Since Justice Horace Gray hired the first Supreme Court law clerk in 1882, over 2, 000 men and women have served as clerks. The Supreme Court clerkships are the ultimate status markers and guarantee long-term career success. To get a clerkship, applicants must stockpile earlier status markers like elite education or a clerkship with a feeder judge. The liberal tradition of the clerkship arose out of Louis Brandeis’s vision of former law clerks serving a progressive legal agenda, which Felix Frankfurter helped institutionalize.
The Supreme Court has retained many traditions, but COVID-19 caused the Court to adopt new traditions, most notably, holding remote offices. Thomas and Biskupic trace the evolution of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence from the Warren Court to the Roberts Court, and shed light on the role of law clerks in the court.
In the latter half of the nineteenth century, as Supreme Court terms grew longer and circuit court duties diminished, new appointees were more likely to begin their work with the Supreme Court. Supreme Court opinions involving race and the jury invariably open with the Fourteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, or landmark cases like the Fourteenth Amendment. Graduates of the law schools at Yale, Harvard, and Stanford universities dominate the incoming class of US Supreme Court clerks, keeping with tradition.
The accomplishments of Supreme Court clerks provide incomplete insight into the intense life experiences of Supreme Court justices, such as Justice Day inviting his sons to live in his home and serve as clerks. The Supreme Court clerkships are the ultimate status markers and guarantee long-term career success, and the incoming class of US Supreme Court clerks is predominantly made up of white graduates and 23% graduates of color.
| Article | Description | Site |
|---|---|---|
| A Family Tradition: Clerking at the U.S. Supreme Court … – UVA Law | Supreme Court opinions involving race and the jury invariably open with the Fourteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, or landmark cases like… More. | law.virginia.edu |
| Supreme Court Clerk Hiring Watch: A Term Like No Other | Feast your eyes on the complete roster of Supreme Court law clerks for October Term 2020. | abovethelaw.com |
| The Liberal Tradition of the Supreme Court Clerkship | by WE Nelson · Cited by 69 — This Article presents the first comprehensive empirical study of the post-clerkship employment of law clerks at the Supreme Court from 1882 to the present, and … | law.uga.edu |
📹 How Many Times Has This Defender of Traditional Marriage Been Married?
Kim Davis, the Rowan county clerk who has deemed herself the arbiter of what is right and what’s wrong in a marriage has been …
Who Is The Youngest Current Supreme Court Justice?
Amy Coney Barrett, born on January 28, 1972, in New Orleans, Louisiana, is the youngest Supreme Court Justice, appointed by former President Donald Trump. At 48, she is the youngest justice confirmed since Clarence Thomas in 1991, who was 43 at his confirmation. Barrett previously served as a law professor at Notre Dame and a federal appeals judge for three years before her Supreme Court confirmation in October 2020. She is notable for being the fifth woman and the first Supreme Court Justice with school-aged children, as a mother of seven.
Barrett has become a favored choice among social conservatives due to her judicial record on issues like abortion. As of 2024, she remains the junior member of the Court's conservative supermajority, following the appointment of newer justices like Ketanji Brown Jackson, who at 50 is the youngest current member but lacks prior judicial experience. Justices serve for life, barring retirement, resignation, or impeachment.
How Competitive Are Supreme Court Clerkships?
Clerking for a U. S. Supreme Court Justice is regarded as the most prestigious and competitive clerkship in the U. S., with only 36-38 positions available annually. Each year, thousands of qualified candidates, often boasting recommendations from esteemed law professors, compete for these roles. Supreme Court clerkships serve as crucial status markers, ensuring long-term career success. To enhance their competitiveness, applicants typically possess elite educational backgrounds or prior clerkships with preferred judges. Federal circuit court clerkships are also desirable; some judges mandate applicants to have previous clerking experience or at least a year of postgraduate law work.
Competing for clerkships at various courts is intense, with a federal district judge receiving around 200 applications yearly, while appellate courts attract even more candidates. Supreme Court clerks are generally top-performing law students from prestigious institutions—often within the top 1-5% of their class. Clerkship experience is highly valued, and the path from law student to Supreme Court clerk remains a coveted goal for many.
Moreover, the recruitment landscape shows a preference for graduates from elite schools, significantly influencing their success in securing clerkships. Post-clerkship, opportunities abound, although only a fraction will enter academia or high-level public service. Overall, judicial clerkships are an essential step for aspiring legal professionals.
How Hard Is It To Clerk For A Supreme Court Justice?
Supreme Court clerkships are highly competitive, with approximately a thousand applicants each year vying for one of the 36 positions available. To be considered, candidates must usually have completed a clerkship at the federal Court of Appeals and possess a Juris Doctor (J. D.) degree from a top 10 law school in the U. S. While the U. S. Constitution does not stipulate qualifications for Supreme Court justices, a study indicates that most clerks come from prestigious institutions like Harvard or Yale.
In fact, two-thirds of the clerks hired between 1980 and 2020, cite those same five law schools as their alma mater. Candidates often have stellar academic records, prior clerkship experience, and strong ties to the local legal community. Justice Elena Kagan’s former clerk emphasizes the importance of these connections. Successful applicants typically demonstrate excellent research and writing skills.
