In a notable legal decision, a Florida judge has ruled against dismissing Donald Trump's defamation suit against ABC News and its host, George Stephanopoulos.
A lawsuit by former President Donald Trump against ABC News and George Stephanopoulos, claiming defamation, will proceed in Florida court.
The dispute centers around Stephanopoulos’s comments during the "This Week" broadcast on March 10, 2024, where he stated that Trump had been "found liable for rape" in a previous defamation trial involving E. Jean Carroll. However, the jury had actually found Trump liable for sexual abuse, not rape under New York Penal Law, leading to Trump's defamation claim against the news anchor and the network.
The legal challenge hinges on the nuances between the terms 'sexual abuse' and 'rape,' which Trump argues were conflated by Stephanopoulos. This misrepresentation formed the basis of Trump’s lawsuit, as the jury in the Carroll case did not conclude Trump committed rape.
Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga of the U.S. District Court in Florida, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, issued a 21-page decision rejecting the motion to dismiss. She emphasized that the “fair report privilege,” often a defense in defamation cases, does not apply when the reporting is misleading or lacks essential context.
The ruling pointed out that the specific language used by Stephanopoulos might mislead viewers, thereby necessitating further judicial examination of the case.
In her decision, Judge Altonaga noted that whether Stephanopoulos’s statements were reasonable was not a matter to be decided at the dismissal stage. She articulated, “Defendants have not met their burden of proving the fair report privilege applies,” thus setting the stage for a more detailed examination in court.
Moreover, Altonaga mentioned, “Any remaining questions as to the reasonableness of Stephanopoulos’s statements are not for resolution on a motion to dismiss.” This comment underscores the complexity of defamation law where nuances in language can significantly impact legal outcomes.
ABC News and Stephanopoulos defended their broadcast, arguing that their statements were substantially true based on Judge Lewis A. Kaplan’s interpretations during the related Carroll trials. Kaplan had observed that while the jury's findings did not specify 'rape,' they could be equated to rape in common parlance.
The defense also suggested that Kaplan's rulings should preclude Trump's defamation claims. However, Altonaga found that the context and statements in Stephanopoulos's broadcast were distinct enough to warrant a full trial.
The implications of this decision are significant, as they challenge the bounds of journalistic responsibility and the protections afforded under the fair report privilege.
With Altonaga’s ruling, the case now moves forward to more in-depth proceedings. Both parties are expected to present detailed evidence and arguments, clarifying the context and implications of Stephanopoulos’s statements.
This progression into a full trial underscores the often complex and delicate nature of defamation law, particularly when it involves high-profile figures and nuanced legal definitions.
The outcome of this case may have broader implications for how public figures and media outlets interact and the legal responsibilities media entities face when reporting on judicial outcomes.
Following the judge’s decision, Trump took to Truth Social to comment on the ruling, describing it as a “BIG WIN” and criticizing ABC News and Stephanopoulos for what he termed "FAKE NEWS." His post emphasized his ongoing campaign against what he perceives as biased media coverage, highlighting his MAGA2024 slogan.
Meanwhile, ABC News has been contacted for comments but has not yet responded. This lawsuit has attracted significant media attention, reflecting the ongoing tension between Trump and the press.
As the case develops, further insights are expected into how defamation claims are handled when public figures are involved and the legal thresholds for proving or disproving such claims.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A newly created state panel in Georgia that Democrats fear will be used to crack down on rogue prosecutors like Fani Willis, who hired her paramour to assemble a now-delayed organized crime case against President Donald Trump, will move forward.
That's after a judge found that the plan, approved by lawmakers and signed by the governor, does not violate the state or federal constitutions.
Republicans originated the plan for the Prosecuting Attorneys Qualifications Commission to "discipline so-called rogue prosecutors who are refusing to enforce laws," according to an Associated Press posting.
But Democrats have tried to scuttle the plan, as they believe it could impact Willis and her case against Trump, which now is pending at an appeals court on a defense request to have Willis removed.
