A Rasmussen poll shows "just 26% of Likely U.S. Voters think an elected official should be able to a ignore a federal court ruling that he or she disagrees with for religious reasons.... 66% think the official should carry out the law as the federal court has interpreted it."
ADDED: Rasmussen's headline — "Gay Marriage Spat" — seems rather disrespectful. It will amuse some people, but I don't think a pollster should telegraph its opinion. And the poll doesn't — I don't think — establish that there's "little sympathy" or that it's just a "spat." The poll is about which position should prevail in a conflict. I agree with the majority here and would have polled with the 66%, but I'm not without sympathy for Kim Davis and I don't think it's a trivial dispute.
८ सप्टेंबर, २०१५
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५६ टिप्पण्या:
Ironically, they really wouldn't like that in many cases.
I bet voters in SF like being a "sanctuary city" but I'm fairly sure the SCOTUS hasn't permitted cities to make their own immigration law...
I agree with her being removed from office, but imprisoned?
I can't imagine this punishment being applied uniformly. (Didn't the mayor of San Francisco issue same sex marriage certificates in defiance of the law at the time? Instead of being thrown in prison, he's the Lt. Governor I believe.)
A Rasmussen poll shows "just 26% of Likely U.S. Voters think an elected official should be able to a ignore a federal court ruling that he or she disagrees with for religious reasons.... 66% think the official should carry out the law as the federal court has interpreted it."
Rasmussen ought to conduct the same poll again but change the context to political beliefs and ideology. Just for fun I would like to see the result.
OTOH that's one out every four voters and right now they're steaming with anger. The Democrats -- the Dumbocrats -- seem bound and determined to convert as many blue-collar Democrats as possible to Republican voters and motivate them to go to the polls. It's an interesting election strategy to say the least.
Yeah--if the question itself doesn't hinge on "sympathy" then the pollster is making a sweeping assumption here. There's a lot of people I have sympathy with but still think are in the wrong.
Not this lady though. Would the people feeling sympathy for her feel the same way about a Muslim USDA inspector who refuses to approve any pork products but still wants to keep his job, and prevent any of his underlings from approving pork products?
Not only a disrespectful but a misleading headline as well. The Rasmussen survey questions made no references to Supreme Court, gay marriage, or the Kim Davis case but spoke only in generalities. Let's see what happens when the specifics are surveyed.
I feel some small degree of pity for Kim Davis, but I'd feel more if she were a bird tangled up in a net, or a toad dying from dehydration, or something innocent like that.
"I'm not without sympathy for Kim Davis and I don't think it's a trivial dispute."
How magnanimous of you, now that same-sex "marriage" is the "law of the land."
I can't imagine a more transparent push poll. What happens to the results if you first describe the requirements of the Kentucky RFRA, or ask them whether she should still be jailed if simply removing her name from the form in accordance with RFRA would solve the problem?
"Rasmussen's headline — "Gay Marriage Spat" — seems rather disrespectful."
As a gay man, I officially register my lack of offense.
She could be the Rosa Parks of this issue if she sticks to her principles.
I think there are a lot more people who would support her if the poll equation were honest.
The Feds hands are tied. If not for the SCOTUS views on "cruel and unusual punishment" lingo they would just cut her tongue out to make her an example to the Fundies who do not fear them.
"I don't think a pollster should telegraph its opinion."
So nice of you.
@damikesc: "I bet voters in SF like being a "sanctuary city" but I'm fairly sure the SCOTUS hasn't permitted cities to make their own immigration law"
Sorry, but that isn't how immigration law works anymore. If a state wants to assist in enforcement of actual law, feds will come after them and courts will side with fed discretion to ignore law on books; if city wants to get around immigration law, feds will leave it in peace and no court needs to intervene.
I'm glad you'll soon be leaving the classroom. Your "sympathy" comes at the expense of innocent others.