Additionally, aspiring clerks are advised to attend clinics and secure positions with judges known for sending clerks to the Supreme Court, often referred to as "feeder judges". Despite the challenges, a clerkship is viewed as the pinnacle accomplishment for recent law graduates, marking their entry into the upper echelons of the legal profession.
What Is The Bonus For Supreme Court Clerkship At Gibson Dunn?
The competition for Supreme Court law clerks has intensified, resulting in unprecedented signing bonuses that have reached $500, 000, according to Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher. This figure significantly surpasses the annual salaries of Supreme Court justices, which are just under $300, 000. Prominent law firms like Gibson Dunn and Jones Day are actively courting former clerks with appealing offers, including luxurious meals and spa days. In addition, litigation firms such as Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan provide bonuses of up to $125, 000 for associates with multiple federal clerkships.
The market for recruiting judicial clerks is evolving, with some firms already offering bonuses as high as $400, 000 based on the potential insights clerks can provide about judicial decision-making processes. Furthermore, associate bonuses are structured around hours billed, with significant amounts available for those hitting specific targets. While some clerks might not choose to join the largest firms, the overwhelming financial incentives like the significant signing bonuses and additional bonuses for qualifying clerkships are reshaping the competitive landscape. Current trends suggest that bonuses may continue to rise, indicating a robust market for legal talent coming from Supreme Court clerkships.
Who Was The First Supreme Court Clerk?
Ezra Ripley Thayer (LL. B. 1891), a clerk for Justice Horace Gray, notably became the first Supreme Court clerk to later serve as Dean of Harvard Law School (HLS). Fast forward to Stephen Breyer (LL. B. 1964), who distinguished himself as the first HLS alumnus to clerk for the Supreme Court, become a faculty member, and ascend to the role of Supreme Court Justice. The role of law clerks in the U. S. Supreme Court began with Justice Gray hiring the first clerk in 1882, a practice that subsequently expanded nationwide.
Key figures from the court's history include Samuel Williston, who moved from clerkship to HLS faculty, and Rachel Brand, who served as Associate Attorney General. The Judiciary Act of 1789 established the Supreme Court and appointed its initial justices. Over time, the Supreme Court has seen various justices such as Byron White and Ketanji Brown Jackson emerge from clerkship backgrounds. Lucile Lomen broke gender barriers as the first female Supreme Court law clerk. The ongoing historical significance of law clerks is reflected through their impact and roles within the highest court of the land, with the current clerk being Scott S. Harris.
Who Was The First Supreme Court Clerk To Serve On HLS?
Justice Horace Gray hired the first law clerk in the Supreme Court in 1882, which began a tradition of clerks assisting justices. His fourth clerk, Samuel Williston (LL. B. 1888), became the first Supreme Court clerk to later join the Harvard Law School (HLS) faculty, while Ezra Ripley Thayer (LL. B. 1891), another of Gray’s clerks, became the first Supreme Court clerk to serve as HLS Dean. Notably, Supreme Court Associate Justice Elena Kagan, who clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall, described him as the greatest lawyer of the 20th century.
Other prominent figures include Justice Stephen Breyer, who served on the HLS faculty after clerking, and Justice Neil Gorsuch, the first Justice to bring clerking experience from the Supreme Court directly to his role. William Thaddeus Coleman Jr. made history as the first African American clerk for a U. S. Supreme Court justice. The role of law clerks, originally incorporating recent HLS graduates, has evolved but remains pivotal to the Court's operations, with clerks often transitioning into notable legal professions.
This legacy underscores the intersection of law education and judicial service, exemplified by former law clerks who have ascended to judicial roles or contributed significantly to the legal community.
Who Was The First Judge To Hire A Clerk?
Horace Gray, an LL. B. graduate from 1849, was revolutionary in the U. S. legal system as he became the first judge to hire a law clerk, Louis Dembitz Brandeis. Upon his Supreme Court appointment in 1882, he continued this practice by hiring Thomas Russell, the first clerk for the Supreme Court. Early law clerks, primarily from Harvard Law School, conducted legal research and managed various administrative tasks. Notably, William T. Coleman, Jr. made history as the first African American clerk at the Court, although he faced challenges securing the position despite graduating magna cum laude.
The role of law clerks has expanded since Gray's initial hiring, with justices allowed three to four clerks each, and Chief Justice Roberts typically hiring four. The practice of clerks in federal district courts was officially authorized in the 1930s. Prominent judges like J. Skelly Wright and Laurence Silberman served as feeder judges in the late 20th century, significantly influencing clerk placements. Noteworthy clerks have pursued illustrious careers, exemplified by Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Chief Justice Kavanaugh made headlines by being the first to hire an all-female clerk team. Overall, law clerks have been integral to the American judiciary since the modern practice commenced in 1882.
Which Clerkships Are Most Prestigious?
At the federal level, the hierarchy of clerkship prestige is as follows: (1) Supreme Court clerkships, (2) circuit (appellate) clerkships, (3) federal district court clerkships, and (4) clerkships with U. S. magistrates. Notably, Stanford Law School had the highest percentage of federal clerkships among U. S. law schools in 2022, with a quarter of its graduates securing these roles. These prestigious, year-long positions serve as vital credentials for future legal careers, including judgeships and law professorships.