Because of the scandalous behavior she allowed in the case, hiring her paramour at a cost to taxpayers of nearly $700,000 to create a list of charges against Trump, the case has been delayed. A lower court judge said she could remain on the case if her paramour left, which he did.
But defense counsel, citing that judge's acknowledgment of the odor of "mendacity" still in the case, went to a higher court to get her removed.
Now Fulton County Superior Court Judge Paige Reese Whitaker has rejected a request for an injunction against the commission, which was created with the announced intention of putting a cap on plans by rogues to go political with the cases they file.
Prosecutors in other states have taken up the same goal after public officials there have stated they will let drug possession defendants go, and seek shorter prison sentences for some offenders.
In Georgia, it was many prosecutors, including Sherry Boston of DeKalb County, Jared Williams of Augusta, and Jonathan Adams of Monroe counties who challenged the creation of the body.
The underlying lawsuit remains pending, but Whitaker also has expressed "grave doubts about its arguments that the law violates prosecutorial discretion, a fundamental of the American judicial system through which prosecutors decide what charges to bring and how severe of a sentence to seek," the report said.
She added, "Because the Georgia Constitution expressly authorizes the General Assembly to impose statutory duties on district attorneys and to create the grounds and process to discipline or remove district attorneys, there is no violation of the state Constitution's separation of powers clause."
WND has reported that Willis recently was informed her case against Trump, which she wanted to take to trial before the election, is at a standstill until late this year.
CBS News now reports the Georgia Court of Appeals has scheduled a hearing on Dec. 5 on the issue of whether Willis will be allowed to continue on the case.
One of the outside interests asking to join the case on behalf of Trump is the American Center for Law and Justice.
That organization announced it has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the appeals court calling for Willis to be removed from the case entirely.
The organization explained, "As we told you when the trial judge's decision on Fani Willis first came out, the judge's ruling made simply no sense. The judge found as fact that Fani Willis' conduct had an 'appearance of impropriety,' based on her relationship with Nathan Wade. Nonetheless, the judge allowed Willis to proceed with the prosecution anyway. The facts are clear that Willis must be disqualified from overseeing the high-profile election interference case against President Trump."
The ACLJ listed the facts:
"Willis appointed her alleged romantic partner, Nathan Wade, as a special prosecutor – paying him over $650,000 in taxpayer money.
"She appears to have benefited personally from this appointment, taking lavish vacations funded by Wade's earnings from the case.
"Willis and Wade seemingly attempted to conceal their relationship, only admitting to it after being cornered by evidence."
The ACLJ cited "corruption, cronyism, and abuse of power" in the case.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Hunter Biden's legal risks are far from over. After having been convicted of gun charges, in a few weeks he'll face a trial on tax charges.
Multiple observers say they expect Joe Biden to deliver a pardon before he leaves office, but right now it's Hunter Biden's lawyers who are in jeopardy.
It's because a judge concluded they misrepresented the facts in demanding that those tax counts be dismissed.
Their argument, based on a recent federal judge's decision in Florida that dismissed a classified documents dispute involving President Donald Trump, suggests the same circumstances exist for Hunter: That the "special counsel" who brought the case wasn't legally appointed.
The Washington Examiner explains Judge Mark Scarsi issued an order that Biden lawyers Abbe Lowell and Mark Geragos explain why they should not be sanctioned for making false statements.
"The misstatements in the current motion are not trivial," the judge determined.
It is special counsel David Weiss who brought the tax charges.
Biden's lawyers suggest that Weiss never was legally appointed, so the case has no foundation at all.
"The attorneys first brought the request about Weiss's appointment earlier this year, and Scarsi denied it. However, after a judge in Florida ruled special counsel Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed and tossed out former President Donald Trump's classified documents case, Biden's attorneys said the new development warranted raising their argument about Weiss again," the report said.
But Scarsi noted that while Smith was a private citizen, a lawyer working outside of the government, when he was improperly appointed by the administration Weiss actually was a U.S. attorney when he brought the original case against Hunter Biden. He later was made special counsel.
