The Iron Fist Comes Draped, Not In a Velvet Glove But a Black Robe.

"See no evil. Hear no evil. Speak no evil,,,"

“See no evil. Hear no evil. Speak no evil,,,”

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy speaks at the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference held Wednesday, July 15, 2015 in San Diego. Kennedy's appearance at the 9th Circuit Judicial Conference comes shortly after the nation's highest court put an end to same-sex marriage bans in the 14 states that still maintained them and provided an exclamation point for breathtaking changes in the nation's social norms in recent years. (AP Photo/Denis Poroy)

“PROFIT!”

 

Last June, Justice Anthony Kennedy fired a damaging, if not fatal, salvo into the already enfeebled 1st Amendment of the Constitution. Whatever one thinks about the institution of marriage, homosexuality or religion, the right to express and practice one’s religion as he or she chooses is an inalienable one that no court or government can take away or restrict. That is until now.

Yesterday, Kim Davis, a clerk from Rowan County in Kentucky was taken away in handcuffs by federal marshals for being in contempt of court for refusing to perform same-sex marriages. It is rare that I find myself disagreeing with legal scholar Ken Klukowski, but over at Breitbart, he states:

Davis is claiming the right to use her governmental power to order all of her deputy clerks and other subordinates that they shall not issue marriages licenses, either. Her personal right to religiously object probably does not extend to using her public-office power to order other government workers to conform to her personal faith-based beliefs.

"Kim Davis"

“Kim Davis”

 

Then again, let me rephrase that: I absolutely agree with Ken Klukowski even though he’s wrong, or at least not looking at the situation from a broader perspective. While certainly Davis cannot impose her religious views on her subordinates as reason to not carry out their legally mandated duties, she certainly could have and should have cited the blatantly unconstitutional decision by Kennedy and the other four activists who voted with him. Unfortunately, while Klukowski nobly defends the rule of law, he is ignoring the fact that the law itself is lawless and was lawlessly imposed on the citizenry, the majority of whom time and again, in state after state, have spoken out on this issue, even in California, arguably the nation’s most liberal/leftist state. It should be noted that despite the clear mandate from the people of that state, the court –THE COURT – refused to obey the law.

I can hear the geschrei now. You can’t disobey the law, especially a Supreme Court decision. But need I remind readers that Dred Scott was the law of the land as well as was Plessy v. Ferguson, Wickard v. Filburn, Korematsu v. U.S.,  Roe v. Wade, and the two Obamacare shams of a mockery of a sham of two miscarriages of justice?

As Sean Davis over at the Federalist puts it:

Davis’s arrest was met with cheers by same-sex marriage advocates who for some reason did not demand imprisonment of officials who lawlessly issued gay marriage licenses in clear contravention of state and federal laws. Take, for example, Democrat Gavin Newsom, who is currently the California lieutenant governor. Back in 2004, when gay marriage was banned under California state law, Newsom openly defied the law and used his power as the mayor of San Francisco to force taxpayer-funded government clerks to issue gay marriage licenses.

And Davis further cites the blatant disregard for the rule of law with “sanctuary cities” and drug laws.  On his radio show yesterday, Mark Levin noted that in a speech given in 2003 by none other than Justice Kennedy himself, he called for judges to essentially ignore the law:

As my colleague Justice Breyer has pointed out, however, the compromise that led to the guidelines led also to an increase in the length of prison terms. We should revisit this compromise. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines should be revised downward.

By contrast to the guidelines, I can accept neither the necessity nor the wisdom of federal mandatory minimum sentences. In too many cases, mandatory minimum sentences are unwise and unjust.

And yet Kim Davis gets frogmarched in cuffs to federal prison? Yes, two wrongs don’t make a right. But Kim Davis is taking a stand against an unjust law, unjustly passed. More and more, we have a government that is acting lawlessly against the will of the people, and they are filling the judiciary with fellow travelers who are swearing to faithfully uphold a Constitution that they have zero respect for. If they do not act with morality and character to uphold the rule of a just and stable law, then it won’t be long before the citizenry lose respect for them and the notion of the rule of law. When that happens, then all bets are off.

We are losing our G-d given freedoms, paid for in blood and treasure on battlefields, seas and skies all over the world. If Kim Davis and others like her refuse to knuckle under and crawl, then I stand with her.

Not one inch back.

 

16 comments to “The Iron Fist Comes Draped, Not In a Velvet Glove But a Black Robe.”
  1. It took a Civil War to nullify that one, as well as a 3 amendments. And the 14th is used to justify every leftist policy, like homosexual marriage.

  2. I do agree with Davis. And don’t, all at the same time. I think the Social Justice types have gone too far — and have done so for too many years — in their push to force all of us to accept the unacceptable.

    The problem of coming to a sensible resolution has been with us since the Republic was born, but has been exacerbated by lunatic Constitution-ignoring judges and an ineffective Congress. As icing on the cake, the general public seems happy to sit home and watch TV and accept whatever is rammed down their throats.

    Since it IS “the law” and probably always will be in future, homosexual marriages should be accepted. Kim Davis, as an individual, should be allowed to not facilitate them. But, unless and until her state decides to rise up against the tyranny of the federal government and ban homosexual marriage, she doesn’t have the right to force everyone in her office to defy “the law.”

  3. As I understand it, Kim Davis is an ELECTED county clerk. Put there by the voters of her county IOW. She certainly does have the authority to order the deputy clerks to follow certain policies, just like the ELECTED Sheriff can set forth departmental policies for the Deputy Sheriff’s to follow. If the voters don’t like it, they can choose another County Clerk at the next election.

