental right. By accepting a government job, she is bound to uphold the laws of our nonreligious government without regard to her personal beliefs, and the right of homosexuals to be married by government (and her sworn duty to issue those marriage licenses) overrides her misgivings.


She was instructed to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and tried to sidestep it by not issuing licenses to anyone. She was told repeatedly by the courts that she had no choice but to issue the licenses or resign. She refused to do either, and after weeks of going back and forth, the plaintiffs who had been trying to get married in her courtroom asked that she be held in contempt of court and fined. The judge decided to incarcerate her instead. Not because she doesn't believe that gay marriage is right, but because she took an oath of office swearing to uphold the laws of the land--not just the ones she agreed with--and she consistently ignored that oath and the law to the point where locking her up was the only way to get her attention.


The Supreme Court didn't legislate anything here. It did what it's always done. It took the law and interpreted it through the lens of the US Constitution, ultimately coming to a decision on whether the law was reconcilable with the Constitution or not. In this case, it was. In other cases, it wasn't. It's not judicial activism to say that a certain law or set of laws is unconstitutional; it's what they're supposed to do!


Let's throw this out there: if the Supreme Court were to somehow get its hands on the Iran treaty and declare it unconstitutional, would you be complaining about judicial activism then? Because that sort of decision would be far outside the realm of what the Supreme Court is supposed to do, and far closer to judicial activism than ruling on same-sex marriage or jailing a county clerk who's spent the last two months in contempt of court.

The correct ruling would've returned this issue to the states. Marriage is not a government issue and certainly not a federal one. That the Court took the case and then struck down the laws of the vast majority of states is the encroachment I'm talking about. 9 people changed the whole country without consideration of the expressed will of the people through their representatives.


And yes, I would complain about a ruling on a treaty, we have laws that govern those.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The correct ruling would've returned this issue to the states. Marriage is not a government issue and certainly not a federal one. That the Court took the case and then struck down the laws of the vast majority of states is the encroachment I'm talking about. 9 people changed the whole country without consideration of the expressed will of the people through their representatives.


And yes, I would complain about a ruling on a treaty, we have laws that govern those.

It seems that marriage is a government issue and one that needed to be ruled on since the constitutional right of Americans were being denied by people subverting the law.

---

In general I support rejecting the encroachment of the federal government on state's rights issues. In this particular matter I am opposed to government encroachment on individual rights period. IOW, no government entity should have the authority to say who may or may not get married. That certainly doesn't put me on the right.

Your position is very confusing. You surely support SCOTUS ruling the second amendment allows private gun ownership but not that gay marriage can not be blocked. In the former they are patriots in the later they are oligarchs. How do you reconcile the two?

---

Your position is very confusing. You surely support SCOTUS ruling the second amendment allows private gun ownership but not that gay marriage can not be blocked. In the former they are patriots in the later they are oligarchs. How do you reconcile the two?

Cause Gay marriage is icky, while guns are MANLY.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

I blame that pesky Supreme Court for the Brown vs. Board of Education decision, for wetting that slippery slope.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

I blame that pesky Supreme Court for that Brown vs. Board of Education decision, for wetting that slippery slope.

The beginning of the end of the country that is still exceptional.

---

Your position is very confusing. You surely support SCOTUS ruling the second amendment allows private gun ownership but not that gay marriage can not be blocked. In the former they are patriots in the later they are oligarchs. How do you reconcile the two?

Doublethink?

---

Cause Gay marriage is icky, while guns are MANLY.

Who doesn't like holding a throbbing long bore 12 gauge shotgun in his hands and blasting another mans face with the seeds of justice?

---

I'm all for pushing back against federal oversight but that's not what's happening here. A single individual is looking for an exemption to execute the duties of their office based on personnel religious beliefs. It's been made clear now that states do not have the right to refuse homosexual unions just like they can't refuse interracial unions. If she's allowed to enforce a religious exemption then what's to stop someone else from refusing interracial unions based on their religion? Or an atheist from refusing religious unions based on their belief system?


Regardless of anyone's beliefs the law has to be universally written and enforced or screw it lets just go with anarchy. But that's my problem with the right they want legislation but only when it benefits their specific beliefs. This isn't about states rights it's about a government employee refusing to execute the duties of their office.

---

Who doesn't like holding a throbbing long bore 12 gauge shotgun in his hands and blasting another mans face with the seeds of justice?

Whew. I just glitched the britches.


But to the subject at hand. .... Please stop it. This agenda driven society is getting way out of hand. Whats next...I can't get a BBQ pork sammich because a Muslim waitress won't touch pork?

an atheist who won't sell a nativity arrangement while cashiering at WalMart? Or even the worst of the worst scenarios...a Baptist employee at a restaurant that won't serve me a beer.

---

Blakes Life Matters

Whew. I just glitched the britches.


But to the subject at hand. .... Please stop it. This agenda driven society is getting way out of hand. Whats next...I can't get a BBQ pork sammich because a Muslim waitress won't touch pork?

 

This already happens with cashiers who will not ring up bacon.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Kentucky law, that she was elected to uphold, forbade gay marriage. The SCOTUS decided they knew better what the law of Kentucky ought to be. The people's representative disputes that act of federal tyranny. Pretty simple stuff. If Kentuckians want gay marriage then let their legislature write it into law.

Sweet so when can we get Jim Crow back? 

 

Sometimes the Supreme Court has to step in and let the states know that the laws they passed are unconstitutional. 

---

This already happens with cashiers who will not ring up bacon.

I'm sure those supporting this zealot came to the aid of the Muslim who would not ring up bacon. Wait no they didnt.

---

I'm all for pushing back against federal oversight but that's not what's happening here. A single individual is looking for an exemption to execute the duties of their office based on personnel religious beliefs. It's been made clear now that states do not have the right to refuse homosexual unions just like they can't refuse interracial unions. If she's allowed to enforce a religious exemption then what's to stop someone else from refusing interracial unions based on their religion? Or an atheist from refusing religious unions based on their belief system?


Regardless of anyone's beliefs the law has to be universally written and enforced or screw it lets just go with anarchy. But that's my problem with the right they want legislation but only when it benefits their specific beliefs. This isn't about states rights it's about a government employee refusing to execute the duties of their office.

I knew it, you want anarchy you are just great at wrapping it in a package of liberty.


Jk. Well said

---

I'm sure those supporting this zealot came to the aid of the Muslim who would not ring up bacon. Wait no they didnt.

 

It was a state law that bacon couldn't be touched?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

It was a state law that bacon couldn't be touched?

There's no state law saying that clerks have to ring up bacon.   


Not to mention that the state law was ruled unconstitutional.  States can't have laws that are unconstitutional.  That'd be a pretty stupid thing to suggest that they can.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

It was a state law that bacon couldn't be touched?

Mental gymnastics must be exhausting. 

---