Supreme Court clerkships, the most coveted and competitive of all, involve direct assistance to justices in preparing for oral arguments and drafting opinions. Graduates from top law schools are particularly competitive for these roles, with institutions like the University of Chicago and Stanford being recognized for their success in placing graduates in federal clerkships. It is essential to note that clerkships at high state courts in jurisdictions like Delaware, New York, and California are equally prestigious, sometimes more so than certain federal positions.
Such clerkships, including those with the Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, represent the pinnacle of legal career aspirations. Furthermore, Notre Dame Law School ranks 4th nationally for federal clerkship placements, underscoring the competitive nature of these opportunities in the legal profession.
What Are Two Traditions Of The Supreme Court?
The Chief Justice chairs the Supreme Court, flanked by Associate Justices by seniority, alternating sides. Traditionally, since 1800, justices wear black robes in court. The Court has a unique seal resembling the Great Seal of the U. S., featuring a star symbolizing the establishment of a singular Supreme Court under the Constitution. The Court's foundation was laid by the Judiciary Act of 1789, continuing a rich history since its inaugural gathering in 1790. Oath ceremonies have evolved, with the Chief Justice or senior Associate Justice administering the Constitutional Oath, typically in private settings.
The Supreme Court, as the ultimate judicial authority, plays a crucial role in delineating powers between state and federal domains. Justices traditionally engage in a "judicial handshake" to foster decorum despite necessary public disagreements, emphasizing the institution's values. Significant rulings reflect societal shifts, as seen in a recent decision favoring L. G. B. T. Q. rights against the Trump administration's stance. The Court is preparing to assess state restrictions on transgender healthcare, indicating its role in major cultural debates.
Decisions by the Supreme Court must be adhered to by all, and four justices must agree for a case to be heard. This institution, underpinned by established customs and the principle of judicial review, remains pivotal in governing constitutional interpretations.
When Did Judges In The US Stop Wearing Wigs?
American judges discontinued the use of wigs in the early 19th century, influenced by the desire to reflect republican and democratic ideals in the new nation. This shift occurred alongside a broader societal trend, as wigs fell out of fashion after the 1780s when judges began adopting smaller bob-wigs for civil trials. The transition away from full-bottomed wigs coincided with a cultural shift during the reign of George III (1760-1820), leading to wigs mostly being worn by specific groups like bishops and the legal profession by the end of the century.
Initially, judges in the United States emulated 18th-century British attire, wearing white powdered wigs and black robes, with higher court judges adopting red robes with black markings. However, as American society evolved, Chief Justice John Marshall set a precedent by donning a black robe, moving away from the colorful English judicial garments.
The decision to abandon wigs was solidified by 19th-century practicalities, including hygiene, politics, and costs. The founding fathers had already initiated a move toward more democratic attire, with notable figures like Thomas Jefferson advocating against wigs. By 1800, natural hair became the norm, marking a significant cultural shift in American judicial dress that distinguished it from its British counterparts, who maintained the tradition of wearing wigs in the courtroom.
📹 How the Supreme Court is a bit like high school
America’s highest court has many traditions of seniority and hazing. Neil Gorsuch is now the junior most justice and is at the …
There are only two people who can threaten the sanctity of a marriage, and those two are the couple themselves. To say someone else threatens the sanctity of your marriage, is like saying someone else is forcing you to do something wrong. Davis needs to realize that, in the eyes of God, the only person she has to account for is herself.
This is actually a pretty simple straightfoward issue…. Kim Davis is free to believe whatever she wants. Kim Davis is also free to not have her signature affixed to state licenses While Mrs. Davis, does have those rights, the Office of the Clerk does not. The Office of The Clerk is a government position, a government office and the government has no rights, only responsibilities and powers.and it is the responsibility of the office to sign those papers. The only legal, the only legitimate way she can exercise her rights in this case is resignation of office. Sitting in that office and using it in a way to deprive citizens of lawful rights or benefits is a crime. She had 2 perfectly lawful options: 1. ignore her beliefs and sign the marriage licenses 2. follow her beliefs and resign from her office as Clerk (and thus abdicate the responsibility of said office). She’s not being persecuted for her religion…. she’s being persecuted for misuse of the government office she occupies. At no time was she required to misuse said office….. that was an act she engaged in voluntarily and an issue that was correctable voluntarily. She simply chose NOT TO, and now is SUBJECT to the consequences of that act. She has the right to believe and practice whatever religion she wants, but her religious beliefs or opinions do not give her any right to abuse the office of public trust she occupies.
Hypothetical Scenario: I’m a cop (a public employee) and I arrive at the scene of a rape complaint. Before I can talk to the woman who was raped, her father tells me that he paid the rapist 50 pieces of silver and her and the rapist will be having a romantic honeymoon next June. Do I still have to investigate the accusation, or can I just whip out a bible, show the passage, declare the case “solved” and drive away?
I’m almost positive there’s a Hitchens quote that’s the exact same as the title here. If you had 3 failed marriages before she became a hardcore Christian, that means you have serious personal issues that she’s using religion as a crutch to get by on, which means the delusion HAS to be true for her, otherwise the house of cards in her head comes crashing down.
