Yep. Kim Davis is coming to the SoTU

posted at 10:41 am on January 12, 2016 by Jazz Shaw

The First Lady will be featuring an empty chair as one of her guests for the State of the Union speech tonight. (It’s really rather crass to be stealing ideas from Clint Eastwood, isn’t it, Madam?) The empty chair will be joined by Syrian refugee Refaai Hamo, Paris train attack hero Staff Sgt. Spencer Stone, Ryan Reyes (whose boyfriend died at San Bernardino) and Satya Nadella.

But it’s not just Obama cheerleaders in the crowd. As the Hill reports, one guest will be from a decidedly different camp.

The Kentucky clerk briefly jailed last year for refusing to hand out marriage licenses to gay couples is slated to attend President Obama’s final State of the Union address, a source has confirmed to The Hill.

Kim Davis will attend Obama’s speech Tuesday night after the Family Research Council arranged for her to be in the House audience along with her attorney Mat Staver.

The Rowan County clerk will be in the audience along with Jim Obergefell, the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case legalizing gay marriage across the country, who will be a guest of President Obama.

Ms. Davis has certainly had a full dance card since she first vaulted to national attention. She’s already gotten to meet with the Pope and now she has the dubious honor of sitting through a Barack Obama speech in Washington. Of course, it’s fairly obvious what a dog and pony show this is for our nation’s politicians given that Jim Obergefell will be there as well. The pairing makes for a dream ticket in terms of the networks, though. Just think about it: every time the President says something about all of his many victories on the social justice front for gays the cameras can be ready to flash over to Davis grimacing and Obergefell fist pumping. If we’re really lucky they might even do a split screen. Oh, the drama!

It’s kind of a shame that things have gotten to the point where the guest list at these speeches is just a series of pieces of performance art to poke a finger in somebody’s eye rather than filling the seats with people who might just legitimately want to be there. Yes, I know… for the vast majority of the people we normally speak to here the obvious question is, why would you want to? But the Democrats certainly do. And I’m willing to bet that if there’s an upcoming State of the Union given by a President Cruz or Trump or Rubio there are a fair number of folks here who wouldn’t mind going. Trust me, I’ve been to my share of rubber chicken events in DC and at various stops along the campaign trail elsewhere. Sometimes it can be a chore, but it’s also an experience to have at least once, providing a chance to see (and yes.. be seen) with other folks in the game. Also, some of the after parties can be pretty good at times.’

In fact, in the end, it’s not really about the speech at all. If what you really cared about was hearing what the President had to say you could do so from the comfort of your own home on any of dozens of network and cable channels or on the radio in your car. It’s far more spectacle than substance. But the media owns the show now and the guest list is strictly serving the purpose of building a “highlight” reel from an even that will be drearily short of actual highlights.

KimDavis


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

MJBrutus on January 12, 2016 at 12:50 PM

A much better source – and I like DC McCallister – but Kentucky law didn’t provide Kim Davis with the option of having someone else do it – the law required Kim Davis’ signature to appear on all licenses issued from the office regardless of how processed it.

But I will say that if Kentucky law *had* provided a way for the office to issue licenses without Kim Davis’ name being on the license then she wouldn’t have a legitimate civil rights case.

gwelf on January 12, 2016 at 1:02 PM

Oh, good lord. When will we free of this harridan?

CivilDiscourse on January 12, 2016 at 10:52 AM

Traditionally, the First Lady rides off into the sunset with her husband, but I’m sure in keeping with her own protocol, she will insist on her own helicopter ride 4 hours before the president leaves office.

Maddie on January 12, 2016 at 1:03 PM

So no double standard here. This isn’t too complicated.
You don’t have to love or personally support a particular law or ruling, but you need to follow it.
Cons too often lately seem to be fair weather friends on the very basic concept.

verbaluce on January 12, 2016 at 12:49 PM

Cons too often lately seem to be fair weather friends on the very basic concept.

verbaluce on January 12, 2016 at 12:49 PM

Except a lot of other people said the same thing about what Davis should have done.

You seem intent on grabbing the one or two people who are full-throated supporters of whatever controversial figure is at hand and projecting that position onto everyone else.

The Schaef on January 12, 2016 at 12:59 PM

verbaluce – it’s admirable that you didn’t apply a double standard in those cases but that is an exception on the left.

The cases you cited were generally and near universally cheered by the left.

gwelf on January 12, 2016 at 1:04 PM

Rix on January 12, 2016 at 1:01 PM

I’m an independant. I side more often with Conservatives (real ones, not the tRump kind). Especially on fiscal matters.

MJBrutus on January 12, 2016 at 1:04 PM

gwelf on January 12, 2016 at 1:02 PM

Her name on the document did not indicate consent or approval. It was simply an acknowledgement that the facts presented by the citizens were accurate.

MJBrutus on January 12, 2016 at 1:05 PM

I’m all for you carrying, concealed or open :-)

Done deal!

MJBrutus on January 12, 2016 at 12:55 PM

All well and good, but many states do not honor carry licenses from other states, which was where Rix was going with that.

In, for example, New Jersey, you can be stopped and arrested for “transporting” a firearm (by having it in your car) even if you are licensed to carry it in any number of other states.

The Schaef on January 12, 2016 at 1:07 PM

The Schaef on January 12, 2016 at 1:07 PM

I’m with the carry crowd. The 2nd Amendment applies to all, as does the full faith and credit clause.

MJBrutus on January 12, 2016 at 1:09 PM

What do you contradict? Doesn’t she have the right to quit? Doesn’t the law (as determined by the courts) say that marriage must be available to same sex couple if it’s available to anyone?

MJBrutus on January 12, 2016 at 12:08 PM

Umm, for the record, she wasn’t denying Ghey Pretend Marriage licenses based on her religious beliefs, she was denying them because to do so would violate her State’s Constitution.

Obergefell was for a different Circuit.

Oh, and FYI, Congress makes laws, not the Supreme Court.

Maddie on January 12, 2016 at 1:11 PM

Maddie on January 12, 2016 at 1:11 PM

Obergfell struck down the laws opposed to gay marriage across the nation. The SCOTUS interprets laws and it is required to put Constitutional rights ahead of legislative actions. Kim Davis’ rights were not violated but she did violate those of others. That was the court’s decision.

MJBrutus on January 12, 2016 at 1:14 PM

Moving beyond the settled legal facts about this rogue public servant, the invitation was the dumbest kind of political malpractice. Gay marriage is now widely accepted and popular in America. Aside from those who, like the isolated Japanese soldiers from WW II who never heard the war was over continued to fight on, that is. Bringing this harpy to the SOTU serves only to needlessly isolate voters and pick at scabs. The SCOTUS ruled and gay marriage will not go away.

MJBrutus on January 12, 2016 at 1:20 PM

Obergfell struck down the laws opposed to gay marriage across the nation. The SCOTUS interprets laws and it is required to put Constitutional rights ahead of legislative actions. Kim Davis’ rights were not violated but she did violate those of others. That was the court’s decision.

MJBrutus on January 12, 2016 at 1:14 PM

Then why doesn’t Heller allow me to carry a firearm in my own state??

Maddie on January 12, 2016 at 1:22 PM

Maddie on January 12, 2016 at 1:22 PM

It didn’t strike down all gun control laws. I think that it did invalidate many that are still on the books that should be challenged and maybe are in the courts now.

MJBrutus on January 12, 2016 at 1:25 PM

Excellent Curt :)

cmsinaz on January 12, 2016 at 1:26 PM

It didn’t strike down all gun control laws. I think that it did invalidate many that are still on the books that should be challenged and maybe are in the courts now.

MJBrutus on January 12, 2016 at 1:25 PM

I have a valid pistol permit from my home state, passed a Federal and State background check, and I have the Second Amendment on my side.

So I ask again:

Why doesn’t Heller allow me to carry a firearm in my own state??

Maddie on January 12, 2016 at 1:27 PM

Maddie on January 12, 2016 at 1:27 PM

Maybe it should. I can’t tell you.

MJBrutus on January 12, 2016 at 1:27 PM

So why hasn’t anyone stood up for the religious rights of the Muslim truck drivers and lunch ladies I mentioned above?

MJBrutus on January 12, 2016 at 1:29 PM

Maybe it should. I can’t tell you.

MJBrutus on January 12, 2016 at 1:27 PM

It absolutely should. But as long as Heller does not grant law-abiding citizens the right to carry everywhere in the Lower 48, you lose your right to make the claim that:

Obergfell struck down the laws opposed to gay marriage across the nation.

Either the USSC interprets laws that affect all 50 states, or it does not.

Maddie on January 12, 2016 at 1:31 PM

So why hasn’t anyone stood up for the religious rights of the Muslim truck drivers and lunch ladies I mentioned above?

MJBrutus on January 12, 2016 at 1:29 PM

They can do it their damn selves. They pi$$ and moan about everything else.

Put CAIR on it, they love a good snivel-fest.

Maddie on January 12, 2016 at 1:32 PM

Maddie on January 12, 2016 at 1:03 PM

Well played, well played, indeed.

F X Muldoon on January 12, 2016 at 1:35 PM

Maddie on January 12, 2016 at 1:31 PM

Perhaps you have reading difficulties. I said that I think you should be able to carry. So yeah, “the USSC interprets laws that affect all 50 states”.

MJBrutus on January 12, 2016 at 1:36 PM

Put CAIR on it, they love a good snivel-fest.

Maddie on January 12, 2016 at 1:32 PM

And perhaps you should take your 2nd Amendment case to court.

MJBrutus on January 12, 2016 at 1:38 PM

Perhaps you have reading difficulties.

Perhaps you do.

I said that I think you should be able to carry.

I’m sorry, which Supreme Court Justice are you?

So yeah, “the USSC interprets laws that affect all 50 states”.

MJBrutus on January 12, 2016 at 1:36 PM

Except that it doesn’t, because Heller does not affect all 50 States.

Maddie on January 12, 2016 at 1:45 PM

And perhaps you should take your 2nd Amendment case to court.

MJBrutus on January 12, 2016 at 1:38 PM

Why should I have to? Heller was already decided.

Maddie on January 12, 2016 at 1:46 PM

Except that it doesn’t, because Heller does not affect all 50 States.

Maddie on January 12, 2016 at 1:45 PM

Except that it does. Call you local NRA and ask why you are being refused and how that law can be challenged. Or, just continue to snivel.

MJBrutus on January 12, 2016 at 1:51 PM

I’m not going to watch, so I really don’t give a rip.

Ward Cleaver on January 12, 2016 at 1:58 PM

verbaluce – it’s admirable that you didn’t apply a double standard in those cases but that is an exception on the left.

The cases you cited were generally and near universally cheered by the left.

gwelf on January 12, 2016 at 1:04 PM

Well thanks for the acknowledgment.
As I often say here…I’m not the drone you;re looking for.

verbaluce on January 12, 2016 at 2:04 PM

Just another ruling class circus celebrating their elitism and excess.

Roman orgies got nothing on these plutocrats.

Oxymoron on January 12, 2016 at 2:06 PM

The problem with Davis’s case is she didn’t try to find anyone who would issue licenses to gay couples. Instead, she shut down that service entirely, not issuing licenses to anyone, gay or straight.

MJBrutus on January 12, 2016 at 12:50 PM

And if she had issued a single marriage license to anyone, you would have been screaming about blatant discrimination. Admit this much.

The real problem with Davis’s case is that it was a no-win scenario, UNLESS she allowed the new interpretation of law to override her First Amendment freedom.

BTW, not only is this an issue of religious freedom, but it’s also an issue of freedom of speech. You can not compel someone to say what they disagree with. If burning a flag is protected speech, then it is protected speech to sign a marriage license for a gay couple, and to refuse to sign a marriage license for a gay couple.

This is what the left always misses in their rush to make the religious bow to their new morality. Baking a cake for a gay wedding is an obvious way to suggest your approval. Therefore, refusing to bake a cake is just as much free speech on the other side.

Enough with the game-playing. What is really going on here is that progressivism has decided it is immoral to disapprove of homosexuality, and is enforcing their view of morality at the expense of Christian morality.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 12, 2016 at 2:14 PM

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 12, 2016 at 2:14 PM

And if she had issued a single marriage license to anyone, you would have been screaming about blatant discrimination. Admit this much.

Good point :-)

The real problem with Davis’s case is that it was a no-win scenario, UNLESS she allowed the new interpretation of law to override her First Amendment freedom.

Not true. The court says otherwise. I repeat, her name on the document was NOT a sign of consent or approval. It was purely a statement that the facts presented to her by the couple were accurate. So her rights were not violated. She is an activist for an illegal and disgusting cause.

MJBrutus on January 12, 2016 at 2:20 PM

Except that it does. Call you local NRA and ask why you are being refused and how that law can be challenged. Or, just continue to snivel.

MJBrutus on January 12, 2016 at 1:51 PM

Not sniveling, just asking an honest question–which you continue to answer dishonestly.

Maddie on January 12, 2016 at 2:40 PM

……wasted TV airtime….so, of course, I could care less who will be there to see it!

GO TRUMP!
TRiUMPh 2016

Pragmatic on January 12, 2016 at 2:42 PM

Maddie on January 12, 2016 at 2:40 PM

That was a snivel. What do you imagine happens when the court rules? Do you think that a law fairy magically strikes down all laws that the court invalidated?

The specific law ruled on is struck down. Other, newly ruled illegal laws stay on the books until they are amended, repealed or challenged in court. So IF Heller goes against laws in your state the law remains in effect until one of those things happens.

MJBrutus on January 12, 2016 at 2:44 PM

Not true. The court says otherwise. I repeat, her name on the document was NOT a sign of consent or approval. It was purely a statement that the facts presented to her by the couple were accurate. So her rights were not violated. She is an activist for an illegal and disgusting cause.

MJBrutus on January 12, 2016 at 2:20 PM

The court did not make any ruling in Obergefell on religious freedom issues surrounding SSM. The only thing they said remotely relevant was that people of a contrary belief were free to “advocate their belief.” I’m sure that someone will pop up to claim that proves that the ONLY religious freedom left on the issue is to advocate a contrary belief, but that would be a patently absurd statement, given that the First Amendment freedoms can’t be abridged in a Supreme Court decision.

So all you really have is a single judge’s opinion that her First Amendment rights were irrelevant.

And I repeat that she was thrown in jail.

But let’s not move too fast past this statement:

She is an activist for an illegal and disgusting cause.

What cause is illegal? Even Obergefell itself said it was perfectly legal to advocate against SSM. Even the most expansive interpretation of a SCOTUS decision possible does not take away her right to object, and to refuse to be forced to approve.

Disgusting is an interesting choice of epithet. Many would describe homosexuality itself as disgusting. And few would deny that anal “intercourse” is at least a little disgusting. What makes their assessment wrong and yours right?

Again, we have a clash of moral views. On the one hand, secular progressive thinking says homosexuality is normal and moral, while Christian doctrine says it is abnormal and immoral. One might think the line would be drawn by saying that Christians have the right to believe it is abnormal and immoral as long as they don’t cross the line into action. Instead, the line is being drawn at Christians not being permitted to refuse to bake cakes celebrating SSM, or not being permitted to refuse to make T-shirts celebrating SSM, or not being permitted to refuse to lend an arena to an occasions celebrating SSM.

When this whole issue came up, I and others repeatedly emphasized the goal was to force Christians to submit. Over and over again, that assessment is vindicated.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 12, 2016 at 2:59 PM

You just can’t stop stupid.

So dumb.

BocaJuniors on January 12, 2016 at 3:08 PM

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 12, 2016 at 2:59 PM

It is cut and dried. The court ruled that SS couples have the right to marry. This activist tried to defy the court. She could have quit her job. She could have stayed on her job which did NOT violate her religious freedom since her name on the cert did not imply consent or approval.

She chose instead to break the law in an act of civil disobedience and for that she went to jail.

And more to the point, it is a vote losing strategy for the GOP to invite this activist for a deeply unpopular cause.

MJBrutus on January 12, 2016 at 3:10 PM

this actually happened in real life.


Eye of the Tiger

Free At Last!

That was not a comedy bit.

Real Life.

That’s a candidate for president of the united states up on that stage.

everdiso on January 12, 2016 at 3:16 PM

everdiso on January 12, 2016 at 3:16 PM

A losing candidate.

MJBrutus on January 12, 2016 at 3:18 PM

I think she and I have a RIGHT, to reject recognizing same-sex/gender relationships as “marriages”.

What’d’ya’ think about that?

listens2glenn on January 12, 2016 at 11:29 AM

I suggest you take it up with the SCOTUS, but you better bring a good lawyer.

Tlaloc on January 12, 2016 at 4:02 PM

And I repeat that she was thrown in jail.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 12, 2016 at 2:59 PM

For contempt of court, because she refused to follow the court’s ruling. Do you think she should have been able to ignore a judge’s ruling with no consequence?

Tlaloc on January 12, 2016 at 4:07 PM

The empty chair will be joined by Syrian refugee Refaai Hamo, Paris train attack hero Staff Sgt. Spencer Stone, Ryan Reyes (whose boyfriend died at San Bernardino) and Satya Nadella.

… the empty suit at the podium.

IDontCair on January 12, 2016 at 4:35 PM

Obergfell struck down the laws opposed to gay marriage across the nation. The SCOTUS interprets laws and it is required to put Constitutional rights ahead of legislative actions.

MJBrutus on January 12, 2016 at 1:14 PM

I don’t think you read the Obergefell opinion. There was a lot of divining what rights have “emerged” and less interpreting the law. In fact, they made an argument that as rights “emerge”, they have to ignore written law.

Axeman on January 12, 2016 at 4:39 PM

Oh, good lord. When will we free of this harridan?

CivilDiscourse on January 12, 2016 at 10:52 AM“Harridan”…”Civil Discourse”

Somebody has to look up irony.

Axeman on January 12, 2016 at 4:41 PM

Axeman on January 12, 2016 at 4:39 PM

Where do they say that? I read the decision and in it they declare it to be a fundamental right and as such supercedes statutory law.

MJBrutus on January 12, 2016 at 6:15 PM

I understand they know who’s Congressional office gave her the invite. But the Congressman is stating he had no idea she was attending courtesy of him. A real profile in courage there. LOL!

Marcus on January 12, 2016 at 7:04 PM

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 12, 2016 at 2:59 PM

It is cut and dried. The court ruled that SS couples have the right to marry. This activist tried to defy the court.

Nope. She refused to participate by signing the license. She did not attempt to prevent them from getting a license, as long as she didn’t have to sign it.

She could have quit her job.

And the left would have been fine with that, because it reached their goal of coercion and submission.

She could have stayed on her job which did NOT violate her religious freedom since her name on the cert did not imply consent or approval.

Again, you want to determine for her whether her convictions were violated.

She chose instead to break the law in an act of civil disobedience and for that she went to jail.

There actually was no law to break. Just a SCOTUS decision that had not yet been codified into a law.

And more to the point, it is a vote losing strategy for the GOP to invite this activist for a deeply unpopular cause.

MJBrutus on January 12, 2016 at 3:10 PM

What “deeply unpopular cause?” If SSM had the popular support claimed for it, there would never have needed to be a Court decision. SCOTUS took the court case and rendered its verdict because it was the only way to force SSM. Only judges who did not have to worry about being elected had the power to force SSM down everyone’s throat.

We’ve been treated to years of being told SSM was inevitable, that eventually every state would have to adopt it, because popular support was growing every year.

The reality is that only a SCOTUS decision had the power to force it on everyone else.

Like most of the propaganda pushing SSM, the popular support for it was always a lie.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 12, 2016 at 8:00 PM

And I repeat that she was thrown in jail.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 12, 2016 at 2:59 PM

For contempt of court, because she refused to follow the court’s ruling. Do you think she should have been able to ignore a judge’s ruling with no consequence?

Tlaloc on January 12, 2016 at 4:07 PM

I think the judge trampled her First Amendment rights. I seem to remember something about judges following the Constitution…..

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 12, 2016 at 8:04 PM

So each lawmaker is allowed to bring one guest. I’m Shocked The two who invited her haven’t come forward.

wearyexclusive on January 12, 2016 at 9:19 PM

The specific law ruled on is struck down. Other, newly ruled illegal laws stay on the books until they are amended, repealed or challenged in court. So IF Heller Over step goes against laws in your Kim Davis’ state the law remains in effect until one of those things happens.
MJBrutus on January 12, 2016 at 2:44 PM

Thanks. I updated your post to stay relevant to the topic.

Maddie on January 12, 2016 at 9:25 PM

Over step = Obergefell. Damn auto-correct.

Maddie on January 12, 2016 at 9:26 PM

Comment pages: 1 2