Connect with us

Watch: Chris Hayes Destroys Kim Davis’ Attorney’s Arguments

Published

on

There’s a reason the folks at Liberty Counsel keep losing. Chris Hayes debates Mat Staver, the head of the legal group representing Kim Davis.

There’s a reason Liberty Counsel keeps losing at every turn. Their legal arguments are based on their religious extremism, and their reason for being is to inject their religious extremism into American law. Fortunately, they’re failing, because even the most conservative of judges (Alabama’s Roy Moore excluded) generally still respects the Constitution.

Meet Mat Staver.

Staver is the head of Liberty Counsel, the certified anti-gay hate group that, like ambulance-chasing attorneys, looks for potentially high-profile cases of religious liberty, then uses its clients to further its agenda of religious extremism.

Liberty Counsel is representing Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who, under the counsel of Staver’s group, finds herself in jail, a “prisoner of her conscience,” Staver told reporters yesterday. 

Staver Friday night appeared on MSNBC’s “All In with Chris Hayes,” and was roundly pummeled in a very gracious manner by the 36-year old journalist. 

“Mr. Staver, there’s no victory here, there’s no path to victory. How do you understand the end game here?,” Hayes began.

UPDATE: Fox News Legal Panel: Kim Davis’ Attorney’s Defense Is ‘Stunningly Obtuse’ And ‘Ridiculously Stupid’

Then, Hayes brought up the nation’s historic bans on interracial marriage. Staver refused such comparisons, insisting that same-sex marriage has altered the historic definition of marriage, which is of course poppycock.

Staver claimed there are “express constitutional amendments” prohibiting bans on interracial marriage, which of course is false. Bans on interracial marriage were struck down by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia. That’s a rather embarrassing error for any attorney to make. 

LOOK: Breaking: ‘Prisoner Of Conscience’ Kim Davis Says She Has ‘No Remorse,’ Will Not Quit, Will Appeal

Hayes asked if “post Loving v. Virginia, 1967,” should clerks “have the right to carry on their duties, and not give licenses to interracial couples?” 

“The difference is, before and after the Supreme Court decision, marriage was always, and still remained, the union of a man and a woman,” Staver then tried to argue. 

False again.

Marriage over time has been used to form kingdoms, stop wars, and ensure property rights, just as it in biblical times was between one man and as many wives as he could afford. And there are plenty of examples of same-sex marriages being blessed by religion centuries ago.

“If really, the issue here is, you say, it’s conscience, right?,” Hayes asks. “Then that sort of jurisprudencial argument doesn’t seem to me to apply. The question is, what does her Christian conscience tell her? If someone’s Christian conscience did not allow them to for instance, issue divorce certificates – I mean, Jesus himself condemned divorce, let’s be clear – should they be able to do that?”

Staver’s response was that “throughout the millennia we’ve never had same-sex marriage,” which, again, is false. 

Staver also claimed that divorce doesn’t change the essence of marriage, to which Hayes responded that “no-fault divorce is perhaps the most radical change to marriage in centuries.”

Hayes then attacked Staver for his group’s fundraising. 

“Mr. Staver, there are allies of yours that say they think you’re taking Kim Davis for a ride and basically raising money off her plight, so I’m just asking the question. How are you doing on fundraising this week?,” Hayes asked.

It was, needless to say, heated, and a win for Hayes and the Constitution, and a loss for Staver.

 

EARLIER:

Ted Cruz Forgets His Religious Right Pals Are Calling Kim Davis ‘Rosa Parks’

Rand Paul Advises Marriage Equality Supporters To Back Off Kim Davis

Second Same-Sex Couple Gets License In Rowan County As Religious Activists Call Them ‘Perverts’

 

Image: Screenshot via MSNBC

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Did Not Rule Against Trump’s Tariffs’: Bessent Offers Alternative Interpretation

Published

on

Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent delivered an alternative interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday that struck down the legal basis for the president’s sweeping global tariffs, which the justices ruled was an unlawful use of executive authority.

“President Trump will always put our national security and Americans first,” Bessent told the Economic Club of Dallas, as Mediaite reported.

“Let’s be clear about what today’s ruling was and what it wasn’t. Despite the misplaced gloating from Democrats, ill-informed media outlets, and the very people who gutted our industrial base — the court did not rule against President Trump’s tariffs,” Bessent insisted.