Ana, once again, at 1:28 makes the sweeping generalization that those who hold the belief that homosexuality is immoral are using religious as an excuse to hide their bigotry. They don’t care about their beliefs, Ana says, they’re just bigots. Well, I have news for you: there are tons of Christians who do care about those beliefs yet don’t hold a shred of hatred for homosexuals in their hearts. I have many of these people in my own life. The belief that homosexuality is immoral does not directly imply a hatred for homosexuals, just as a belief that it’s wrong to lie doesn’t mean you have to hold hatred for liars. As an opponent of generalizing against Muslims, TYT must get a hold of themselves and care not to generalize against Christians too. They must care to make nuanced viewpoints so that the truth gets spread instead of some agenda of theirs.
Lol, and I thought my late grandfather was married a lot. He was born in Feb. 1901, married his 1st wife, who he had our family elders, my fathers 1/2 sister, and his late 1/2 brother. May he R.I.P. along with my grandfather. Then he married a second time had 3 kids. You couldn’t get divorced in the Philippines at the time, so he was technically still married to her, but then came along my grandmother, born 17 years after in 1908. I believe she sheltered him back to health after escaping a Japanese Prison Camp. He was wounded, which is how he got his purple heart. So he fell in love with my grandmother, and left his second wife, and took the American govt.’s offer to become a U.S. citizen, and bring his new wife, and 2 new sons, as well as his oldest kids. Then my grandmother past away in 1978 before I was born. I think it was a stroke. Then my grandfather found this Filipina nurse, and got her to marry him for the sake of getting his house, as well as 1/2 of his leftover cash. She was basically his nurse for 10 yrs. Most of us knew that she was just using him, but taking care of my grandpa couldn’t have been easy. She also gave us free puppy 7 years ago, and the bitch mutt is awesome. Now my grandpas brother is the champion pimp. My second cousin has a daughter, and she’s the same age as my cousins youngest 1/2 sister. I think he has something like 30 kids.
I wish people would stop saying “She refuses to marry gay people”. She’s not being asked to perform their marriage ceremony. She refuses to provide PAPERWORK to gay couples. She’s refusing to do her JOB which is to process their forms, and provide them with paperwork, which they will take to SOMEONE ELSE who performs the ceremony.
1. Ms. Davis is not being asked to perform any religious ritual. The marriage licenses in question gives the right to be considered a married couple BY THE STATE, and not by any church. There still exists a separation of church and state, but SHE is the one crossing that line. 2. She could get another job. 3. She is preventing others from her office from issuing licenses. She is not merely refusing to participate. The fact that she still has her job begs the question: Just who is her boss? She is getting all the attention. But why is it that almost nobody questions the higher-ups? They are obviously tolerating this. They need to be scrutinized.
Uh, wrong. She is not the “arbiter” of what marriage is, nor does she claim to be so. She is enforcing what is written on the books for the laws of the State of Kentucky. And on top of that, there is a far cry difference from having been divorced several times, and embracing that which is an abomination by any sane measure or standard. Nobody is defending the fact that she’s been divorced multiple times. But the marine that ripped down that filth billboard that was put up to expose small children to gay porn? That marine is a hero. This filth is forcing itself on everyone. Insanely so. Matt Shepherd was murdered by FELLOW GAYS. OVER DRUGS. It’s time to stop this Nero-like assault on the Church, and sexual sanity.
if I refused to do my job properly I’d be sacked tomorrow, no screwing around if her religious beliefs prevent her doing her job properly (and I’m not sure they do, I suspect she is only using religion as an excuse to be a bigot) then she is an unfit person to occupy that job, she should do the right thing and resign and find another job that doesn’t offend her precious religious beliefs
Here comes the Judge… here comes the judge… – don’t mess with the judge because he’s going to mess with you! This woman was clearly in contempt of court and her deputies had better take note and comply or else they could be spending a while in the bar hotel! Talk about a judge who means business – BRAVO! Laws are made for society to get along and people CANNOT impose their religious belief upon others and refuse to give them civil services to which they have a right to before the law. If a judge gives an order, it is NOT AN OPTION and it MUST be RESPECTED! This self-righteous ADULTERESS woman was married four times and got pregnant with two kids while cheating on her first husband deserves a wack on the side of the head. What happened to her marriage vows before God? The woman is a blatant hypocrit and she need to be taken down a peg or two and DO HER JOB as a PUBLIC SERVANT or get FIRED! Who made her judge of others all of a sudden? She has an OBLIGATION as a public servant to abide by the law and she cannot impose her religious beliefs on others! I am glad she is sleeping in the bar hotel tonight… it should make her think a while about the uncharitable attitude she has had for same-sex couples which to me spels nothing but hate. I hope the judge makes this stubborn woman stay on that vacation until she gets some reasoning into that thick skull of hers! Halleluiah! BIG APPLAUSE to Judge David Bunning for having balls on the bench!
And even through all the embarrassment and horrid things Davis has caused these gay couples during this period, the plaintiffs REFUSED to ask the judge to imprison her. For anybody who says gay people are selfish or evil, these gay couples had SO much kindness in their hearts (more than Kim could ever even possibly comprehend) that they only asked for the judge to fine her.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of ——————— according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.”