That makes the circumstances of the cases against Trump and Biden dramatically different.
Scarsi called that difference "meaningful." But he said the lawyers' motion "avoids the issue by misrepresenting the history of the proceedings."
"This court has little tolerance for lack of candor from counsel," he said.
The issue is that private citizens such as Smith apparently need to be confirmed by the Senate before they can wield the power of the government against individuals like Trump.
Weiss, as U.S. attorney before being titled special counsel, already had that power.
A federal judge has threatened Hunter Biden's lawyers with financial sanctions for lying to the court.
The California judge in Biden's tax evasion case rebuked his lawyers for twisting the facts in their motion to dismiss the charges.
Ironically, Biden's lawyers tried to have the case tossed out by citing one of Donald Trump's legal victories.
To recap, Biden was found guilty of lying about his drug use in a June gun trial. He's also facing charges for tax evasion in California this fall.
Biden has tried to have his cases thrown out on various grounds, including by arguing he is the target of a witch hunt (yes, really.) None of it has worked, so far.
In his latest move, Biden cited the bombshell decision against Special Counsel Jack Smith in Trump's classified documents case. The judge, Aileen Cannon, found that Smith, a private citizen, was unlawfully appointed by attorney general Merrick Garland and threw out the case.
Garland also appointed Special Counsel David Weiss, the Delaware prosecutor going after Hunter.
Biden's lawyers have cited Cannon's ruling to push for Weiss' dismissal, but the California judge in the tax case, Mark Scarsi, notes there is an important distinction.
While Smith is a private citizen, Weiss was already a full-fledged, Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney when he first brought charges against Hunter.
While Biden claims he wasn't charged until after Weiss' promotion, Scarsi said the claims are "not true, and Mr. Biden’s counsel knows they are not true."
Indeed, Weiss was still a U.S. attorney when he charged Hunter with misdemeanors as part of a notorious plea deal that unraveled last summer. Weiss later pursued felony gun and tax charges against Biden.
"The misstatements in the current motion are not trivial. Mr. Weiss’s institution of charges against Mr. Biden in his capacity as U.S. Attorney offers a meaningful distinction between this case and the nonbinding district court decision on which Mr. Biden bases his motion,” Scarsi wrote.
“But Mr. Biden’s motion does not engage with this distinction; instead, counsel avoids the issue by misrepresenting the history of the proceedings,” he continued, adding that the court “has little tolerance for lack of candor from counsel.”
It's just the latest setback for the Biden clan, with a pardon growing more elusive for Hunter after his dad decided to forgo re-election.
The California Supreme Court ruled on Thursday to uphold Proposition 22, which allows rideshare drivers like those from Uber and Lyft to remain contract employees rather than as employees with benefits.
The rule gave some limited benefits to contract employees but allowed them to remain employed on a contract basis.
A lower court had ruled the law unconstitutional, which would have required major changes to the way rideshare and other companies that use gig workers operate.
The ruling was expected after the justices seemed to side with proponents of Prop 22 during a ruling in May.
The two sides have been fighting over the rule for years, but it has remained in effect during the fight.
Companies including Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and other gig-based companies had threatened to shut down their operations in California if Prop 22 was overturned.
That will not be necessary now.
Gig work is attractive for many who need a flexible schedule and those who need or want to work part-time. It can work well for students, parents caring for young children, and disabled workers who have times when their health does not allow them to work.
"Today marks an historic moment and a landmark victory," general counsel for Instacart Morgan Fong said in a statement Thursday. "Instacart shoppers consistently and overwhelmingly tell us they value their flexibility and independence. The Court’s decision preserves access to the flexible earnings opportunities they want and the important benefits provided under Prop. 22."
More than 1 million people drive for app-based companies in California and would have been impacted by striking down the rule.
The companies spent $200 million campaigning for Prop 22 before it's passing.
Uber spokesperson Zahid Arab said the decision "affirm[ed] the will of the nearly 10 million Californians who voted to deliver historic benefits and protections to drivers, while protecting their independence."
