• Home
  • Uncategorized
  • Fox News Legal Panel: Kim Davis’ Lawyer Mat Staver Is “Ridiculously Stupid”

Fox News Legal Panel: Kim Davis’ Lawyer Mat Staver Is “Ridiculously Stupid”

Now, when even Fox News’ legal analysts say anti-gay County Clerk Kim Davis has no leg to stand on, you know you’re in trouble.

Unless you’re Davis and her equally anti-gay lawyer Mat Staver.

Via Raw Story:

“She can still practice her faith,” Fox News host Gregg Jarrett noted. “Just not on the job in a way that interferes with the legal rights of the citizens she serves. And in fact, the U.S. Supreme Court said so nine years ago.”

“She’s a hypocrite,” criminal defense attorney Sharon Liko agreed. “She’s applying for the job of a martyr. She wants to practice her faith by not issuing marriage licenses. Yet, she will not agree to let the deputy county clerks issue marriage licenses even if it’s okay with their faith.”

“When she took the job she swore to uphold the law,” Jarrett explained. “We rely on government officials to do that. They can’t just pick and choose what laws they like, which ones they don’t. If they were allowed to do that, wouldn’t that lead to chaos, anarchy and so forth?”

Jarrett also called out Davis’s attorney, who said it was “questionable” if the Supreme Court had the “constitutional authority” to rule on same-sex marriage.

“Whether the Supreme Court has constitutional authority?” the Fox News host said. “Article III Section 2 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court constitutional authority to decide constitutional issues!”

Jarrett added that Staver’s statement appeared to be “stunningly obtuse.”

“That’s a very polite way of putting it,” Liko replied. “I would say it’s just a ridiculously stupid statement. The Supreme Court does just that, and they determine constitutionality issues, they resolve these kinds of disputes.”

“This woman has a choice, she can either follow the law — she can do her job — or she can get out.”

Jarrett also pointed out during the segment that Davis is still free to exercise her freedom of religion, just not in a way that interferes in the legal rights of others.

To underline the point, Jarrett quoted the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Garcetti v. Ceballos: “When a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom.”

UA-4187428-4