What I’ve been wondering is: Aren’t there other clerks in the same county office that the couples can go to for their licences? Why all the insistence on having one religious clerk issue licenses when she probably isn’t going to? Yes gay marriage is legal but is everyone who says no to issuing marriage licenses to gay couples all are going to be pressured and harrass for doing so? What about the secular people who aren’t happy about gay marriages being legal? Its not just the religious people who are shook up about Supreme Court’s ruling.
Well, even though she is a christian now and wasn’t before, according to her beliefs shouldn’t she condemn herself as an adulterer? After all, in the eyes of her god she is still married to her first husband, and any sexual activity she had with anyone else would be considered adulterous. Wait, I forgot about the hypocrisy “get out of Hell free” card. Biblical rules only apply to others, not her because that would require intellectual honesty.
By her reasoning, the clerk had the right to refuse her when she applied for her three additional marriage licenses. The Bible is explicit on the issue of further marriages, which, as long as her former husbands aren’t dead, constitute adultery according to her belief system. The punishment for adultery is stoning; the Bible doesn’t present it as a minor issue.
Just because she became a Christian only four years ago doesn’t absolve her of a Christian duty to be faithful to her husband, and according to the bible she only has one husband, the first one. According to the bible he is still her husband, and all her subsequent ‘marriages’ are obviously invalid. She is a bigamist, and should repent her sinful adulterous relations with her last three so-called ‘husbands,’ and attempt reconciliation with her one true spouse.
This person is a good example why you want to keep a separation between church and state. Now that we know some of her social history, married 3 times, child out of wedlock, none of these are issues for myself, but she may be judging herself harshly, and therefore is making such a stand, to make up for her “past sins”.
I’m not going to say I’m an expert on Christianity(I’m a devote Hindu by the way). But this is a trend I have seen with humanity as a whole. They utilize whatever religious affiliation they are with as a justification for being discriminatory/hating others. It was the case with Bramins in India, along with shinto priests in Japan. Now, for granted; I won’t bash others who follow their faith. If they are genuinely good people and recognize the flaws of religion and aren’t zealous, more power to them. Despite her bigotry and discriminatory views, I understand where she’s coming from. This is a difficult issue and for those who believe it will go away; it won’t. I’d be more willing to support her, if she was apart of a church or private business. But she is a government official. And our government has spoken about Gay marriage. If she can’t fulfill her duties, she should step aside and probably find a new job. You can disagree about the high court’s decision but for now it is the law.
I’ve brought up similar things to people how what they did (according to their bible was wrong), but they say, “it doesn’t matter now as I was forgiven.” Which they think is a get out of jail free card and they can do whatever the hell they want to because “they were forgiven”. No, It does matter and you can’t use that as an excuse to hate on someone else because you think you were “forgiven”.
When is the Supreme Court ever wrong? Many times. (Dred Scott, anyone?) Citing the Supreme Court ruling as your reference point for what is, and is not Constitutional is fundamentally flawed. The Federal Government intrudes on State Law when it forces State regulations to comply with such rulings. Marriage is regulated by States, not the Federal Government. For instance: Does Florida have to recognize Texas Common-Law Marriage laws? No. Florida does not recognize laws that differ from its own. Another example is each State decides its own Firearms laws. Some States recognize Florida Concealed Carry Laws and have reciprocal agreements. Other States have more or less restrictive regulations. Yet another example is the issuing if Driver’s Licenses. The Federal Government issues Driver’s Licenses but these licenses have no authority. States do not recognize Federal Licenses and require a State-issued license. (Try handing a police officer your Federally Issued Driver’s License instead of your State-issued license and see what happens!) All of this to say, States regulate who can marry, NOT the Supreme Court. The Federal Government has imposed itself where it has no business: State Marriage Laws.
why is this woman even allowed to work if shes not doing her job then she should be fired period point blank like wtf if you want to practice you beliefs (which is totally cool you have the right to do that) then go to a church and dont practice in a working enviorment. and if some make the argument that thats her belief and she can practive whenever and however she chooses then why dont we let other religions do the same then?
What no one is questioning is whether or not she made it known to her employer that the NEW marriage laws contradict her religious beliefs & if so; did the employer offer to transfer her to a different position that does not contradict her religious beliefs? Despite what everyone’s opinions are, we can’t forget that the gay couple & this employee have rights. The employer has a responsibility to respect the employees’ religious rights while also ensuring her religious accommodations don’t affect normal operations of the office, hence offering a different position/duty.
She may want to read Matthew 7:1-3 Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
I’m not trying to shame anyone who has shared it but it’s not helping. I understand why you despise this non-human. But we don’t need all these little factoids about her personal life to help us know she has flawed logic and is a terrible person. Plus we don’t know the circumstances that lead her to make all those decisions. We, as the pro civil rights side, should not stoop to her level with this gotcha moment. All this gossip doesn’t help me hate her any more or less. What she’s doing is enough.
This is ad hominem tu quoque. It doesn’t matter if she’s a hypocrite; that doesn’t make her wrong. A thief who tells you that stealing is immoral is right despite his lifestyle, and may even know more about why it’s wrong than a non-thief. Keep explaining why bigotry is wrong… it has nothing to do with her sincerity.
Ana summed it up nicely. This is an example of religious people using religion as an excuse to hate others. Plain and simple. And, she’s not in jail because of what she believes. She’s free to hate who she wants and dance around with all the snakes she wants. She’s in jail because, as an elected official, she is refusing to do a critical part of her job, issue marriage licenses. Her religious beliefs do not trump her obligation to do her job as a government official. Do your job, quit or go to jail. She chose the last option.
I am christian but I agree. This is a government building and you don’t mix government with religion. I don’t believe gay marriage should be forced on a church but someone at a courthouse should be able to provide this service. Either she or someone else needs to provide marriage licenses for straight or gay couples. But I don’t think she should go to jail for this either. This was not part of her job when she was hired years ago. Being on her 4th marriage I would agree that she is probably just being a bigot. But in the slight chance that she really has since turned to god and become religious, I don’t think you should force her to do it either. She should quit or be let go from her job and maybe given a severance check since she has to find a new job.
Wait, 2006 and 2008? So in the space of two years, she got remarried AND divorced? Wow, dude. Lady, if you’re not sure it’s going to last, don’t put a ring on it. >_> It just makes things messy and complicated. …Oh wait, she cheated on her first husband with her third husband, but the second husband adopted the kids……Oh dear God. x_x
Even IF we gave her the point that the divorces were a part of her old life, and even IF we give her the point that gay marriage might be a mistake, then that still leaves the question who is she to stop other people from making their own mistakes in life? She’s saying that she found god after doing all these sinful things, then why can’t the rest of us travel this same path of making decisions for ourselves, even though they might turn out to be the wrong ones? Christians don’t even make sense by their own rules, that’s the problem.
ad hominem fallacy: 1. an argument or reaction directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. Not saying I agree with that woman. Just exposing a poor and fallacious yet common form of reporting. Whether or not she has been married a trillion times and if she is a hypocrite, it does not affect whether her argument is right or wrong.
In fact her sin is forgiven. In fact she is out of gratefulness to her Savior trying to do as the Bible teaches. She only asked that her name be left off the document as approving homosexual marriage. Another person was given accommodation for his faith. She is an elected official and chooses to make a stand for her faith. So why aren’t those folks going to other clerks like atheists and Muslim clerks. Investigate the whole issue.
I think I’d be a little more irritated if she’s had three different annulments. This is a minor footnote to the story, and honestly just makes TYT look bad. The old rule of ‘Those holding up the moral yard stick never come close to measuring up,’ remains accurate, but it’s just as hypocritical of TYT to call out those violating their own code while waiving others that have no code at all.
Your report is false! First of all, she was divorced a few times, not several times! Second of all, she became a Christian 4 YEARS AGO. AND WHO SAYS SHE IS THE ONE WHO RUINED THE MARRIAGES? DO YOU KNOW THAT FOR SURE? And WHO SAYS SHE HATES ANYONE? ONLY YOU!!! YOU ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE REPORTERS AT ALL…YOU ARE JUST MOCKING THIS WOMAN!
County Clerk Davis isn’t being asked to Marry anyone, just file the permits and paperwork. She doesn’t have to compromise her beliefs at all, just do her job and accept the paperwork. The Judges or the Priest or whoever, actually marries a couple. She needs to shut the hell up and do her job or go to jail for contempt of court. Oh, that’s right, she did go to jail…….snap!
How many times she has been married is irrelevant…this is about her religious beliefs as being a Christian…and if her divorces happened before she became a Christian as she said, it has nothig to do with same sex marriages because according to her beliefs it is forbidden!! Like it or not that’s her freedom of religion and you can’t force stuff on her an you have no right to call her a biggot or this or that!!!
I can’t help but be saddened by TYT’s presentation. And the volume of caustic vitriol in the comments are simply sickening. She is willing to go to jail for what she believes; instead of giving her some props for this, she treated with revulsion, disrespect, and hostile contempt. The only way I can describe it is intellectual bullying. As I understand it, she has asked that her name not be listed on the license. Some attempts to find an alternative didn’t work out, and the governor won’t call a special session to change the law as it’ll cost “hundreds of thousands” of dollars. This fight was done in court system instead of the state legislatures. As a result, there are going to be unintended consequences (such as this case) because many states laws are not ready for it. What is needed most is compassion, understanding, and tolerance while reasonable solutions are worked out.
I’m still confused on why she and anyone else like her aren’t fired yet. She is clearly unable to do her job that she is being paid to do. It’s really simple, if you don’t do your job you get fired and they will hire someone who can get the job done. Leave your Religious beliefs at home please, no need to have them interfering with your work.
Shes not a bigot or hiding behind her religion, she is not judgeing anyone. She is following what is right in the eyes of God according to the words in the Holy Bible, it doesn’t mean that us Christians are perfect. Just because she is not perfect and nobody is does God want us to keep on making mistakes? It says in the bible homosexuality is a sin, sexual immorality is a sin. Plus all of the 10 commandments. I will take Gods side any day. How many times this lady has been divorced or married is beside the point. All I know is there is a heaven and a hell and we all have to answer to God!
where the hell does it end?????? if banning words that are gender specific like as husband and wife whats next??? him, her, his, her, he, she, boy girl. what going to happen in police line ups, police reporting, physical descriptions, job for sketch artists. are they going to ban skin color, and ethnicity too.
Ok, so its made clear that she became a follower of Christ in the last 4 years and then they continue to ridicule her? Is this fair? Being saved is about turning away from our sinful nature which Kim Davis may have done when she became a Christian. She would be against gay marriage as well as divorce. We all make mistakes, however some learn from mistakes and change their ways while others refuse to. I would agree divorce is a huge problem in the church and because many do does not make it right. After 36 seconds this article is over, but she goes on to say it IS relevant when it is not based on what she just finished stating. The irony with these two is the hatred they have in calling out someone they say is full of hate. Now THATS bigotry!!
dIVORCE IS OK IN THE BIBLE IF THE SPOUSE CHEATED. or IF THE SPOUSE IS A NON BELIEVER…. 1 Corinthians 7:15 – But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such (cases): but God hath called us to peace. Matthew Chapter 5 31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. For the biblically challenged that means if a spouse cheats a divorce is ok, and if the spouse is a non believer it is ok. KNOW YOUR FACTS BEFORE YOU ATTEMPT TO PASS JUDGEMENT!!!
i disagree with this one, she can do what she wants, like you guys said she was married four times THAN became a Christian. So if she doesnt agree with same sex marriage she shouldnt have to preform them just because she in her past got a divorce. That being said im not a Christian nor do i really care about this topic just saying you cannt/ shouldnt be upset at her for things she would now consider bad and or sinful especially if she has seen the “error” in her ways (again i disagree with that but she has the right to do what she wants)
She supports traditional marriage in principle. Dont confuse a humans failings with the institution and the principle. This is more about state authority over the conscience of the individual. The state is often full of world improving schemes, whether its the Iraq war ( didnt want to pay for that ? Off to jail you go )….The state versus the individual, similar to Martin Luther King Jr..
Didn’t the Supreme Court already settle this matter? So, what am I missing? I HATE when people use Christianity as a reason for why their actions are justifiable. I’m a Christian, but I don’t mind gay marriages. Who are we to judge them? I thought that judgement was reserved for God? I also recognize that all people don’t share the same beliefs as I. If they want to marry, so be it. I all for happiness. She should rethink her career of choice, especially if she can’t serve the publicly serve the community. She is a public servant after all.
While I sometimes find myself agreeing with The Young Turks especially on Economic. I also find myself in rage by them. First, a bigot is, “a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.” They are very intolerant against peoples who disagree with them those they claim to be tolerance. Second, unless they are mind reader or know Kim Davis’s heart they can’t said she is doing this because she ‘hate’ gay peoples. There is a different between hating someone or something and disapprove of someone or something. I’m not a Christian nor religious but I don’t approve of homosexuality but I don’t hate homosexuals either. I just disapprove of their behavior. Just like I disapprove of other type of behaviors. The idea we had in our society to where if someone doesn’t accepted it they are someone a bigot is dumbfounding to me. Just one point, I don’t even think they understand religion or Christians because been a Christian doesn’t make someone perfect, Cenk Uygur is far worst on this and often twist thing to make his point.
Ms. Davis is just following her beliefs, and I believe you should stop persecuting her for it. I don’t know what happened with her marriages, but if you going to judge her based on her failures to keep her wedding vows to her three previous husbands you are going to have to analysis the perspectives of Ms. Davis and her ex-husbands. We will likely never know all what happened, and with that we can’t form any solid opnions of her for them. If she screws up her life with YAHUSHA and current marriage, then she screws up. But if she is going to keep her religion, don’t persecute her for it when you expect people her to tolerate homosexuality which is a sin according to YAHUWAH’S Teachings. You are basically asking her to not follow her YAHUWAH. Christianity is a religion of love that requires us to live by the Truth of YAHUWAH even when others don’t like it. I’m misrable when I let other people’s options on how they think I should live my life for my Maker effect me. I’ll take their words with a grain of salt if it has any. Otherwise I’ll discard it.
I gotta look into becoming a Christian, because that shit seems like magic. You mean to say I can make all the bad shit I already did just go away, AND I get to judge others for the way they live their lives? That sounds awesome. What? I also get to spend for-freaking-ever in paradise? Fantastic. It almost seems too good to be true…….
people are pretty evil towards this lady on here and show no respect for Christ. Sad times we live in. without any interpretation of my own, what do these verses mean? 1. Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings! Acts 5:29 and 2. knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 2. and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. (Romans 1:27)… 3. was she in accordance with these passages?
She became Christian 4 years ago. Her sin of divorce 7 years ago. She’s not hypocritical, she’s changed and admitted her sin and has repented. TYT needs to keep it right and have all the details and facts. My Junior year English teacher would have failed them! 😂 Anyhow, respect others no matter what your view is. TYT likes to call people out and then turn around an say it’s wrong. Who’s the bigot when they say that all religion is fucking stupid but then say we shouldn’t insult anyone and except their views? Wow, please take these guys off, Fox News is more politically correct and factual than these guys! 😂😂
She will say that she was saved and therefore all her past sin is forgiven, but the bible does not allow divorce so biblicaly she is still married to her first husband. Every time she lays with her fourth husband (actually her second husband she remarried) she is committing adultery. So to be right with the bible she needs to live alone and celibate or get back with her rightful husband. Or we could just stone her; that’s biblical.
“Love thy neighbor as thyself!!!” IF she BELIEVES in God, then she should behave in a Godly way! I am livid at this (bad word clerk). My thanks go out to all of you who also are livid!!!! She is so lucky to not be close enough for me to follow her around on my wheelchair!!!!!! God I LOVE exclamation marks!
It’s not as simple as people like her being a bigot. Christians are divided into two camps: Doctrinal and cultural. The vast majority are cultural. They don’t read the Bible, they just listen to the cherry picked passages their pastor reads and want their little social circle at church. Yes, she’s an enormous hypocrite but is the reason bigoted? Maybe but it also may be merely selfish. She doesn’t want to be ostracized by her inner circle and she’s a coward. Either way, do your job and stop acting like you’re Christ on the cross.
Kim Davis’ hypocrisy changes nothing… it is simply a funny aside. If she were a model Christian she would still have been wrong on principle. Anybody who thinks they can impose their own opinions on the rest of humanity is fundamentally wrong, whether it is their own well reason opinion or an opinion they think came from a supernatural deity.
These “Christians” aren’t even following their faith correctly. Its clear as day its not up to people to judge others its up to God. Now I don’t think gay marriage is a sin. But even if you were to think its a sin she can’t cast condemnation upon others. He who is without sin shall cast the first stone.. People we arent here on earth to judge others. We are here to love others. Peace on earth and loving your neighbor requires you to accept things in others we would not accept for ourselves. Its called being a good Christian.
This is another reason why Christians get a bad rap people need to stop judging others and follow the law, Christians are not above the law of the land if you don’t want to do it leave the job and move on to something else. if you are Christian stop imposing your religion on others like you are better than others. It does not matter who wants to be married as long as both are in full consent and are happy just ignore the bigots in the world.
Is she a Catholic? Because if she is Episcopalian/Anglican, divorce is fine and is the main reason that that particular branch of Christianity exists so she wouldn’t be hypocritical in this aspect. Some of the other Protestant religions are okay with divorce as well. So unless you tell us that she belongs to a branch of Christianity that is not okay with divorce than this is a pretty weak sauce argument. Stick with the eating shrimp and wearing multiple types of fabrics at once, or just the legal responsibility argument.
Now I’m not for creating more hate in the world, unless u hate religion, stupidity, polticians, (when u kinda think about it are all the same thing) and people in general. To be honest I hate to, I hate pretty much everyone, tolerate a few and actually like a couple of human beings. But I think if the same people are going to stand and protests against gay marriage and abortion, then I feel like the Christians should also rally up and start protesting courtrooms that absolves or grants divorces, stand and yell at the people coming out with signs like “won’t someone PLEASE think of the children!?”. Quite a few people has killed for being gay or being an abortion doctor or even having an abortion, why are divorced people any different? I think atleast the weeding guests should be allowed to throw the first stone unless they themselves have been divorced, or divorce should end like the pit battles in Spartacus, u do say on the day u get married “until death do u apart”. Just be consistent thats all I’m saying.
you know you may report good news …but it don’t mean you know anything when it comes to following God,,,,you like to say people are biggots for following what God says..we not judging you, if we were we would put people to death, for gay marriage…we are not judging, but rebuking, pointing out the sin..thats called love, ..if we followed your example we would be hating our brother and sister….some subjects you need to keep your mouth shut, and hold your peace…nothing worse than some one who mocks those who follow God, not realizing that they are embacing all the principals of being wicked and following Satan.
And again like Ive said before, in the issue about priests right to perform gay marriage or not, what does the number of marriages of this woman has to do with anything, its 100% pure pie throwing. Im an atheist, I suppose gaymarriage, I dont support cheesy pie throwing that makes atheist look bad, its so low and so cheap. Grow up Cenk
If it is truly a problem for her to follow state law in a job that is government. Leave the job if it is against your way of thinking. I left jobs because of bad administration practices. She could leave this job instead of being a problem. When you work for government and rules/laws change and it is against every thing you believe in; LEAVE or get with the program of doing as Uncle Sam lawfully ask of you. When you break laws it is jail time. I don’t understand why people like her (afraid of change so they are against everything that is progress) will go in to a job that has major changes at any time.
As much as I hate religion and all its bullshit. 50 years ago when it was taboo to get divorced families were much closer. Sure the husband and wife may not love each other half the time but they still function enough to keep it together. The kids don’t grow up in two homes. These days hardly anyone stays together. Everyone is divorced and kids don’t get that family experience. Even couples when they’re not married all they do is fight. I’ve been single nearly all my life because I just cant stand the fighting and bullshit that goes along with relationships. Sometimes I think the old days had it better. You’d spend a long time courting a girl you get married and that’s it. You better have evaluated your choice. These days its if i’m not happy then divorce in two seconds. In short people are fucked.