Arab referred to the original vote on Prop 22, which was on the ballot in 2020.
Opponents of the rule tried to argue that the state constitution gave the legislature the exclusive right to determine rules for worker's compensation in the state, but the judge rejected that argument.
President Joe Biden said he would follow through with "Supreme Court reform" during his speech on Wednesday, The Hill reported. The president addressed the nation from the Oval Office days after quitting his reelection bid.
Biden spoke about his decision to exit the presidential race from behind the resolute desk in the short address. He also laid out his plans for what has now become a lame-duck presidency.
"Over the next six months, I’ll be focused on doing my job as president," Biden said. He listed off many things he would fix that he was also responsible for breaking, but also pledged that he would "call for Supreme Court reform because this is critical to our democracy."
For decades, the left had zero problems with how the Supreme Court operated. Not so coincidentally, this was also during a time when liberals had the majority in the court.
Now that the court is 6-3 in favor of the conservative judges, Democrats seem to have homed in on perceived flaws in the Supreme Court system that has decided against some of their pet causes. They were outraged that the court overturned the Roe v. Wade decision in 2022.
The left also lost the battle over affirmative action as the court outlawed race-based admissions in higher education. Most recently, the high court found in favor of granting presidential immunity for former President Donald Trump, which may have sealed the deal for Biden.
Until now, Biden has been reluctant to tackle these initiatives because of the danger of politicizing the Supreme Court. However, several media reports state that Biden is ready to make changes, such as imposing an ethics code on justices.
This comes after Justice Clarence Thomas received scrutiny over high-value trips and gifts he received but did not report, which could become the rationale for Biden's change. The president also wants to impose term limits on the justices rather than lifetime appointments.
With Biden officially out of the running, he may be free to do more without worrying about scrutiny as an incumbent running for reelection. This could include the changes to the court and other issues he's promised to tackle in his final months.
Yet, Democrats have more to worry about than just what Biden does before he leaves office. With Harris now his replacement as the new presumptive Democratic nominee, they'll have to convince the American people that she is the person for the job.
To combat these succession woes, the establishment media has begun scrambling to change the narrative surrounding Harris. Fox News reported that the effort includes erasing unflattering news from her past.
One of the most striking examples is deleting a GovTrack report that pegged Harris as the "most liberal" senator in 2019. Like something out of George Orwell's 1984, that page was scrubbed sometime earlier this month, even as recently as the day after Biden left the race.
Whatever Biden does in his last few months can't be as horrible as what he's done with the rest of his term. Unfortunately, it still might backfire for his successor who already faces electoral challenges of her own.
Donald J. Trump's legal team launched an appeal against a $454 million civil fraud judgment on Monday, signaling a significant move in his ongoing legal battles, The New York Times reported.
Former President Trump contends that the judgment is excessive and unwarranted, according to documents filed in New York.
In February, Justice Arthur F. Engoron found Trump guilty of inflating his assets' values to secure favorable loan terms. This ruling stemmed from a lawsuit initiated by New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Trump's attorneys argue that the claims are barred by the statute of limitations and assert that the judgment amount is disproportionately high. Their appeal also integrates criticisms of the case, which Trump has voiced as part of his re-election campaign rhetoric.
The appeal documents question the definition of fraud applied in Trump’s case, suggesting that if his actions were fraudulent, the term is being misinterpreted.
They also challenge the powers of the Attorney General, proposing that the judgment oversteps the bounds of her authority.
Justice Engoron's ruling includes a nearly $355 million penalty plus interest, culminating in a total exceeding $450 million. Following this, Trump secured a $175 million bond after a New York appeals court lowered the bond requirement from the full judgment amount.
The financial burden of the judgment poses a potential strain on Trump's resources, though he anticipates significant returns from his ventures, including his social media company, Truth Social.
Beyond this case, Trump faces additional legal challenges, including a recent conviction in Manhattan, with sentencing postponed to September 18. The outcome of the appeal is eagerly awaited, with oral arguments set for the fall and a decision likely by year-end.