Cue stirring music. Audience starts slow clap, which quickens into thunderous applause. The words move grown men to tears. The heroin is carried out on shoulders. The villain is vanquished.
Hoo boy.
Just 26%? That's actually a huge number of folks. A principled, motivated 26% can torpedo anything, anywhere.
"Amazing how quickly we turn to using violent imagery when discussing this legal issue. It's like the "cut his nuts off" if she wants to use the female bathroom as a transsexual language that we saw recently in the angry thread here."
Yes, it's exactly like that.
damikesc said... Ironically, they really wouldn't like that in many cases.
I bet voters in SF like being a "sanctuary city" but I'm fairly sure the SCOTUS hasn't permitted cities to make their own immigration law...
The Supreme Court didn't grant SF that right to pick and choose what to enforce, but Obama and his Justice Department have. Sanctuary cities are ignoring current established law with greater consequence but there's no punishment for those who selectively enforce.
Legislative Branch - Makes Laws
Executive Branch - Enforces Laws
Judicial Branch - Interprets Laws
We are so far removed from that simple structure, we'll never get back to it. And it's a shame because the legislative branches of the Federal and State governments are the closest to the people. Right now we basically have a Federal Government of ten. Nine Justices, and a President.
I don't think what Ms. Davis did is right, but it doesn't seem much different than the selective enforcement of laws by the current occupant of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.
If she doesn't want to follow the laws as assigned, she should resign. So should others who do the same.
"If she doesn't want to follow the laws as assigned, she should resign. So should others who do the same."
Your comment was well said and well intentioned and in principle I agree but as a practical matter I don't see why the minnow ought to hooked and then sliced into sushi while the big fish get to swim freely.
(Bet althouse the teen waitress used to spit in the niggers' food too when the law required her to "serve" them...)
Shame on althouse for encouraging this with her selective "sympathies".
She said "I'm not without sympathy" for her. Your moral preening (sorry, it's true) is a bit overwrought. Is Althouse supporting the clerk's actions?
Relax. You've won the battle over gay marriage. No need to run around the battlefield shooting the wounded.
Kim Davis is trivial. This Federal judge setting a precedent for taking over the operation of the office of a local elected official without going through channels is not.
Your selective sympathies seem odd.
I don't support this woman or sympathize with her. I think imprisoning her is outrageous.
I get that the left is drunk with power right now and you're doing this for the reason all movements do things: because you can. But I don't think the constant rage is sustainable.
Gays are equal in every respect?
Really?
Cause for the last decade, companies have been granting benefits to cohabitating gays. Now that they can be married, has there been a nationwide rescinding of those benefits? As in, get married or lose your benefits?
No, there hasn't. Gays stiol get benefits just for wanting them, straights have to get married to get them.
Let's see if you can figure out why.
Meaningless. I've been amazed the last few years with polls producing completely and utterly opposite results for the exact same question based on a slight rephrasing of the question or the inclusion of minor details. The phenomenon of push pulls and biased questioning is well known and documented, but it has gotten absurd even with honest polling.
Run this question three more times and get back to me. At the moment, this is the equivalent or rolling a die, getting a six, and then declaring the die only rolls sixes.
The protesters in Ferguson were far more lawless and incomparably more destructive than Kim Davis, but they very effectively made their point thanks to a sympathetic left-leaning media and a near-complicit White House.
She should lose her job, one way or another. The Moslem flight attendant who won't serve alcohol? She should lose her job, too. Maybe she should switch to baggage handling.
Even Christians understand this. They grew up not taking jobs that were at odds with their faith. They also understand that there may be some bureaucrat in the future that may want to deny a service because the person has Christian beliefs.
The Court applied the pro-choice doctrine to reestablish selective exclusion as law of the land, and The White House raised the rainbow flag to celebrate the progress.
Zeb Quinn, we're NEVER going to run out of pervs, social deviants, and other such freakshows. As long as there is there is a moral compass or standard, as long as there is a limit, it will be tested. People are incredibly inventive. here
Who did she think she was to ignore the law? Dear Leader and his Justice Dept., or Hillary?
