Tempra Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 I don't understand what distinction you are making here. There has already been a civil case resulting in a judgment requiring the issuance of the plaintiffs' marriage license. All that is left to do is enforce the judgment because Ms. Davis will not voluntarily comply. To do so, the plaintiffs can request that the Court hold Ms. Davis in contempt and compel her obedience through fines or imprisonment. The plaintiffs do not need to wait until Ms. Davis is recalled, impeached, or removed by whatever mechanism is available under Kentucky law. Thus, any future action to punish Ms. Davis is irrelevant to the enforcement of the plaintiffs' judgment. Anyways, why should the plaintiffs have to wait potentially years for their marriage license to be issued when they already have a court order requiring its issuance? This isn't the order of some rogue judge as both the 6th circuit court of Appeals and SCOTUS refused to grant a stay pending her appeal because she is unlikely to win on the merits. She lost; it's over. Comply, resign, or be punished for contempt of court. Those are her options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Waiting for the hilariously ironic "government overreach" argument to issue from one quarter or the other Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 There has already been a civil case resulting in a judgment requiring the issuance of the plaintiffs' marriage license. All that is left to do is enforce the judgment because Ms. Davis will not voluntarily comply. To do so, the plaintiffs can request that the Court hold Ms. Davis in contempt and compel her obedience through fines or imprisonment. The plaintiffs do not need to wait until Ms. Davis is recalled, impeached, or removed by whatever mechanism is available under Kentucky law. Thus, any future action to punish Ms. Davis is irrelevant to the enforcement of the plaintiffs' judgment. Anyways, why should the plaintiffs have to wait potentially years for their marriage license to be issued when they already have a court order requiring its issuance? This isn't the order of some rogue judge as both the 6th circuit court of Appeals and SCOTUS refused to grant a stay pending her appeal because she is unlikely to win on the merits. She lost; it's over. Comply, resign, or be punished for contempt of court. Those are her options. Tempra, I do believe this is the first time I have never disagree with a single word you have said. So same-sex marriage really does bring us all together. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 While I am generally loathe to incarcerate someone for civil contempt, the reality is that there simply aren't that many tools the Court has to ensure compliance with a Court Order. My additional concern is that incarceration for civil contempt is not supposed to be punitive - that is, it's not supposed to punish the person for non-compliance. Rather, it's supposed to be coercive - in that it's designed to compel the person to comply with the Order to free themselves from the punishment, with the idea being that the target of incarceration holds the keys to her own jail cell. My suspicion, although it might very well be wrong, is that incarceration is not going to be an effective means of coercion in this case, and I wonder whether a series of increasing fines, perhaps against both the clerk individually and the county as a whole, might better achieve the desired result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterOJ Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 While I am generally loathe to incarcerate someone for civil contempt, the reality is that there simply aren't that many tools the Court has to ensure compliance with a Court Order. My additional concern is that incarceration for civil contempt is not supposed to be punitive - that is, it's not supposed to punish the person for non-compliance. Rather, it's supposed to be coercive - in that it's designed to compel the person to comply with the Order to free themselves from the punishment, with the idea being that the target of incarceration holds the keys to her own jail cell. My suspicion, although it might very well be wrong, is that incarceration is not going to be an effective means of coercion in this case, and I wonder whether a series of increasing fines, perhaps against both the clerk individually and the county as a whole, might better achieve the desired result. Why would you punish the county as a whole? It's the actions of one individual that has led to this mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Mr.OJ, Because she is an elected official and is acting for the County and its citizens. This would give the county a reason to get ride of her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterOJ Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Mr.OJ, Because she is an elected official and is acting for the County and its citizens. This would give the county a reason to get ride of her. But the county has no way to get rid of her. They don't have impeachment powers. Only the state legislature has that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Mr.OJ, The county can pressure the State to act and this is a warning to take care who is given the authority of an elected position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 I don't see the problem here. She is a multiple divorcee, which makes her a multiple adulteress, by the religious laws under which which she desires to live and be judged. Stone her to death and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 DG, Again, she's an Evangelical Protestant. Divorce isn't a problem in her faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 DG, Again, she's an Evangelical Protestant. Divorce isn't a problem in her faith. Fine, burn her for her heresy. Bloody splitters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 DG, Again, she's an Evangelical Protestant. Divorce isn't a problem in her faith. Clearly not, because by now she must be a pro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 ChillyPolly, Are you wiling to defend Mrs. Davis' legal theory in this case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 ChillyPolly, Are you wiling to defend Mrs. Davis' legal theory in this case? She does not have a legal theory, nor any chance of prevailing legally if the matter is pushed. I'm not even sure she has a well-articulated or coherent moral stance. Personally I would prefer she be left alone. Can the gay community really find no way around the problem of a single stubborn clerk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterOJ Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 She does not have a legal theory, nor any chance of prevailing legally if the matter is pushed. I'm not even sure she has a well-articulated or coherent moral stance. Personally I would prefer she be left alone. Can the gay community really find no way around the problem of a single stubborn clerk? She is not affecting just "the gay community." She is refusing to issue all marriage certificates. Her office has not issued a single marriage certificate to anyone since June. It's a problem for everyone, not just "the gay community." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Chillypolly, She's using her religious beliefs as an excuse to not do what she is legally obligated to do. Why should she be left alone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 She does not have a legal theory, nor any chance of prevailing legally if the matter is pushed. I'm not even sure she has a well-articulated or coherent moral stance. Personally I would prefer she be left alone. Can the gay community really find no way around the problem of a single stubborn clerk? Just out of curiosity, why should someone that willfully refuses to perform an essential function of their job simply be "left alone" as opposed to "appropriately dealt with?" Leaving aside the fact that this "single stubborn clerk" is, in fact, engaged in an ongoing civil rights violation in her capacity as a government official, she's also simply not doing her job. I can't imagine why the response to someone willfully refusing to do their job should be to ignore it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Chillypolly, She's using her religious beliefs as an excuse to not do what she is legally obligated to do. Why should she be left alone? Don't worry! She won't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 She is not affecting just "the gay community." She is refusing to issue all marriage certificates. Her office has not issued a single marriage certificate to anyone since June. It's a problem for everyone, not just "the gay community." Okay. But what I said still applies, even if it applies to "everyone". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Just out of curiosity, why should someone that willfully refuses to perform an essential function of their job simply be "left alone" as opposed to "appropriately dealt with?" Leaving aside the fact that this "single stubborn clerk" is, in fact, engaged in an ongoing civil rights violation in her capacity as a government official, she's also simply not doing her job. I can't imagine why the response to someone willfully refusing to do their job should be to ignore it. Perhaps you have a point. Perhaps this problem is a minor inconvenience for the members of the community who live there. If so, I am happy to let them deal with it, if they care to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.