Rather, he continued, the six justices “simply ruled that IEEPA authorities cannot be used to raise even $1 of revenue.”

He vowed that the Trump administration would “invoke alternative legal authorities” to replace the vehicle used to collect tariffs, which he said would be “virtually” equal to the level that was previously being collected.

The Secretary, commenting on whether consumers will get refunds from the approximately $175 billion in tariffs already collected, also said, “I got a feeling the American people won’t see it.”

READ MORE: Bush-Era ‘Torture Memo’ Author Warns Trump to Stop Smearing SCOTUS Over Tariff Ruling

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

Bush-Era ‘Torture Memo’ Author Warns Trump to Stop Smearing SCOTUS Over Tariff Ruling

Published

on

A former Bush Justice Department official is warning President Donald Trump against smearing the U.S. Supreme Court after the justices delivered a highly anticipated ruling that struck down the legal foundation of his sweeping global tariffs — a major setback for his economic agenda.

“It’s my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think,” the president said on Friday, as the Guardian reported. Trump said he was “ashamed” of the six justices who sided with the majority opinion. “Absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.”

“They’re just being fools and lapdogs for the Rinos [Republicans in name only] and the radical left Democrats, and not that they should have anything at all to do with it,” Trump added. “They’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our constitution.”

John Yoo, the prominent Bush administration Deputy Assistant Attorney General known for writing what have been called the “torture memos,” appeared on Fox News on Friday and warned the president.

READ MORE: Donald Trump’s Very Bad Day

“I think President Trump would be wise to no longer call the justices somehow tools of foreign influence,” he said, reminding him that the Roberts Supreme Court has been giving him “a number of wins.”

Yoo also noted that, had he been at the DOJ under President Trump, he would have been “shuddering” when he heard him speak about the court as he did, “because President Trump has got a number of other big cases pending at the court, like whether it can fire the heads of independent commissions, whether it can fire a governor of the Federal Reserve Board, whether redistricting can go on.”

Even Fox News is telling Trump to pump the brakes on accusing SCOTUS of being controlled by foreign actors, reminding him he has other “big cases” before the court.

John Yoo: “I think President Trump would be wise to no longer call the justices somehow tools of foreign influence.”

[image or embed]

— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona.bsky.social) February 20, 2026 at 2:31 PM


READ MORE: ‘Can’t Play Cute With Me’: Trump Tries to Spin Big-Power Snub of Peace Board
 

Image via Reuters 

 

Continue Reading

News

Epstein Files Scandal Is ‘Never Going to Go Away’: Carville

Published

on

Political commentator and strategist James Carville says the Epstein files scandal is not ever going to go away.

“It’s never gonna go away, and if you think about it, it can’t go away,” Carville told to Al Hunt on their Politicon podcast.

“What do you have?” he continued. “You have a really rich guy, filthy rich … with a glamorous woman who’s harvesting young women around the world. You got princes, and Ivy League professors, and politicians, and bankers, and sports organizers, and didn’t get all of that. And then you got a dead body.”

“And then you got secrecy everywhere, and it’s not going away 30 years from now. They’re gonna still be digging through that stuff. They lied about everything,” Carville said.

READ MORE: Donald Trump’s Very Bad Day

“There’s nothing you can say to make this go away,” he continued. “And there’s so much s — — we don’t know.”

“You know, I didn’t — I must say, six months ago, I did not think that the Epstein issue would still be with us, and certainly not with us through the 2026 campaign,” Hunt said. “I was wrong.”

“There are three reasons it’s not going away. Number one, the dissembling, by the White House, and its subsidiary, the Justice Department — there clearly is a cover up of some stuff,” he added.

“Two, Ro Khanna, a liberal Democrat, and Tom Massey, a conservative Republican, are leading the fight for full exposure. They have proven to be bulldogs, and they won’t give up,” Hunt said.

He added that the third reason the Epstein files are here to stay “is those victims, the women who have courageously spoken up against the sexual abuse trafficking of Epstein and his accomplice, Maxwell, won’t be silenced until the Justice Department ends this limited hangout approach.”

Hunt also pointed to “a headline in Wednesday’s Washington Post, quote, Epstein fallout rattles the globe. Many powerful people face consequences,” which he noted was “true in every place but the Trump administration.”

READ MORE: ‘Can’t Play Cute With Me’: Trump Tries to Spin Big-Power Snub of Peace Board

 

Image via Shutterstock

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.