Wouldn't it be cool to see a poll on sanctuary cities? I am sure the media will run with that one.
Religious reasons, no. "Reasons when I feel like it," however, I suspect have a commanding majority.
Or else there's a lot of people who believe that damn near every elected official in California ought to be locked away, followed shortly by Colorado and Washington and any number of municipal leaders of major cities.
In which case, there's hope for this country yet!
"The heroin is carried out on shoulders. The villain is vanquished."
That's pretty funny.
I agree that it's not a trivial spat. I also agree with those that understand that the clerk should have followed the law. After all, she's a representative of the law & shouldn't be assigning her personal beliefs to her execution thereof.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for her. However, She offered to solve this by simply not putting her name on the forms. Is this feasible? Surely its better than jailing her.
Also, there was a lesbian judge Tonya Parker who refused to marry heteros until gay marriage was legal. Don't remember many gay rights proponents decrying the rule of law violations.
"“Catholic priests have refused to marry same-sex couples for years. Now a Texas judge has an answer to that, saying she will not marry straight couples until gay marriage is legal in the state.
“Judge Tonya Parker of Dallas County told the Dallas Voice that she respectfully tells couples why she can’t conduct their marriage ceremony:
“‘I’m sorry. I don’t perform marriage ceremonies because we are in a state that does not have marriage equality, and until it does, I am not going to partially apply the law to one group of people that doesn’t apply to another group of people.’
“The Lone Star state judge also points out that she is not required by law to perform marriages, as it was considered a ‘discretionary function’ that is not to interfere with ‘mandatory judicial duties.’
Kim Davis was not applying licenses to anyone, gay or straight. NO outrage.
Which is bad enough. But now I read this from Instapundit a few days ago that many judges, because of their stance on gay marriage are not doing any weddings, gay or straight. But some courts are now saying that their not doing weddings, is implicity anti gay, and they can be viewed as having a bias towards gays in other cases because they aren't taking on said cases (can't find the link).
So, now, if you are a judge and don't like the law, you can refuse to do weddings and you're a hero, and if youre another judge and refuse to do weddings you are a villain.
There's also this guy:
http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/09/judge-who-declines-to-do-same-sex-marriages-says-civil-rights-struggle-inspired-his-career/
So again, double standards for the gay marriage crowd. The lesbian judge can refuse weddings and doenst' have to step down. But this guy can't recuse himself and must peform weddings or be forced to resign or something.
Has somebody already done the "swallowed" joke yet? Just askin'.
The Cracker Emcee said...
Just 26%? That's actually a huge number of folks. A principled, motivated 26% can torpedo anything, anywhere.
Well, except for Obama's shitty Iran treaty...
"She should lose her job, one way or another. The Moslem flight attendant who won't serve alcohol? She should lose her job, too. Maybe she should switch to baggage handling"
It's different for govt officials. the issue is not that the religuos person must always capitulate. If they can can another person to do the liquor for example, that is a reasonable accommodation for religious freedom.
The Sikh who brought her knife to the fed building ultimately won her case.
Kim is a bit different in that she is the only one who issues the licenses. Unless we assume that gays can just go elsewhere. Similar to how straights could go to a different judge if the lesbian one refused to marry them.
There may be an accommodation allowable that would even let Kim keep her job. Such as having a different clerk sign off on the gay marriages and her name is left off. Whateer the remedy, she should be issuing the licenses.
But then again, Gavin Newsome SHOULDN"t have issued the fraudulent licenses. Why was he able to scate without punishment?
Republicans should not be defending religious freedom on this hill. Kim should be signing the forms. For private businesses, or for not govt officials, absolutely.
Besides, if they assert a right to ignore the law here, they can't attack dems when they do stuff like setup sanctuary cities.