    Furthermore, I read in the local trash rag, the Houston Comical, that the federal judge ordered jail instead of fines, fines being the preferred remedy by the 4 plaintiff “couples”, on the presupposition that fines would not be enough to force Kim Davis to follow the judge’s order as her supporters might raise the money to pay the fines on her behalf. So, the judge skipped right over the double dare and the double dog dare and the triple dare and went right for the triple dog dare – jail time. Up to 18 months until she complies, then can be even longer if the judge finds she’s in criminal violation of the order.

    Fuck you! WAR!!!

  4. Thanks for clarifying this. Maybe I’m playing semantic games but the problem on both ends remains the same. A representative of the people refusing to obey an unconstitutional decision by the courts.

    Agreed: War.

  5. I understand that Davis is taking what conservatives see as a popular position, but since what is generally considered a “higher authority” established a different position and declared it a matter of law, is her action any better than, say, the flouting of the law as performed by the current President?

    Yes, the judge skipped a number of steps/remedies by jailing Davis, but a) that’s not unheard-of and b) not entirely different than Davis essentially taking the law into her own hands.

    If the time has come to call for “war” then let it be war and not petty acts of law-breaking in the name of futile resistance to the forces opposing us. Do not use “feelings” as a substitute for sense,

  6. is her action any better than, say, the flouting of the law as performed by the current President?

    I was going to add something about Nazi Germany and the Nuremberg Laws but I feared invoking Godwin. But if the law itself is – and it clearly is – unconstitutional (read Scalia’s dissent) and if we have leaders who flout the law and decide for themselves which ones they will enforce, not enforce or just enact out of whole cloth (either via fiat or with the rubber stamp of a corrupt legislative and judiciary), then we really are no longer a nation of laws. The problem is the rulers have the guns and the trappings of law to use as weapons against the citizenry. When and where does this end? And how does it end?

    We would not be in this predicament if Anthony Kennedy did not insist, along with the other four in the Politburo of imposing their will on their fellow 320 million citizens. And, considering the other hideous SCOTUS decisions throughout our history, it is high time for some sort of mass display of civil disobedience. Maybe Kim Davis is the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Who knows.

  7. If, as you say, Kim Davis is the straw that breaks the camel’s back — at least SOME camel’s back — I’d be happy indeed.

    We all know where the problem lies: it is the climate of lawlessness, of making-it-up-as-we-go-along-to-suit-ourselves, that has permeated every branch of the federal government.

    As matters stand, should a repeat of the trials of 1946 be in our future, the wrong side will provide judges and jurors. If the country is to survive, that must be reversed.

  8. I’ve mixed feelings about this. Primarily, I think if you work for the government, then you should be neutral and uphold the law as written and if you can’t then you should get a different job.

    But, lookinig at how the democrats blatently defy the law with no consequences, I feel that push back from our side is desperately needed before resentment builds to the point of violence.

  9. Darth:
    Was going to make this the subject of a post but, what the hell; here’s the Monarch Notes.

    It is one thing when you have both sides of the political spectrum obeying a common set of rules, to wit the Constitution. This has never really been the case, as our history shows, but we are now in completely uncharted territory where now all 3 branches observe the Constitution only when politically expedient and the rule of a just and stable law no longer occurs. So, the details of Kim Davis’ authority over her employees aside, the question is, is it lawless to refuse to obey a lawless law? Or, better stated, is it one’s duty to disobey a lawless law?

    It is obvious that we are now in a post-Constitutional, non-republican (small “r”) phase, is it not incumbent upon we the people to now, as Jefferson instructed, throw off the shackles of tyrannical oppression and form a new government that reflects the will of the people? The details of how this will be done notwithstanding, I think we are no longer legitimately represented; we are subjects of a ruling class that is bankrupting us, destroying our society and culture and endangering us from external threats. So it is time for a, dare I say it, “revolution.” I know that that is a charged word, and there are degrees to it, but I believe it.

  10. Wow. Brilliant. Beyond SCOTUS, Kim Davis, et al, the one thing stated that I’ve been screaming about for a while is the fact that in order for collectivism to work, that is conquer society (it never “works,” in any sense of that word), they must kill G-d and make the state the supreme entity. The individual and the normal family structure are the pillars of a free society. So homosexuals and “gay rights” are the perfect avenue to do so. They could care less for homosexuals, just as they could care less for blacks, latinos, women and every other so-called “oppressed” minority in their coalition. They are pawns that will be cast aside, and worse, once they come to power.

  11. I have read Kentucky law does not allow homosexual marriage. Isn’t she abiding by the law of the State of Kentucky, so there is another issue here, State’s Rights.

  12. That appears to be the case, though of course the media conveniently ignores it. References I’ve seen indicate that homosexual marriage is prohibited in KY, not just “not allowed.” Therefore, Davis is in the right, and the judge who jailed her needs to have some “justice” served on him.

    Seems strange the state has remained silent on this. I suspect they don’t want to arouse the wrath of Baron Samedi and his forces. Mitch McConnell, too, hasn’t uttered a peep.

    Just another case of unconstitutional overreach by the judiciary, no doubt at Choom Boy’s behest.

    Looks like time for an entire state to resist federal illegal activity, not just Kim Davis.

  13. It is no longer a nation of laws, its why Leftists always wanted a “living” constitution, so the law could be used at their whim of whatever goal they are trying to achieve.

  14. Kentucky has a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage that was passed in 2004. So, Kim Davis would be violating the law of the Commonwealth if she were to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com