Attorney General Letitia James expressed confidence in the strength of the case against Trump, emphasizing that the rule of law must apply equally to everyone. "There cannot be different rules for different people in this country," she stated.
Christopher Kise, Trump's lawyer, criticized the judgment as "an outrageous miscarriage of justice," calling for a complete reversal to restore public confidence. Meanwhile, James’s office remains steadfast, asserting that their victory was based on solid facts and legal grounds.
As the legal battles unfold, Trump's team remains firm in their position: "There were no victims and no losses... If Mr. Trump’s actions constituted fraud, then that word has no meaning."
These legal entanglements intersect significantly with Trump’s political activities, particularly as he campaigns for re-election. The outcomes of these cases could profoundly impact his campaign strategy and financial stability.
The legal discourse and public attention surrounding these proceedings highlight the complex intersections of law, politics, and public perception.
Iowa's six-week abortion ban will go into effect after a bombshell ruling from the state's Supreme Court.
It's a setback for the Biden administration's pro-abortion agenda, which Democrats have made central to the 2024 campaign.
The Iowa abortion law bans most abortions once a heartbeat is detected, with exceptions for rape, incest, and pregnancies that threaten a mother's life.
Planned Parenthood had asked the Iowa Supreme Court to reconsider its previous 4-3 ruling, but the court denied the request.
In light of the Supreme Court's decision, a judge ordered the ban to take effect next Monday.
Iowa's Republican governor Kim Reynolds signed the six-week ban in 2023 after the U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs ruling, which clarified that abortion is not a federal right, sending the issue into the hands of state governments.
Despite Iowa's exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother, President Biden condemned Iowa's ban as "extreme and dangerous" when it was upheld in June. At the time, Biden said the ban "puts women's health and lives in jeopardy."
"Vice President Harris and I believe that women in every state must have the right to make deeply personal decisions about their health," Biden said.
In its initial June ruling, the Iowa Supreme Court narrowly held that a lower court had used the wrong constitutional test when it blocked the ban.
Applying a lower standard of scrutiny called "rational basis," the Iowa Supreme Court found that the heartbeat law is "rationally related to the state’s legitimate interest in protecting unborn life."
"The state’s interest in protecting the unborn can be traced to Iowa’s earliest days,” Justice Matthew McDermott wrote.
Planned Parenthood asked the Supreme Court to reconsider, putting the law on hold. But the Supreme Court's denial allows the law to take effect in the coming days.
“As a pro-life advocate. I am very thankful and very grateful that we have the decision that we do,” said Kristi Judkins, the director of Iowa Right to Life.
Democrats have campaigned heavily on protecting access to abortion while painting Republicans as extreme.
The focus on abortion is sure to be heightened in the months ahead, with Biden ending his re-election campaign and vice president Kamala Harris - an outspoken pro-abortion radical - seen as his likely replacement.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Bad ideas can often get accepted long after they were initially rejected. One generation recoils at a proposal. The next generation might cozy up to it. And the one after that might accept it.
Some on the left, including the lame duck President Joe Biden and AOC, want to gut the Supreme Court. They haven't gotten their way with the Court in recent years, so they want to try and term-limit justices out.
Of course, there are three basic branches of the federal government – the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. Now, not pleased with some decisions from the Supreme Court, members of the first two branches are trying to seize and reshape the judicial branch.
They want to propose what Senator Mike Lee, an expert on the U.S. Constitution, calls "nakedly authoritarian … unconstitutional" proposals against the High Court.
They want to impeach justices like Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito because of their conservative opinions. They also want to impose term limits on justices. This could undermine the independence of the judges and cause them to base their decisions purely on the shifting winds of politics – not what the Constitution says or the founders' intent.
For decades, conservatives rightfully complained about decisions from liberal justices that seemed to have no basis in the Constitution.
Here's an example. Roe v. Wade (1973), the now-defunct holy grail of the left, only cites two parts of the Constitution: the 9th amendment and the 14th amendment. But neither provides any direct or indirect statement along the lines of "the right to abortion" or even "the right of privacy."
The irony of using the 14th amendment to justify killing preborn babies, which is Roe v. Wade (up to three months) and its companion decision issued the same day, Doe v. Bolton (up to the moment of birth), is that that particular addition to the Constitution actually mentions the right to "life" as an inherent right. The 1973 Court obviously didn't see that right applying to the unborn.
Since 1973, conservatives have spoken against Roe v. Wade as the quintessential example of "judicial activism" – judges coming up with desired results by twisting the Constitution to their desired end.
I once interviewed the late Henry Hyde, author of the pro-life Hyde Amendment. He spoke of the problem of the justices using the Constitution like "silly putty" to achieve their fore-ordained aim.
But through all the gnashing of teeth against judicial tyranny, conservatives did not advocate changing the court itself – just its occupants.
No conservative spoke of impeaching Ruth Bader Ginsberg for her radical pro-abortion decisions.
Conservative scholars are pushing back at these recent proposals to gut the court. Kelly Shackelford is the founder and director of First Liberty, a group that fights on behalf of religious liberty in the courts of the land, including the courts of public opinion.
Shackelford wrote, "Transforming the Supreme Court into another partisan body would destroy the independence of the judiciary and threaten the civil liberties of all Americans. Joe Biden once said that changing the structure of the Court was 'a bonehead idea' that would 'put in question … the independence of the … Supreme Court.' He was right. The last thing we need in this country right now is a Supreme Court coup that would threaten judicial independence and our democratic republic. This is a radical attempt by a desperate politician."
Shackelford adds, "Ending life tenure is just the Left's way to purge conservative justices on the Court. It's simply court-packing by a different name."
And a majority of Americans agree, he says: "Polling has revealed that 72 percent of Americans believe that the politicization of the Supreme Court threatens judicial independence and 69 percent do not want Congress taking over and setting rules for judicial ethics."
One of the brilliant aspects of the founders and the Constitution is the division of power so that no one person or small group of persons could lord it over others.
The framers knew the Bible. They knew world history. They knew man is basically sinful. Therefore, power must be divided. In effect, the judicial branch could say to the other branches, "Hey, stay in your own lane."
James Madison, a key architect of the Constitution, warned us in Federalist #47: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Many disputes arose a few years ago when the then-liberal U.S. Supreme Court created, in a decision condemned as unrelated to the Constitution, same-sex "marriage" for the entire nation.
One of the more vicious was a series of lawsuits against a Kentucky county clerk who declined to issue ANY marriage licenses for a time because of the conflict the court decision created with her own constitutionally protected religious rights.
An activist federal judge, David Bunning, took up the LGBT agenda and put Kim Davis in jail for a time. And two same-sex duos sued her for damages.
One of those cases was ended without damages, but another jury awarded each of the duo $50,000 in damages and Bunning piled on with an order for her to pay some $240,000 in lawyers' fees.
That's the case that's now going to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
But the goal is much higher than that single verdict.
The filing, by Liberty Counsel, which has defended Davis over the years since she was attacked, raises multiple contentions on appeal.
And the trial court mistakenly rejected Davis' contention she was entitled to a reasonable accommodation because of "sincerely held religious beliefs under the First Amendment and Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act."
But then the appeal gets to the real fight: "The district court erred by finding that Obergefell created a clearly established constitutional right that superseded Davis's pre-existing fundamental, textual constitutional rights to religious exercise."
Obergefell was the high court ruling that literally "created" out of a political agenda the "right" in the Constitution to same-sex marriage, when marriage is not even mentioned in the document.
And, the appeal charges, "Obergefell should be overturned for the same reasons articulated by the court in Dobbs," Dobbs being the decision that decimated the Roe v. Wade decision from 1973 that similarly created a federal "right" to abortion.
The appeal charges, "Obergefell's atextual rights creation was not deeply rooted in the nation's history or traditions."
In fact, the appeal explains "Obergefell was not grounded in the nation's history or traditions, nor could it have been because it was not rooted in any nation's history or traditions. As Chief Justice Roberts noted, the right that the Obergefell majority created out of whole cloth was inconsistent with 'the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history.' Indeed, 'marriage has existed for millennia and across civilizations [and] [f]or all those millennia, across all those civilizations, marriage referred to only one relationship: the union of a man and a woman.'"
The argument points out that the then-liberal majority on the court "discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a 'fundamental right' overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since."
The fight, of course, would have to end up at the U.S. Supreme Court for Obergefell to be overturned.
Liberty Counsel explained the background, "In 2015, two same-sex couples who sought marriage licenses from Davis sued because she declined to issue the licenses due to her religious beliefs even though she referred the couples to other clerks who would. Despite Davis receiving an eventual religious accommodation from the state to abstain from granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the litigation against Davis continued. In Ermold v. Davis case, along with a second case in Yates v. Davis, two juries heard the same evidence and the same arguments in both cases. The jury in the Yates case awarded zero damages because the evidence did not support the awarding of any damages. The plaintiffs in that case originally asked for $300,000 in damages."
But, the report said, "The Ermold jury reached a verdict of $50,000 for each plaintiff and the judge also awarded the plaintiffs an additional $246,000 in attorney's fees and $14,000 in expenses despite lacking evidence to support the awarding of emotional damages."
"Kim Davis deserves justice in this case since she was entitled to a religious accommodation from issuing marriage licenses under her name and authority. This case has the potential to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges and extend the same religious freedom protections beyond Kentucky to the entire nation," explained Liberty Counsel chief Mat Staver.
Davis had sought a religious accommodation, and was granted one by new Gov. Matt Bevins several months later.
Her state legislature even passed a law permanently granting all clerks an accommodation to opt out of having their signatures on licenses for same-sex duos.
But the court cases had developed in the interim.
Davis had explained, "I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage. To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God's definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven-or-Hell decision. For me, it is a decision of obedience."
WND later reported that the case got a "Told you so," from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas after the eight-member high court declined to review one issue of the attacks on Davis.
In a statement then, Thomas said Davis "may have been one of the first victims" of the Supreme Court's "cavalier treatment of religion" when it issued its same-sex marriage ruling, "but she will not be the last."
Thomas called Davis a "devout Christian" who "found herself faced with a choice between her religious beliefs and her job."
"Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other antidiscrimination laws," Thomas wrote. "Moreover, Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss."
In fact, since then the state of Colorado twice has launched attacks on Christians who failed to promote the state's messaging on same-sex unions, a baker and a web designer. And both times it has suffered defeat at the Supreme Court, including once when the justice scolded the state for its hate of Christianity.
Thomas pointed out the high court's decision on same-sex marriage was found "nowhere" in the 14th Amendment.
"Several members of the court noted that the court's decision would threaten the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. If the states had been allowed to resolve this question through legislation, they could have included accommodations for those who hold these religious beliefs," he said.
"The court, however, bypassed that democratic process. Worse still, though it briefly acknowledged that those with sincerely held religious objections to same-sex marriage are often 'decent and honorable' … the court went on to suggest that those beliefs espoused a bigoted worldview…"
Thomas noted that the four justices who didn't agree with the ruling "predicted that 'these … assaults on the character of fair-minded people will have an effect, in society and in court.'"
"Those predictions did not take long to become reality," he wrote, citing the Davis case.
The former county clerk is a Christian, he said.
"When she began her tenure as clerk, Davis' sincerely held religious beliefs – that marriage exists between one man and one woman – corresponded with the definition of marriage under Kentucky law," Thomas said.
At the time, she was lobbying for amendments to state law to protect religious rights, he said.
"But those efforts were cut short by this court's decision," he said.
"As a result of this court's alteration of the Constitution, Davis found herself faced with a choice between her religious beliefs and her job. When she chose to follow her faith, and without any statutory protection of her religious beliefs, she was sued almost immediately."