Dr. Pepper Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Armed insurgents aka Oath Keepers moving in to 'defend' Kim Davis, aka ensure she gets to keep not doing her job. They are also making threats against the judge who did do his job. In a phone call with Jackson County Kentucky Sheriff Denny Peyman, Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes said members of his group had reached out to Davis's legal team and were already forming an on-the-ground presence in Kentucky's Rowan County, but remained tight-lipped on specifics, "As far as we’re concerned, this is not over,” he said in the audio clip above. “This judge needs to be put on notice that his behavior is not going to be accepted, and we’ll be there to stop it and intercede ourselves if we have to." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Your post lacks content. It's only purpose is to insult and show contempt. No insult was intended. But I don't have much respect for your effort above, that's true. (Which, in any event, does not argue or even attempt to argue that Ms Davis' job does entail personal approval of any marriage issued under a licence with her name on it, and hence does not really even answer mine, preferring to spout tendentious nonsense, either in bad faith or in ignorance: only you know which.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 No insult was intended. But I don't have much respect for your effort above, that's true. (Which, in any event, does not argue or even attempt to argue that Ms Davis' job does entail personal approval of any marriage issued under a licence with her name on it, and hence does not really even answer mine, preferring to spout tendentious nonsense, either in bad faith or in ignorance: only you know which.) I thought I did address that. Yes, I agree. Ms Davis' duties, as defined by Kentucky Law, do entail issuing marriage licences to opposite-sex couples but not to same sex couples. The faithful discharge of THOSE duties, under Kentucky Law, would not normally allow her to refuse a marriage license to opposite sex couples, and certainly not merely because she disapproved of the particular opposite sex marriage for reasons unrelated to Kentucky Law. You are conflating her duties as defined by Kentucky Law with her duties as defined by Federal Court orders. I merely drew a distinction. Also I am attempting to respond only to the substantive part of your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maltaran Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Except Kentucky law is irrelevant here, because if it's in conflict with what the Supreme Court says then the Supreme Court's decision applies, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 CP, The case brought against Davis in the Federal District court is by couples stating she is denying their right substantive right to due process by refusing to marry them. It is applying the Obergefell v. Hodges case to this circumstance as such the Federal Court's jurisdiction is clear. It is holding the Kentucky statute invalid under Obsergefell and requiring Mrs. Davis to do her job. Mrs. Davis can appeal the ruling but her requests for a stay of the Court's order have been denied by both the federal circuit court and the SCOTUS. She has to comply or face contempt. Unless you want to argue the SCOTUS lacked the authority to decide the Obergefell case which is a compeletely different kettle of fish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Except Kentucky law is irrelevant here, because if it's in conflict with what the Supreme Court says then the Supreme Court's decision applies, Then you agree that her status as an officer and employee of the State of Kentucky, with specific duties, is irrelevant? That this is merely about whatever the Federal Courts order her to do? I tend to agree. But others keep arguing that it is relevant somehow, and I keep having to deal with that issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Unless you want to argue the SCOTUS lacked the authority to decide the Obergefell case which is a compeletely different kettle of fish. Oh, Mike Huckabee's got that one covered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 I don't know why y'all are bothering with ChillyPolly since, even if you didn't know it before coming into these threads, it should be readily obvious at this point that there's no arguing in good faith going on here, whether deliberately or simply through incompetence. There reaches a point where someone's been saying the same wrong bull for 10 pages where it's just best to give up and not fill the thread up pointless. The actions taken against Kim Davis are well within the structures of the legal system and the duties and orders she is expected to fulfil by virtue of her nepotistic holding of a position that it's stupid to elect someone for in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Armed insurgents aka Oath Keepers moving in to 'defend' Kim Davis, aka ensure she gets to keep not doing her job. They are also making threats against the judge who did do his job. I wonder if we'll get a Cliven Bundy 2.0 here. Always interesting to see america terrified of it's own domestic terrorists/insurrectionists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 I thought I did address that. No, you didn't. There are some words there, but they don't bear any relationship to the facts of the situation and as such don't address anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayyoth Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 CP, The case brought against Davis in the Federal District court is by couples stating she is denying their right substantive right to due process by refusing to marry them. It is applying the Obergefell v. Hodges case to this circumstance as such the Federal Court's jurisdiction is clear. It is holding the Kentucky statute invalid under Obsergefell and requiring Mrs. Davis to do her job. Mrs. Davis can appeal the ruling but her requests for a stay of the Court's order have been denied by both the federal circuit court and the SCOTUS. She has to comply or face contempt. Unless you want to argue the SCOTUS lacked the authority to decide the Obergefell case which is a compeletely different kettle of fish. How do you feel about sanctuary cities? For or against? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 How do you feel about sanctuary cities? For or against? I addressed this here in the last thread and in that thread provided links to the 2009 Congressional Service Report on the role of state and local law enforcement in enforcing immigration law, and a law review article by a law professor both concluding that "sanctuary cities" are legal and constitutional (and further, as Law Professor Bill Hing points out - "sanctuary city" police policies are just good policing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Hayyoth, I think you should sue to force scantuary cities to enforce existing federal law. While your at it go after Washington State and Colorado for legalized recreational pot. If you win you too can use your order from the court to seek to compel compliance with federal law. Until you have that order the situations are not analogus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Chilly Polly- your entire post is rendered inaccurate by the fact that she is not an employee, she is an elected official. Her oath of office includes upholding the constitution and laws of the United States. Both of these are defined and interpreted by the Supreme Court as the highest authority on it. She cannot simply be fired by the state or the county. Court orders and holding in contempt of court are the legal system's recourse on violation of court orders and oaths of office. If you violated a court order of any kind, you would similarly be held in contempt of court if the judge wished to do so. This is very standard legal procedure I was willing to concede that her duty to issue marriage licenses was indeed merely "ministerial", but only insofar as those duties were defined by Kentucky Law. When we go beyond that, emphasizing her elected status hardly weakens my point. An oath of office to "support the Constitution" does not necessarily rule out forms of civil disobedience. For example, I too have taken an oath to "support" the U.S. Constitution just as Kim Davis has. However, if a Federal District Court were to order me to issue a statement declaring that Justice Kennedy is God and that I am willing to kiss his holy ass, I would refuse. Even if Justice Kennedy feels that his constitutional right to dignity requires that I make this statement, I would feel that my duty to uphold the Constitution would require me to defy him. Maybe the Kim Davis case is not so clear cut. But that does not mean I have to clap and cheer when Kim Davis is thrown in jail for refusing to issue a document containing an implied-but-deliberate ideological statement of approval of gayness that Justice Kennedy thinks that gay dignity requires that public officials make. Civil Disobedience is sometimes justified. And even if you think it is not justified in this case, your rationale allows for no limits. Is there anything the Supreme Court could possibly do that you would disapprove of? Or would you declare Justice Kennedy to be God and kiss his holy ass, merely because he ordered you to do so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayyoth Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 I addressed this here in the last thread and in that thread provided links to the 2009 Congressional Service Report on the role of state and local law enforcement in enforcing immigration law, and a law review article by a law professor both concluding that "sanctuary cities" are legal and constitutional (and further, as Law Professor Bill Hing points out - "sanctuary city" police policies are just good policing). So you're in favor of them. Hayyoth, I think you should sue to force scantuary cities to enforce existing federal law. While your at it go after Washington State and Colorado for legalized recreational pot. If you win you too can use your order from the court to seek to compel compliance with federal law. Until you have that order the situations are not analogus. And you are as well Excuse me if I don't push out a cow's worth of toucans at one solitary minor state functionary refusing to conform to a Fed mandate (and being punished for it) while there are entire jurisdictions doing the same as a matter of policy. Condemn all of this or STFU as far as I'm concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelli Fury Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Civil Disobedience actually does include fully accepting legal consequences. So even supporters of her refusal to comply must accept being held in contempt as part and parcel to that civil disobedience. That is the distinction between civil disobedience and mere lawbreaking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Civil Disobedience actually does include fully accepting legal consequences. Somewhat true. But that does not mean I have to join the crowd that is cheering for the legal consequences. And I am allowed to point out that the legal consequences themselves may be unconstitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelli Fury Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Then I join my fellows in throwing up my hands since I can't tell whether this is the result of very precocious trolling or incompetence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 So you're in favor of them. And you are as well Excuse me if I don't push out a cow's worth of toucans at one solitary minor state functionary refusing to conform to a Fed mandate (and being punished for it) while there are entire jurisdictions doing the same as a matter of policy. Condemn all of this or STFU as far as I'm concerned. In case my prior post, the Congressional Report I linked to in my prior post, and then law review article I linked to in my prior post were not clear - sanctuary cities are not illegal. They do not violate federal law. They are perfectly constitutional. Federal law does not require that state and local governments to actively seek out information related to the legal status of people in their physical jurisdictions. Marriage, in contrast, is a recognized constitutional right. Gay marriage is now recognized as a constitutional right. Kim Davis was actively denying people their constitutional rights. Police in sanctuary cities are not violating anybody's constitutional rights. Ironically, conservatives often complain about living in a "police state" whenever they perceive the police to overstep their boundaries. Unless, of course, you're a brown person being stopped and asked for your papers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Then I join my fellows in throwing up my hands since I can't tell whether this is the result of very precocious trolling or incompetence Just because your fellows stooped to insult, does not mean you have to. You could have chosen to be better than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.