TrackerNeil Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 No no, he could have a point. It's entirely possible that the entire legal framework of the United States and the state of Kentucky made a jurisdictional mistake in their disposition of the legal proceedings of one stupid homophobic McJesusite county clerk. This reminds me of those folks who argue that Ohio was never properly inducted into the union, and thus 200 years of laws, elections, and court rulings are all invalid. Even if it were true that Ohio's statehood was botched, nobody would ever think to retroactively unravel centuries of legal and social development. It would be crazy to all but a very few Americans. There's this idea that the law is something other than what legislators, presidents, judges and ordinary Americans think it is, and that if we can just access that secret knowledge, anything is possible! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 I've explained the due process and equal protection implications of Mrs. Davis' refusal to do her job till I'm blue in the face. She's likely to be fined, possibly jailed for her defiance of a Federal Court order. I am aware of no Federal Court order directing Ms. Davis or any other particular state employee to issue marriage licenses. But perhaps one is coming? Kentucky must issue licenses, and Kentucky is issuing licenses. A gay person in Kentucky who wishes to marry faces no meaningful obstacles. Any comparison to LOVING is a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 I am aware of no Federal Court order directing Ms. Davis or any other particular state employee to issue marriage licenses. But perhaps one is coming? Kentucky must issue licenses, and Kentucky is issuing licenses. A gay person in Kentucky who wishes to marry faces no meaningful obstacles. Davis was specifically enjoined by the circuit court and prohibited from engaging in her "no marriage license" policy. Her refusal to issue any marriage license is in direct violation of a federal court order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Chilly,All Counties in Kentucky must issue licenses.Here's a report from the Washington Post indicating that Mrs. Davis is up for a contempt citation tomorrow:http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/09/01/will-kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-issue-gay-marriage-licenses-after-supreme-court-ruling/From the article:MOREHEAD, Ky. — A raucous scene unfolded at the county courthouse here Tuesday as a clerk defied a judge’s order to start issuing marriage licenses, citing her religious objections to same-sex marriage.U.S. District Judge David Bunning has set a hearing for 11 a.m. Thursday to determine whether to hold Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis in contempt, a charge that could carry with it a fine or jail time.She has to be in violation of a Court order to be held in Contempt. Her actions are a violation of the 14th Amendment Due Process clause by denying the people of her County the right to marry in that County. It is an equal protection violation to say "Oh, just head to the next county to get married" because the people of other counties are not being held to the same standard and (as established by Loving) the right to marry is fundamental.By your argument if one county in Kentucky was issuing marriage licences while the rest refused to it would be in compliance with the 14th Amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Swordfish, She's refusing to execute a ministerial duty. She doesn't get to say when she doesn't have to do her job. If she were refusing to marry a black and a white or an Asian and a Hispanic on religious gounds would you raise the same objection to forcing her to resign or do her job? Actually, this is one of the circumstances where a "Writ of Mandamus" would be proper. It is an order for "Bob to do what Bob is obligated to do". Her Free Exercise argument is completely specious. If she doesn't want to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples she can resign. Her religious predilections do not entitle her to refuse to do her job. I did not raise an objection to forcing her to do her job or resign. i think that's exactly what should happen, so your analogy is wholly inapplicable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Swordfish, Why do you object to Mrs. Davis being held in contempt of court for refusing to do her job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Swordfish, Why do you object to Mrs. Davis being held in contempt of court for refusing to do her job? Scot, when did you stop beating your wife? Anyway, my concern was over throwing someone in jail over civil contempt. Full stop. The unfortunate fact here is that there is a gap in the states process for dealing with this situation, and as a result, here we are.... if they had a mechanism by which to more expediently remove her, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But my understanding was that the AG could find her guilty of some kind of 'misconduct' and then she could be removed. Admittedly this may take longer than is desired/fair. it is certainly possible, however, that I am misunderstanding the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Swordfish, I'm not attempting to trap you. All Mrs. Davis has to do to avoid contempt is comply with the order or resign her position. That's the point of a contempt order, to get the person subject to the order to comply with the order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Two other Kentucky Clerks, Casey Davis of Casey County and Kay Swartz in Whitley County, are now joining Kim Davis in being avowed bigots. Guess they are hoping the gravy train from the book deals and lecture circuit will be big enough to support them too. From the article: "Casey Davis, the clerk in Casey County, is riding his bicycle across the state to protest courts' demands that the licenses be granted." That'll show 'em! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Swordfish, I'm not attempting to trap you. All Mrs. Davis has to do to avoid contempt is comply with the order or resign her position. That's the point of a contempt order, to get the person subject to the order to comply with the order. And also, water is wet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted September 2, 2015 Author Share Posted September 2, 2015 From the article: That'll show 'em! Oh he's a smart one, that Casey Davis. He'll even die over this. "If it takes it, I will go to jail over — if it takes my life, I will die for because I believe I owe that to the people that fought so I can have the freedom that I have, I owe that to them today, and you do, we all do. They fought and died so we could have this freedom and I’m going to fight and die for my kids and your kids can keep it." I don't think he gets that he hasn't lost a single freedom, though a whole group of people were finally granted one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Anyway, my concern was over throwing someone in jail over civil contempt. Full stop. I'd like to hear a real answer to Ser Scot's question. Why are you so opposed to Davis being jailed for civil contempt? Oh he's a smart one, that Casey Davis. He'll even die over this. "If it takes it, I will go to jail over — if it takes my life, I will die for because I believe I owe that to the people that fought so I can have the freedom that I have, I owe that to them today, and you do, we all do. They fought and died so we could have this freedom and I’m going to fight and die for my kids and your kids can keep it." Casey Davis has my leave to die for same-sex marriage any time he likes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Oh he's a smart one, that Casey Davis. He'll even die over this. "If it takes it, I will go to jail over — if it takes my life, I will die for because I believe I owe that to the people that fought so I can have the freedom that I have, I owe that to them today, and you do, we all do. They fought and died so we could have this freedom and I’m going to fight and die for my kids and your kids can keep it." I don't think he gets that he hasn't lost a single freedom, though a whole group of people were finally granted one. That's commitment. We can only speculate how this might lead to his death. Perhaps he will die from bicycle-related exhaustion? Perhaps he'll bicycle so long and so hard that he'll ride into the sea and drown? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted September 2, 2015 Author Share Posted September 2, 2015 I'm just hoping his potential sponsors forget to arrive at set locations where he was meant to resupply with water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 She has to be in violation of a Court order to be held in Contempt. You are correct. I did a bit of research. Some plaintiff's filed suit against her. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky issued a "preliminary injunction" ordering her to issue licenses. She refused to comply with the order. Plaintiff then made a motion to hold her in contempt of court. Now there is a hearing as to whether she will be held in contempt of court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 I'm almost impressed. Usually when someone drops 20+ posts about a topic that they don't know anything at all about, they just double down and refuse to admit error or ignorance. I'm glad that you've taken the time to elevate yourself from "completely ignorant about the topic at hand" to "potentially capable of meaningful contribution." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 I'm almost impressed. Usually when someone drops 20+ posts about a topic that they don't know anything at all about, they just double down and refuse to admit error or ignorance. I'm glad that you've taken the time to elevate yourself from "completely ignorant about the topic at hand" to "potentially capable of meaningful contribution." I'm sorry, but I can't say I'm equally impressed by your condescending ad-hominem remarks. I have studied Constitutional Law. That however, does not guarantee that Federal Courts will agree with my opinions. I have now read the "Preliminary Injunction", and the reasons given for it by the District Judge. I still have doubts as to whether the district court has authority to punish the clerk under these circumstances, for all the reasons I have stated. I don't think that necessarily follows from the recent S.C. decision. If the court does choose to punish the clerk, it is possible that the contempt order will be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. It is possible that the Circuit judge will agree with me. Or maybe he/she will not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Chilly, Federal Appellate courts sit in panels of at least three judges when hearing apppeals, FYI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Chilly, Federal Appellate courts sit in panels of at least three judges when hearing apppeals, FYI. Well then, no doubt they will be unanimous in agreeing with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 By your argument if one county in Kentucky was issuing marriage licences while the rest refused to it would be in compliance with the 14th Amendment. That would be a different situation. Certainly, the equal protection issue would be the same, since Kentucky would be applying its laws equally. But you might have a stronger "fundamental right to marry" argument; if a single licensing office effectively prevented people in Kentucky from marrying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.