The rule of law is more important than one womans religious fight, expecially when she really doesnt' have a leg to stand on. Huckabee, should find real religious freedom issues involving gay marriage to fight. Not ones involving govt officials.
Unless he wants to give up arguments on rule of law.
I don't.
Besides, if they assert a right to ignore the law here, they can't attack dems when they do stuff like setup sanctuary cities.
Should've resigned...but the sanctuary cities predated her actions comfortably. So, it seems unbelievably hypocritical to see Progressives condemn her for violating the law given that Democrat office holders frequently do so.
This situation has arisen because a contentious social issue was resolved, not by democratic means, but by the vote of 5 people who are about as unrepresentative of the People as you could imagine. We are inherently a law-abiding country, so, whatever may be the defects in a particular poll, most folks likely do believe that government officials should obey court orders. But there is a significant minority for whom the Supreme Court's resolution of the gay marriage issue is illegitimate.
I support gay marriage, but I thought -- and still think -- it would have been better to have waited for perhaps 5 years until we gay marriage supporters could have persuaded our fellow citizens to support it. Kim Davis would, under those circumstances, have had a lot fewer sympathizers.
We can learn from the invention of abortion rights by the Supreme Court, which has roiled and distorted our politics for more than 4 decades. Like the gay marriage decision, the abortion rights decision had no firm basis in any provision of the Constitution, but rather was based on the personal values of some judges. I hope that resistance to gay marriage will not linger on for as long as resistance to abortion has. I tend to think that most people will look around at their married gay neighbors and say, They're not so bad when you get to know them. I hope that will happen. That acceptance process would be helped by leaving bakers and wedding photographers alone even if their values are not ours.
Marriage licenses, like college degrees, should be handed out at birth. Here, take as many as you like.
Jesus this stuff is tiresome.
Althouse supports Sharia Law.
I don't even agree with this woman, but...
If they don't throw the entire political leadership of every "sanctuary" city in jail like they did to this woman then it is all garbage.
If they don't take every bureaucrat that refuses to give out CC permits after Heller it is all garbage.
A lot of us have determined it is all garbage already. Things are going to change. You hypocrites on the left who abuse the rule of law are going to get a rude awakening when we stop playing by the rules you use against us in such a cynical manner.
Lets ask the progressives who post here, who are excoriating her for not following the rule of law what they think about govt officials who don't follow rule of law when it comes to sanctuary cities. Any progressive want to weigh in?
Do they want to weigh in on lesbian lawyers who refuse to marry straights until gays get a right to marry?
Or people like Jerry Brown, who's job as AG in CA, it is to defend the laws of the state, refusing to do so for Prop 8. And then leaving those who were then called in to defend Prop 8 without standing. And they lost their case, because they had no standing.
Or how about Gavin Newsome who went against stated law, and issued licenses to gays that required him to change the wording on the licenses so that gays could get married. He also doubled down on this by also declaring SF a sanctuary city and refused to cooperate with attempts to deport illegals.
jr565: if they assert a right to ignore the law here,
Know what else is law? The Kentucky RFRA.
Know what else is law? The federal RFRA.
Know what else is law? The First Amendment.
Know what else is law? The Constitutional provision expressly prohibiting any religious test to hold public office whatsoever.
In order to be calling for this woman's head, you have to be ignoring an awful lot of law.
Why are you ignoring the law?
Actually, you know, unlike the Obergefell decision, the Kentucky RFRA, the Federal RFRA, the First Amendment and the religious test provision were all passed by the elected representatives of the people, and signed into law by elected chief executives.
That means two branches got together to uphold them. Actually, all three branches have upheld them in the case of the federal RFRA, which the USSC has ruled passes constitutional muster.
Obergefell could be reversed tomorrow. Or the day after tomorrow. By a single branch, acting alone. It has all the force of law of the decree of a military junta in a tin-pot banana republic. The principle has certainly been soundly rejected by voters.
So, sure. Obergefell is the law of the land. Until next week, when the justices could say something totally different. A single branch cannot make law.
Sure, they can strike down a law that is unconstitutional, or a part of a law that is upconstitutional. But they cannot abrogate the freedom of religion of any citizen, because the very same authority that gives them the right to rule a law unconstitutional - the Constitution itself - also guarantees the religious liberties of everyone in the country.
And the RFRA requires that accommodation be made, consistent with accomplishing the government's aims, in the least restrictive manner possible.
Pretty sure that once you slap handcuffs and imprison any woman who hasn't committed a crime, you've blown the "least restrictive" part of the equation pretty handily.
jr565 said.
Congress can fix your points in a heartbeat if it really wanted to. The lower courts are the creation of Congress. Congress could simply repeal the relevant Supreme Court decisions, ban the lower courts from hearing the subject matter and make public officials personally liable for willfully refusing to do their official duties and simply changing the federal rules on standing. it can do so as long as the president signs said legislation or overrides a veto. And it all would be perfectly constitutional. Of course Congress doesn't have the guts to do it but in principle it could especially if one party were to control the presidency and both branches of Congress just like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi did with Obamacare. The thing is Donald Trump is probably brazen enough to push Congress to do something like this at least when it comes to immigration which why he seems to have hit a nerve with a large number of people in this country.
The heroin is carried out on shoulders.
How many kilos?
So 74% of voters think the IRS and State Department should not be able to ignore the law? Excellent! Get right on that, Obama!
Laws regarding actions can come in one of two types, those that proscribe an action and those that compel an action. Generally, there's not a whole lot of fuss when the government tells you not to do something, although here and there there have been objections to this, such as the original impetus behind the RFRAs, native Americans and peyote.
It gets much more dicey when the government compels action, particularly when it involves moral content. Most people would probably agree that gay marriage is a matter of moral content, regardless of whether they're pro or against. So essentially there is one morality pitted against another, and as long as the government is in the marriage business, it has to take a side.
The question is if government will accommodate conscientious objectors, similar to how it has done in other matters. I don't think it should be in the business of forcing anybody to participate who doesn't believe in this, and objecting shouldn't lead to a loss of office or freedom. All Kentucky needs to do here is modify its procedure slightly, say by allowing any notary public or officiating minister to sign the certificate, nothing inherent to marriage says it must be a county clerk who signs off. Similarly, ministers and judges should be free to marry whom they choose and only those they choose. It's not like there is any shortage of people to perform the ceremony, and I can't think of any reason for wanting a celebrant who objected to a marriage other than pure spite.
Prudence suggests the government should be accommodating. Even if we're only talking about, say, 10% of the population that's in agreement with Kim Davis, you're talking 30 million people, or something comparable to the entire black population of the country in raw numbers. If it's closer to 25%, then it's something more like 75 million people. That is an awfully large number of people to try to keep in line, particularly when you consider that they are more likely to be widespread over a lot of suburban and rural areas.
Well stated, cyrus83.
As the left likes to remind us, the constitution is not for people who are popular.
It actually would be interesting if everyone did this. Entire industries would be shut down. So many people have to compromise what they feel is right to remain employed.
I worked for a DoD corp. when I was in high school. It dawned on my 16-yr-old self as I filled orders for bomber parts that I was opposed to working towards this end. I hated it, so I stopped working there. IIRC, my mother was quite angry about it because it was "a good-paying job" and therefore I should roll over.
As an adult, I understand that sometimes you have extremely limited options, but I can't imagine a situation in which I would stay, but subsequently refuse to fill the orders because "it's against my beliefs to mindlessly fill orders for parts that either exist as a well-funded research project on a road to nowhere or, if actually used, will kill people." (What if I were a Quaker or had formal Conscientious Objector status?)
Let's put this in perspective.
26% of Americans support the clerk.
21% of Americans support the Iran deal.
Note the amount and tone of coverage between the two.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा