But will she follow that condition?
Davis' attorney, Mat Staver, told NBC News that accommodation was unlikely to suffice. "We're back to Square One," Staver said. "She's been released, but there's been no resolution."No solution, but some of the leverage of empathy for Davis is lost.
ADDED: Video from the NYT...
... where there are over 1800 comments already. Highest ranking comment:
I am deeply afraid for my religious freedom. I am an atheist. When an elected official can impose her/his religion on all citizens through their legal position, the first amendment is violated. "The congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." Kim Davis' opposition to gay marriage is a religious belief and should not be imposed on others through her state position.
पोस्ट्स
१४४ टिप्पण्या:
Looks like her prayers to Jesus went only half answered.
It was a serious boner to jail her. To many she'll be a hero/martyr for the rest of her days.
Kim Davis could do the Odysseus thing and have her staff tie her to a piece of office furniture while her sub-clerks do the thing that will dash Davis' common Christian decency against the rocks of the law.
Or something.
The next time some law professor runs into tenure problems over a plausible but unpopular statement or body of writing we'll be sure to bear your unfailing devotion to the principles of individual liberty and freedom of expression in mind.
Why all the whining about a hillbilly County Clerk not performing her duties and none about the mayors of sanctuary cities?
Perhaps our hostess can express her thoughts and opinions on whether the family of Ms. Steinle who was murdered in SF ought to be able to sue for damages personally those public officials who refused to follow the laws thus setting the situation that resulted in her death.
No solution, but some of the leverage of empathy for Davis is lost.
Yeah. If she would have killed herself, she could be a hero like Sandra Bland. Now she's just another person who lasted a few days in prison.
That is a sign that he recognized she was winning.
Eh, it makes sense. A fine seemed more appropriate to this infraction anyway.
Over 3,000 county clerks nationwide and Kim Davis, alone among untold number of Christian clerks, followed the dictates of her conscience all the way to jailhouse. This is what is called heroism; for Christians, a role model for these times.
Sanctuary cities are not violating the rights of others. This four time divorced hillbilly clerk is.
Judge Benning has not compelled either the State of Kentucky or the County Clerk of Rowan County, KY to comply with SCOTUS law; all he has done is to bamboozle some of the County Clerk's employees into issue invalid "marriage" licenses.
The recipients can wipe their butts with them for what they are worth.
Sanctuary cities are not violating the rights of others.
Being murdered is the ultimate rights violation.
Judges know how to work the crowd. It's an important part of the rule of law.
"Sanctuary cities are not violating the rights of others.
Being murdered is the ultimate rights violation."
-- The argument is that the city officials didn't murder anyone.
Honestly, my main issue as a law and order sort of person is that, while I agree some punishment/resigning/etc. should happen, there's no moral authority for us to force her to do it when much bigger abuses of power have been not only let to stand, but the perpetrators of them have made out quite well while ignoring their responsibilities.
So, yes. What the clerk did was bad, but as a nation, we lack the moral authority to hold her to account. The fact that we DID is impressive, now if only we'd use that power on people who actually matter.
LarsPorsena said...Why all the whining about a hillbilly County Clerk not performing her duties and none about the mayors of sanctuary cities?
Why all the whining about not enough whining over sanctuary cities? There's plenty of whining over sanctuary cities, it's just being done in the wrong places. Stop doing it here where basically everyone already agrees with you and no one is going to do anything about it.
this is like the twilight zone. elected official objects on religious grounds to name appearing on a same-sex marriage license, goes to jail for refusing to violate religious principle without a reasonable accommodation (which was take her name of the license), gets thrown in jail by unelected federal official who could have merely ordered future licenses will be issued without her personal name as a reasonable accommodation, her deputy clerks issue moot and invalid same-sex marriage licenses with her name on it, federal judge agrees to let her go so long as deputy clerks continuing violating her religious principles and althouse thinks this is a victory for gay rights. this will come to head as it always should have; she will either be impeached, the legislature will change the form, the federal judge will issue an order making Kentucky change the form, she will not be re-elected, or she will end up in jail again. either way, if the judge can order a religious person to violate her principles, that judge can also order the Kentucky legislature to vote to change the form (kind of like in show me a hero which just aired on HBO) or the legislature can be held in contempt and jailed by the federal government. freedom!
""We're back to Square One,"" No. This is a reasonable accommodation. She doesn't have to issue licences but must allow them to be issued by clerks who are willing.
Sanctuary cities violate my right ton live in a nation that is ruled by the rule of law.
It would seem to me that more Americans would recognize the fact that the most basic thing, more to the point the actual resource that makes people want to come to America is the rule of law. It's what has made us a prosperous nation, more than any other physical, or natural resource.
Illegals coming here from Latin America fail to realize what they are really escaping from is despotism, and political corruption, not a .ack of resources. There are plenty of resource poor nations that are quite successful in spite of it. In some cases they thrive because other nations trust them with their money. Which is to say they have integrity. Its not surprising that illegals who seek asylum in the US are blind to the fact that breaking the law in order to be in America tears holes in the very integrity of which they hope to enjoy the benifits.
It's stunning that Americans who choose to turn a blind eye to, or even encourage illegal immegration fail to see the damage that is being caused.
A reasonable accommodation would be to take her name off the paperwork. Nothing short of that.
If your name means that little to you don't just assume others are as weak as you are.
As for the clerk?
I stand with her on her belief, but not her actions. I would resign my position, and bear the consequences.
It is within my power to maintain my personal integrity, it is not within my power to prevent others from excerisizing their right to free association, and wallow in any kind filthy behavior they choose.
But I can not be made to endorse it.
I was waiting in line on Saturday to get into a discussion panel at a convention when a trio of ladies walked up and sat down next to me. I'll spare you the details, suffice to say that physical stereotypes obviously exist for a reason.
In the course of their discussions, one declared that she was in an online argument with someone they all apparently knew over this issue of the KY clerk. Being a trio of lesbians, two in a relationship and one single, they took up the argument and stated many times that the law is the law and she should abide by the law or quit. Gavin Newsom's public shirking of California's Prop 8 came instantly to mind. The urge to mention it was almost palpable.
Still, as I wanted to enjoy the rest of the con and couldn't really see an upside, I decided not to engage.
PS - Apparently a Shadow capital ship assimilated by a Borg cube will be able to overcome the Honorverse's HMS Dauntless.
Levi Starks said...Sanctuary cities violate my right ton live in a nation that is ruled by the rule of law. M
As I understand it, sanctuary cities are cities that do not help the federal government deport illegal aliens. What does that have to do with the rule of law? What is their obligation? What is the source of that obligation? How does their position fit within basic principles of federalism? (And it's no reply to claim that the mayors don't believe in federalism, federalism believes in them.)
Seriously, enough about sanctuary cities until you establish that there is some connection between them and Kim Davis.
Did anyone ever answer my question as to how her being forced to resign (never mind imprisoned) does not directly violate Article VI (No Religious Test?)
Because if this doesnt amount to "Christians Need Not Apply", I'm not sure what could.
Nice punt by the Judge. If they could get the case, I am sure SCOTUS would do its duty and recognize that in case of Scots Irish Kentucky Fundamentalists gumming up the nation'so new realty, that cutting out this offender's tongue iwould be a usual punishment that is not nearly as cruel enough.
Who does she think she is, an American believer!
The Court got it wrong, again. The State-established pro-choice cult is notorious for its adherence to selective exclusion and creating moral hazards.
I admire that Kim Davis is so sincere in her belief that says she will no longer issue any marriage licenses. Kill the marriage village in order to save it.
Will she fire her deputies who issued marriage licenses in her absence? To keep their jobs, what they're going to tell her is that no matter how much they might agree with her personally they are just not as brave as her to risk jail.
Will she block her deputies from issuing marriage licenses in the future? One can imagine a little farce where she has to be temporarily jailed or at least summoned to federal court every time someone comes into her office for a marriage license so that her deputies can issue the license without her acquiescence.
From what I've heard (but not confirmed), in Kentucky, any marriage licenses without the clerk's signature are not valid. Also, she's an elected public official. The only body that can legally remove her from office is the Kentucky legislature. They won't meet again until around February of next year.
Of course, that depends on the judges following the law which is something I kind of doubt. The black robed priests don't like having their authority questioned.
The Court ruled for "=" or congruence. The questions that should be on people's minds are: What is the next politically-motivated modulus? and Why so selective?
She just ordered her office to stop issuing marriage licenses again. The Judge wishes he had cut out her tongue the first time.
This is getting to be better entertainment than Trump v. The GOP and Ruppert Murdoch who can cut off half of a Donald's speech bytes very effectively.
"but some of the leverage of empathy for Davis is lost."
You're batting a thousand in the wishful thinking dept. lately.
Stop doing it here where basically everyone already agrees with you and no one is going to do anything about it.
Althouse's blog is much more widely read than just by its commenters. These ideas need to be pushed up into the national conversation. If it is apropos to a post, there is no reason not to point out hypocrisy on the part of the media.
Remember when Barry was imprisoned for refusing to enforce DOMA when it was the law of the land? Me either.
I'm Christian but I'm not...homophobic
What rights would an atheist or humanist arguing "conscience" have in a similar situation? Religious discrimination in this country is far rifer than racism.
Sunsong...i honestly tried to watch your video but when it turned into a Bennenton ad I turned it off. So I can honestly say I have ni idea which side of the aisle you come down on. The Constitutionalist, or the "I'm Stephen Bryer and I feel constipated this morning so I'm gonna rule out my ass".
Here's my two cents,(add $6 to get a cup of Starbucks). Being Christian by definition means not being homophobic. That ol' "love the sinner, not the sin" schtick. What progs fail to realize, because everything is about them, and their feelings, is that it isn't a schtick.
The biggest problem with the USSC is that conservatives are NOT represented. The progressives of the court,and we know who they are, all rule along the progressive liberal agenda. period. Then there are the so called "moderates" like Bryer, who just make shit up as they go along. I owuld include Roberts in this group as well. The few actual conservatives DON'T rule along the conservative agenda. They actually do what the court is supposed to do. They rule whether something is constitutional or not. That's the lens they view it through.
The courts hegemony of rule is such that only a conservative government could challenge it. Unfortunately, we only have the Republican party. This country is heading to socialism with no hand on the brake.
"Blogger sunsong said...
I'm Christian but I'm not...homophobic"
Hilarious. I'm sure you missed the devastating takedown of this virtue signaling video.
They cheerfully reminded God and others that they weren’t homophobic or closeminded, or uneducated, or judgmental, or placing themselves on pedestals. Featured respondents proudly announced they fasted twice a week were “queer” or “feminist!” or listened to Beyonce. One said she wished people knew that “Just because we prescribe [sic] to a faith that has some really terrible people in it doesn’t make all of us terrible,” followed by someone saying that “love is the most important thing.”
It was easily the most unintentionally hilarious, if shockingly bigoted, BuzzFeed video ever produced.
Nice move, exlax.
jimbino: "What rights would an atheist or humanist arguing "conscience" have in a similar situation? Religious discrimination in this country is far rifer than racism."
Noooooboooooody knooooooooooows, the trouble he's seeeeeeeeeeeeen, noooooooboooooody knooooooooooows jimbino's sorrrrrrroooooooooooowwwww.....
I'm Christian but I'm not...homophobic
Christians aren't anyways.
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
It's why we also deal with adulterers --- because what you DID is bad but YOU, yourself, can be saved regardless.
I love seeing religious illiterates trying to grasp that.
tim maguire said...
Levi Starks said...Sanctuary cities violate my right ton live in a nation that is ruled by the rule of law. M
As I understand it, sanctuary cities are cities that do not help the federal government deport illegal aliens. What does that have to do with the rule of law? What is their obligation? What is the source of that obligation?
---------------------------------------------------------------
When the mayors take the oath of office there is always some mention of upholding the laws and Constitution of the US.
What part of the oaths of office is unclear?
Where is 'love the sinner, hate the sin' stand with Kim Davis?
Not a lot of love for the sinner if they are gay couples.
Where is 'love the sinner, hate the sin' stand with Kim Davis?
Not a lot of love for the sinner if they are gay couples.
Not seeing the hatred for the sinner. She disapproves of homosexual conduct. If the gays wanted to marry the opposite sex, she wouldn't care.
You still seem baffled by the concept of the action and the person taking the action not being one in the same.
But Christians are the "rubes"...
"No solution, but some of the leverage of empathy for Davis is lost." -- Althouse
Bullshit.
One time, I yelled at my daughter to stop as she was about to walk into the street.
She asked me "Why do you hate me daddy?"
Will she fire her deputies who issued marriage licenses in her absence?
Fascinating question!
Wish I'd thought of it.
Who would Jesus fire?
Mark said...
Where is 'love the sinner, hate the sin' stand with Kim Davis?
Not a lot of love for the sinner if they are gay couples.
No where, does it say that as a Christian that you have to help the sinner sin.
They cheerfully reminded God and others that they weren’t homophobic or closeminded, or uneducated, or judgmental, or placing themselves on pedestals. Featured respondents proudly announced they fasted twice a week were “queer” or “feminist!” or listened to Beyonce. One said she wished people knew that “Just because we prescribe [sic] to a faith that has some really terrible people in it doesn’t make all of us terrible,” followed by someone saying that “love is the most important thing.”
It was easily the most unintentionally hilarious, if shockingly bigoted, BuzzFeed video ever produced.
That's not a take down, that's a delusion, typical of the far right. These ARE terrible people - folks like Huckabee, Cruz, Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer, Jindal etc. They are NOT about love, they are about control. In fact they are so far from love, it is a tragedy. These are folks who love to criticize and judge and yet nearly lose it when the tables are turned :-) Kasich and Nikki Haley and others, I think, truly do love other people.
I am hopeful to see loving Christians distance themselves from the terrible ones who are so like the Pharisees of old. Perhaps it won't be long and people will be asked to explain what kind of "Christian" they are :-)
Witness said...
"One time, I yelled at my daughter to stop as she was about to walk into the street."
Was a car/truck/bus coming? Perhaps you were hallucinating? Or did you just enjoy yelling and trying to control your daughter because she was, in your opinion, too much like her mother?
Keep going on about the rule of law progressives. You have been flouting it for decades. Sanctuary cities, bureaucratic shenanigans on CC permits after the Heller decision, email servers and clearances, selling guns to Mexican Cartels who used them to kill hundreds of Mexicans, freezing the reported national debt.
You should just leave.
"They are NOT about love, they are about control."
Marriage is a societal recognition and approval of two people becoming one in the eyes of that society.
If that society doesn't *want* to recognize or approve of it, that's not forcing anything on those two people that they have any right to, which is the approval of others.
Those two people forcing individual in the society to recognize (and now participate) in something they don't want to, THAT is about control.
"Love the sinner, hate the sin."
We don't need or want your Christian love; we do want not to suffer any penalties for all those things Christians consider sin. We'd prefer "leave the sinner alone, tolerate the sin."
When the libtards leave Christians alone instead of jailing them for not signing something, or suing them into penury for not making cupcakes, or doing floral displays, or taking photos, etc., etc., etc., then maybe we can discuss it. Until then, no deal.
"It's why we also deal with adulterers --- because what you DID is bad but YOU, yourself, can be saved regardless.
I love seeing religious illiterates trying to grasp that."
Atheists who have only a superficial grasp of chritianity only get the part about the "let he who is without sin cst the first stone" But they never mention that Jesus then turned to the woman and said "now go and sin no more". He wasn't devoid of judgement. He just didn't think she should be stoned for her sin. But being spared he was telling her, she did in fact sin, so stop doing it.
Sympathy? I never had any sort of sympathy for her. Grandstanding on her part, she wanted and needed to be treated like at martyr.
Do your job or resign.
Vicki from Pasadena
@Jason, it's a ginned-up war between gays and Christians for purposes of locking gays firmly into the Democrat coalition. Nothing more. The way to end it is for Christian Democrats to send their campaign contributions and their votes to Republicans as a way to send a message to Wasserman-Schultz and her cronies.
@Vicki from Pasadena, Barack Obama first. He also needs to do his job or resign.
LarsPorsena said...
tim maguire said...
Levi Starks said...Sanctuary cities violate my right ton live in a nation that is ruled by the rule of law. M
As I understand it, sanctuary cities are cities that do not help the federal government deport illegal aliens. What does that have to do with the rule of law? What is their obligation? What is the source of that obligation?
---------------------------------------------------------------
When the mayors take the oath of office there is always some mention of upholding the laws and Constitution of the US.
What part of the oaths of office is unclear?
9/8/15, 3:57 PM"
I believe the relevant term and crime is obstruction of justice. While State and local government can't be commandeered to uphold Federal law those governments do not have the right to obstruct federal law enforcement. Funny I don't see Obama going after State and local officials whose actions impede the federal government implementing immigration law or in the MJ legal states with respects to MJ laws. One county official refusing to grant marriage certificates merits the wrath of the federal courts. The executive branch lying to Congress, obstructing justice and State and local governments willfully obstructing justice, not so much.
The CNBC panel on terrible Kim went from 4 sourpuss faces with no life saying she is a nothing to a video of Kim smiling and exulting in love and thankfulness of the crowd there to honor her.
It was like seeing 1Peter4:14 fulfilled in our presence, again. The gist of Peter's scripture is that when Christians are despised and slandered for Jesus, that the Glory of God will rest upon them. The Glory of God is a big damn deal.
what a hero...
I am an atheist. I am deeply afraid for my freedom. When a judge can jail an elected official for not complying with a judicially decreed Constitutional Amendment, then we have eviscerated the separation of powers. The judicial branch is now law maker, law interpreter, and law enforcer.
This episode could have been easily resolved without jailing anyone. There was no emergency. No one was dying. Alternate methods of getting "married" were easily obtained.
But the judiciary will not permit any heresy or opposition to their diktats. They will amend the Constitution, process be damned. And if you don't comply because compliance is contrary to your beliefs, you will be jailed. This is a dangerous precedent, and the large number of people supporting this unnecessary power grab frighten me.
The frequency of leftists deriding this woman for four divorces is laughable. It's insulting to our intelligence and it distracts from the real issue of an oppressive judiciary. Even the first amendment argument distracts from the real issue.
She holds an electable office. If you don't like how she applies her religious beliefs to help her carry out the duties of her office, elect someone else. That's how democracy works. It's not hard.
oh yes, the idea that marriage between a man and a woman is strictly a religious belief.....
From 2001 from Cornell's Progressive Policy Institute
"Public policy concerns about the decline of marriage as an institution are not new.
What is new is that both conservatives and liberals seem increasingly prepared to act in concrete ways to encourage marriage and to prevent divorce. This willingness to act is no longer viewed as part of a narrow family agenda of the religious right or of political conservatives, but one increasingly embraced by centrist Democrats, family and child advocacy groups, and progressive social scientists and public policy analysts. Whether the new marriage agenda takes the form of eliminating the “marriage penalty” in the U.S. tax code, promoting covenant marriages that make divorce more difficult legally (as is the case in Louisiana), or developing marriage enrichment or pre-marital counseling programs, the message is clear: The government is no longer willing to let the health and well-being of America’s children, youth, and families to chance. This pro-marriage agenda has taken center stage in the debate over the reauthorization of PRWORA. "
You know... this whole gay marriage thing may have actual points, but in terms of the cultural wars is has nothing to do about gay people or public policy. It's about bashing Christians claiming they are imposing religion.
I think the part that upsets me the most, the most vocal in social media live nicely segregated in pristine suburbs where 90% of the kids live with their mom and dad, with their country club memberships.
Highest ranking comment is by somebody who apparently doesn't know much about the case. Hey, it's NBC.
Stop it with the Sanctuary cities folks. That is a deflection. All it means is law enforcement cannot ASK to see papers. Since this is America not Nazi Germany that's a good policy to have. Would you like to live some place where the cops come knocking on your door asking for papers?
Anyway, this is about a clerk who refuses because of religious liberty to let anyone in her county issue marriage licenses in her name. Religious liberty ends where discrimination begins. She needs to get a new job. I guess she can do that now because she'll get a TV show and / or a book deal soon. And it best be soon because the political jackals like Huckabee and Cruz will only be by her side as long as it gives them a boost in ratings.
"Stop it with the Sanctuary cities folks. That is a deflection. All it means is law enforcement cannot ASK to see papers."
Actually, at least in San Fran, it meant that city officials actively refused to honor requests to hold illegal aliens who had been arrested. The officials would only do so if an actual court order was issued, by which time the criminal had already been released.
Anyway, it's always entertaining seeing all the brand new theologians out there whenever a matter concerning religion comes into the public view.
"These are folks who love to criticize and judge and yet nearly lose it when the tables are turned"
Any mirrors in your house? Looked in one lately?
The real victim here was a great song badly used.
Christopher said...
"Stop it with the Sanctuary cities folks. That is a deflection. All it means is law enforcement cannot ASK to see papers."
Yes lets see the left turn apoplectic if and when the next Republican President and Congress withhold federal aid to states and cities that have sanctuary policies and deny their respective taxes being deductible from their resident's federal income taxes.
Let's see how how stand up in principle those elected local officials are if and when they can be sued personally for intentionally not cooperating with the federal government in detaining arrested illegal aliens for the damages those aliens have committed.
I thought they cut your hair in prison.
Video: Kim Davis spikes the ball, in a display of Christian humility.
Those damn Democrats, always flaunting the law.
sunsong said...
I'm Christian but I'm not...homophobic
The very term "homophobic" is deeply pernicious and indicates either hate or disgust with those who disagree with you.
Very loving, indeed.
machine: "what a hero..."
Well done machine. 3 words. Tops. It will help keep you on firmer rhetorical footing.
It's good to know your limits.
EMD: "Those damn Democrats, always flaunting the law."
I think you meant the dems have no problem whatsoever flaunting the fact that they are flouting the law.
From the DNC's POV, this is peaking way too early.
OTOH, it's very likely that the cons will be serving up plenty of this stuff closer to the election. Especially w/ BHO pushing the buttons.
"that's a delusion, typical of the far right."
Amusing knee jerk. Do you have to practice that or is it subcortical ?
BTW, does anyone know how many opinions Walker's had, regarding this issue?
It's been a few days, so I'm assuming he's had two. Or, maybe he's decided to punt. That's the smart move. Walker = genius.
Kim Davis is "the Congress"? Which shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion? I thought she was an obscure KY Democrats clerk.
Kim Davis is "the Congress"? Which shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion? I thought she was an obscure KY Democrats clerk.
"Kim Davis is "the Congress"? Which shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion? I thought she was an obscure KY Democrats clerk."
Basil just discovered a loophole: Davis can, single handedly, makeup religious laws that suit her.
Cool.
Does this loophole also apply to Muslims?
Con Law professors everywhere must be cheering. This makes Marbury v. Madison so much easier to teach (and for students to care about and therefore read).
For those jumping to her defense, consider the hypothetical pacifist sheriff who refuses to issue concealed-carry permits as required by law.
PBandJ_LeDouanier: Does this loophole also apply to Muslims?
Sadly, almost certainly. But just them.
steve uhr: For those jumping to her defense, consider the hypothetical pacifist sheriff who refuses to issue concealed-carry permits as required by law.
Yeah, except they do that already and get away with it.
Rule of Law has to apply to all scenarios or it is not Rule of Law.
Static -- Well said.
One analysis I have seen, explains that the precedent established by SCOTUS requires employers to accommodate employees religous practices. Meeting a list of bench marks.
In this case, all that was asked for, is the county recorders name be removed from the license.
In this case the Federal judge was not using the laws, statutes, and precedent to come to a ruling. Instead the judge abused his power by jailing a person, rather than the mush less radical solution of just removing the county recorders name from the license. But that would never have made the judge part of the story.
Also as has been mentioned repeatedly. No one was jailed for breaking the law and issuing marriage licenses in California. It's almost like the 'laws of the land' aren't being applied equally, depending on political affiliation.
Ping, my thought also. Just try to buy a gun in Chicago.
Facts are some SCOTUS decisions are more important than others. An enumerated constitutional civil right carries little weight, as compared to invented constitutional rights, that according to a certain Constitutional Law Professor, turned President, who stated clearly that 'from a constitutional standpoint, marriage is a states right issue, not federal.
If it were a true Quaker or other religious pacifist it would not be a problem. That would be easy to work out in a state with a RFRA statute, especially. And yes, dummy, that applies to Muslim conscientious objectors, too.
The problem is that the sherriffs and other officials refusing to issue gun permits are not religious pacifists who would be members of a protected class, but garden-variety libtards taking the law unto themselves, with no ulterior motivation except to slake their unending thirst for fascism and control.
Do not conflate the two.
This is all confusion from a bad SC decision in the 60s, where freedom of association in commerce was killed in favor of a new freedom from discrimination.
That ought to have been done only in noncompetitive markets. Blacks' freedom to engage in gains from voluntary trade was killed off by monopoly or monopolistic private actions, not by free markets.
If freedom of association, i.e. to engage in voluntary trades, hadn't been trumped so stupidly, religion would never have come up as what trumped coerced trade, e.g. photographers and bakers. They would simply have served who they wanted, with no religion about it.
The opposition of religion to SSM as a viable exception is then automatically assumed to be the standard controversy, replacing first principles that clarify the situation.
The clerk was something that called for impeachment, not religion, to settle it. But now it's a stand-in for whatever can oppose the idiotic SSM decree from the SC.
Who will reason their way out of it now.
When the left discovers the majesty of the rule of law, it's always pure comedy gold.
"Ping, my thought also. Just try to buy a gun in Chicago."
Right, it's a real shame there's no National....Association that would be on a hair trigger to fight even the slightest perceived legal affront to the right to keep and bear arms. Presumably this sort of National....Association could also operate in DC.
Ha ha.
PBandJ
The point you so assiduously avoid, is despite SCOTUS decision in Mcdonald. Elected officials refuse to issue the proper permits to purchase and posses arms........and judges haven't jailed a single elected official.
But
RULE OF LAW!
iowan2,
What the court giveth, the court can taketh away. That is, keep moving the litigation until you reach the not-inferior court.
[Btw, I do realize that the NRA was nervous about Heller putting too much on the table, too soon. But, it's any easy shorthand for gun-lawyers-with-unlimited-pockets. Lots of those around.]
You folks fussing about Chicago do realize that it's quite new that the USSC decided to definitively makeup this new right. Right? Hence, then NRA's nervousness about pushing for an answer.
The right says this new right is right, but the new right to marry is wrong. And, vice versa.
Who knows what USSC rights may result, or disappear, after the 2016 election results?
The NRA has no interest in defending gun rights in court. Their interest is solely to collect money from gun owners and use it to wine and dine legislators. If the right were understood to be unarguable the NRA would have no reason to exist.
It's too bad this woman isn't more attractive because she could have a Sarah Palin kind of payday ahead of her if she were. After milking the publicity for awhile she could resign a la Palin and then hit the book / reality show / talking head circuit and make a bundle. She'll probably still do that but not with the kind of money Sarah raked in.
Congruence ("=") with an arbitrary but selective modulus is the law of the land. Pro-choice doctrine continues to be upheld by the State. Even after exposure of mass human rights violations at Planned Parenthood, and the abortion industry generally, people are still not concerned about the Court's ruling for selective exclusion.
WWJD? Mark 12:13-17, Matthew 22:20-22, Luke 20:19-26
PBandJ_LeDouanier said...
What the court giveth, the court can taketh away. That is, keep moving the litigation until you reach the not-inferior court.
This is why it remains important to change hearts and minds and not to hunt down pockets of "intolerance" and either jail or fine deliberate targets. Gaystapo tactics, like the original Gestapo tactics, will undermine peace, justice, love, and understanding -- in other words--they backfire. Voters will ultimately affect fickle courts. .
gadfly said...
WWJD? Mark 12:13-17, Matthew 22:20-22, Luke 20:19-26
-------------------
EpicFail 1: 2-3
"Kim Davis' opposition to gay marriage is a religious belief and should not be imposed on others through her state position."
So much for "Thou Shall Not Kill."
Remember, this is an elected official that the courts threw in jail for contempt. There is no criminal penalty imposed by any legislature. There was no one burdened by her refusal to comply. There was no emergency such that people would be killed or maimed by any delay.
The court could have ruled that the state or county had to revise their system of issuing marriage licenses. That was the most obvious and least harmful response.
But the court had to make sure everyone would fear their power to enforce laws.
Separation of powers is a dead article. Just toss it on the pile with the tenth amendment.
'Gaystapo' lol. I bet they have sparkle boots and quite the uniform.
I hope Althouse mocks this as much as she mocked the idiot with the Walker as Hitler sign. Invoking the Nazis to try to win an argument is a sure sign of desperation in a guaranteed losing situation. Enjoy flinging poo now that you lost the argument.
I bet the Gaystapo look FABULOUS
""The congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion."
How would this be an example of that. CONGRESS shall make no law. Did congress make a law? Establishment of religion. Would her refusing to issue a license establish a religion?
The basis for the argument is completely without merit. Shut up, liberal atheist.
You may have a basis to make an argument against Kim Davis, but that aint it.
Matt wrote:
Stop it with the Sanctuary cities folks. That is a deflection. All it means is law enforcement cannot ASK to see papers. Since this is America not Nazi Germany that's a good policy to have. Would you like to live some place where the cops come knocking on your door asking for papers?
Fuck off. Just like a leftist to equate following the law with Nazi Germany.
This is not nazi America, but it is rapidly becoming communist America. Hope and change, you know. Fundamental transformation.
That's not a take down, that's a delusion, typical of the far right. These ARE terrible people - folks like Huckabee, Cruz, Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer, Jindal etc. They are NOT about love, they are about control.
As opposed to Progressives, who don't seek control of anything...
Cruz is all about business owners being able to run their business as they see fit.
We don't need or want your Christian love; we do want not to suffer any penalties for all those things Christians consider sin. We'd prefer "leave the sinner alone, tolerate the sin."
You're aware that before Christian ethics, slavery was not viewed as a wrong thing at all by almost all societies, right? Without faith in God, there is zero reason to believe that all humans are born equal.
Anyway, this is about a clerk who refuses because of religious liberty to let anyone in her county issue marriage licenses in her name.
Why can't the law be changed to remove an official's name from the license? Her name is there and, no, I wouldn't let somebody use MY name for anything I didn't approve, either.
For those jumping to her defense, consider the hypothetical pacifist sheriff who refuses to issue concealed-carry permits as required by law.
I've not seen anybody saying she should keep her job if she will not do it.
And it happens. A lot. And nothing happens. Why should I abide by the law when the people who pass and demand the law won't do the same?
Right, it's a real shame there's no National....Association that would be on a hair trigger to fight even the slightest perceived legal affront to the right to keep and bear arms. Presumably this sort of National....Association could also operate in DC.
But why should it be necessary, if the "rule of law" is tantamount to Progressives?
Your side is killing that in this country. People are watching Progressives regularly ignore laws they claim to support (i.e Rangel ignoring tax law he HELPED WRITE) and begin to wonder why they should be held to a higher standard than the dude passing the law in the first place.
You folks fussing about Chicago do realize that it's quite new that the USSC decided to definitively makeup this new right. Right? Hence, then NRA's nervousness about pushing for an answer.
This new "right" is called the Second Amendment. Pretty explicitly stated in there. Gay marriage? I missed that Amendment that called for it.
"You know... this whole gay marriage thing may have actual points, but in terms of the cultural wars is has nothing to do about gay people or public policy. It's about bashing Christians claiming they are imposing religion."
The idea that man woman marriage is a religious imposition is ludicrous. It's the most common marriage framework across all societies because it's based on biology. Men and women make the babies. And society wants the parents to raise the kids. that is a common sensical argument that christianity agrees with. But it doesn't mean that it was imposed because it was christian.
What is going to happen when the courts find that Kim Davis has not followed their mandate and she has to go back to jail? It is very likely that the same people that are keeping certain ranchers in business will show up openly armed daring the marshals to come and get her if the judge decides that she needs to go back to jail. It doesn't help her case that she is already publically defiant.
If Kim Davis were a baker, she'd probably have a good defense, but she is a government official bound by law to issue licenses (she was sued because, among other things, she refused to issue any licenses to anyone) under her name. The governor could demand an extraordinary session of the KY legislature which could result in changing the law about names, impeachment, nothing, or even the abolishment of marriage in the state. This is unlikely just because of the cost and time needed to setup and follow through, especially since the legislature will be back in business soon.
The federal court only has three choices in this matter if she refuses to follow the ruling (which is a civil matter, after all): re-jail, fine, or nothing. If the worst scenario occurs, we might be looking at the Commonwealth of KY bringing out the National Guard due to insurrection. And in spite of all this, it is very likely that she will be re-elected - I'm sure everyone in the county has been privy to her life and really don't care. Her family has been officials in the county for three generations.
While there are plenty of issues to go around, this is a tempest in a teapot. The honorable thing to do is to resign then run for election again after the legislature has met and resolved the issues.
@jr565
And how many times have you & I been berated that marriage & sex has NOTHING to do with getting pregnant and raising children???
Meanwhile we all deal with if not ourselves, friends & family, struggling with coparenting custody arrangements, single parents left to do it on their own, or left with the even crappier option of abortion.
Oh so don't get me on the suburban pleastantvilles that all have three car garages and a mom & dad, boast proudly for gay marriage, but there isn't barely a poor person/fatherless child, except for the poor exwife clinging onto the marital home she can't really afford even with the alimony check/child support.
Let it go lady, get a condo. It's the pension, not the home you should of taken.
Actually, that she's not a baker but an elected official makes it even more wrong to jail her. It's a political issue, not a criminal issue. Jailing elected officials for how they do their job is repugnant to our form of government.
What are they going to do? Keep her in jail until her term expires? What if she is re-elected? Keep her in jail indefinitely?
This is madness. There is a political solution. Her job entails more than just signing a marriage certificate and the people of her county elected her to do all those things. The solution is for the judge to order anyone wanting to be "married" to be "married." That's a lot easier than jailing people.
This is not a first amendment problem. This is not a homosexual marriage problem. This is a separation of powers problem. And the judicial branch has become totalitarian.
"Actually, that she's not a baker but an elected official makes it even more wrong to jail her. It's a political issue, not a criminal issue. Jailing elected officials for how they do their job is repugnant to our form of government."
I don't know whether jailing her is the best route, depending on what their alternatives are, but elected official or not she does have to fulfill the functions of her job and here she's specifically deciding that for a certain class of people she will not do that. If the issue is her name on the stamp, then maybe she could have requested that her deputy do these approvals in an "acting" capacity (same as if she were out sick for a while). But apparently she refused to let her deputies step in.
So this is a case of a county clerk deciding that due to her religion, she will not execute a non-trivial function of her job, refuses to step down, and refuses to even allow an accommodation. She simply can't bear the idea of government legitimizing gay marriage, and is fine abusing her authority for this.
Yes, I'm sure her defenders like Ted "Please Pay Attention to Me" Cruz and Mike "Redundant" Huckabee would also be rushing to defend a Muslim health inspector who refuses to approve a BBQ joint (because they really care about freedom of religion, don't you know). It's also been pointed out about 100 times that the Left appears pretty selective about officials following the law (e.g., sanctuary cities). But for those of us who have been consistent on the issue, it's a dangerous thing when government is able to abuse its power to meet partisan ends and they still find cheerleaders who are happy to excuse it when it's their own side. It basically announces that we no longer favor the rule of law, but only the rule of law when we agree with the substance of the law and "our side" gets to win.
Enjoy the decline!
The problem with the County Clerk is she does not realize that her job is to certify a piece of paper, not a marriage.
She has no authority to deny a marriage that meets legal criteria; marriage licenses are not "May Issue" like some states do concealed handgun carry licenses.
She should be fired not only for violation of a legal court order, but for usurpation of authorities not granted to her under law, malfeasance in office for refusal to perform her job functions, and misuse of her office.
Leave religion out of this; she has a complete misunderstanding of her job, which should be replaced by an online form filled out by the marriage partners and immediately printable by them.
After the bombs fall on Tel Aviv, the Obama migration wave has swamped Brussels, and Black Lives Matter troops have burned Madison, Wisconsin, will any of this matter?
Back in Massachusetts the legislature first must vote to put marriage on the ballot after the signature collection, which eventually never happened.
But all my progressive friends demanding the elected officials ABSTAIN from voting, if their conscience believe against gay marriage.
So ten years ago, Democrats that did not support gay marriage were told to ABSTAIN from doing their elected duties.
sigh.
"Section 233A. Valid or recognized marriage - Legal status of unmarried individuals. Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized."
That is the written Constitution of Kentucky, which the county clerks and other elected Kentucky officials swear allegiance to. The Supreme Court, in invalidating that definition, did not rewrite the Kentucky Constitution. I would argue, at this point, there is no marriage in Kentucky at all, since the Kentucky Constitution defines marriage, and the Supreme Court has invalidated that definition. The Supreme Court does not have the power to alter the actual wording of State Constitutions.
County clerks in KY are elected. Let's suppose, just for a moment, that a bunch of county clerk candidates in the next election vow not to marry same sex couples. And the people of KY, who voted 71% for that definition of marriage to be included in their constitution, elect them. And they follow through What do the courts do next. Throw the people of KY in jail? Invalidate the elections? Establish a judicial tyranny?
"County clerks in KY are elected. Let's suppose, just for a moment, that a bunch of county clerk candidates in the next election vow not to marry same sex couples. And the people of KY, who voted 71% for that definition of marriage to be included in their constitution, elect them. And they follow through What do the courts do next. Throw the people of KY in jail? Invalidate the elections? Establish a judicial tyranny?"
Pretty much, yeah.
Gavin Newsome literally had his clerks rewrite the marriage licenses, so that gays could marry in his state. So, dont' really want to hear from proponents of gay marriage about not following law, unless they were telling Gavin to stop with the lawlessness.
He did the same on immigration law, and again, silence.
mikee wrote:
She should be fired not only for violation of a legal court order, but for usurpation of authorities not granted to her under law, malfeasance in office for refusal to perform her job functions, and misuse of her office.
Leave religion out of this; she has a complete misunderstanding of her job, which should be replaced by an online form filled out by the marriage partners and immediately printable by them.
Simple question. Do you hold Gavin Newsome to the same standard. Did he abuse or misuse his office, and should he have been impeached, fired, or otherwise Do you think the left was wrong to give him a pass, because they liked the result?
How is any elected official who supported Gavin's actions different than, say, Mike Huckabee?
mikee,
Or take Jerry Brown. He was AG in CA. He REFUSED to defend prop 8 which was the law of the state. That is his job. And because he didn't do so, those who had to plead the case in his stead, were left unable to do so because they didn't have standing.
Harold,
Kim Davis took an oath (per KY Constitution 228) to defend the Constitution of Kentucky and the Constitution of the United States. Obergefall over rules the KY constitution in this case. According to Eugene Volokh her lawyers are asking for relief under the Kentucky Religious Restoration Act but this has nothing to do with the federal courts and they will have to apply to a state court for that.
Judge Bunning let her go because the mandates of his order were met - the couples involved got their licences and he felt that as long as she complied with the order, she should be free. According to her lawyers they are looking to the KY RRA for the way out.
In KY, in the absence of a county clerk, the county judge can issue the licences which may be another way out.
In addition to the 228 oath she took she also took another oath to fulfill her job as required by the law. Both of these oaths invoked the name of God (I assume she took and oath and not an affirmation) so they are sacred oaths. She needs to do her job, or get the relief from the state, or resign and run again after the Assembly meets again in 2016 and changes the law. She should win, her family has been serving Rowan County for three generations and in a small community like that everyone knows her history.
"Simple question. Do you hold Gavin Newsome to the same standard. Did he abuse or misuse his office, and should he have been impeached, fired, or otherwise Do you think the left was wrong to give him a pass, because they liked the result?"
Yes. Newsome exceeded his authority and should have been punished. That doesn't make Kim Davis any less an authority-abusing public servant.
"How is any elected official who supported Gavin's actions different than, say, Mike Huckabee?"
They're not, and I wouldn't plan to vote for them either. Anyone wanting to be president who makes it clear that the law only matters when it works in their favor is a dangerous demagogue and should never be allowed in charge of anything. This goes for Ted Cruz who as a former Supreme Court Law Clerk should know better and set a better example.
I've criticized Donald Trump a lot, but to his credit he hasn't tried to condone what this woman has done.
In game theory, reciprocity or tit-for-tat is definitely one of the most reliable and consistent strategies. In the end, it always works.
Is that getting one's hands dirty? Maybe it's time. I really wish I thought this was going to go the other way. I think I don't anymore. Something good needs to happen and that would not be more of what we've been getting lately.
Bush 41 should have been reelected...talk about bending the arc of history. How I wish that Cheney was in health now. Pygmies. Some may be well enough in their way but no one in the race on either side to approach his coattails.
Mikeyes wrote, "Obergefall over rules the KY constitution in this case."
I disagree. Obergefall illegally amended the constitution. The Article III Courts do not have the authority to amend the Constitution. The method of amending the Constitution is spelled out very clearly. Nowhere does it say that the Court may create new rights out of thin air.
It's been common for the executive branch to be corrupt. It's become common for the legislative branch to be corrupt. There is no longer any question that the Roberts Court has become corrupt.
Were I the Governor of Texas, I would have made a statement after that last Obamacare decision and thanked the court for ruling in our favor. If they can say "the feds may not establish an exchange" actually means "the feds may establish an exchange" then the governor should be able to decide that when the Court says yes, then they mean no.
The Court has squandered all vestige of their authority and none should pay it any attention. It's high time the states took on the role of interpreting the Constitution too.
Skyler,
I thought this was a law blog and assumed that those participating had some knowledge about the law. SCOTUS did not amend the Constituion because a) as you point out, a) there is a method to do this and b) The Constitution does not define marriage. What the Constitution does have is the 14th and 1st Amendments. Kim Davis is an elected official, i.e. she is the government, and in KY has a special place that is more protected than the county judges are. In other words she is the enetity that the 1st Amendment protects us from.
Since she tried to impose her religious beliefs on the citizens who sued her, she lost and when she refused to follow the Constitutional mandate of the 1st Amendment, which she took a sacred oath to defend, she was placed in civil contempt. If she continues to do so, she may be in criminal contempt which will put her in federal prison.
In addition we fought a Civil War over the concept of federal constitutional supremacy and there have been several SCOTUS decisions concerning this and each time the US Constitution trumps the state constitutions. It's all standard law that has been around for centuries.
If states could ignore the Constitution, then chaos would reign. The same is true of individuals but in this case Kim Davis was acting as the state in her role of county clerk.
The remedy, as you point out, is to amend the Constitution, but that is as unlikely as changing the 2nd Amendment. The other remedy is to vote in a conservative president who will appoint at least 2 Justices in the next 6 years. That is the conservative way, not anarchy as you propose.
Mikeyes, if you think when the 14th Amendment was written that anyone in their right brain imagined it would allow anyone to FORCE the states to allow homosexuals to be married, then you have no sense of history, or sense at all.
Kim Davis did not impose her religious beliefs on anyone. Her defiance could have been handled several other ways. There was no need to imprison this woman, that was the district court shoving us around making sure that everyone knows that they will enforce their laws. I remember a time when most Americans knew of the separation of powers, where the legislature makes the laws, judges rule on the nuances of the law, and the executive power enforced the law.
Jailing Kim Davis was an abuse of the authority of the court.
I absolutely believe that the Supreme Court is out of control and the three branches of the federal government have managed to eliminate any power by the state governments. Not even the Civil War intended that result.
I don't propose anarchy. We already have its opposite, federal regulation of every aspect of our lives, from the size of our toilets, to the number of aphids allowed on a head of lettuce (6, last time I checked). We surely do not have freedom anymore.
We don't need anarchy. What we need is a governor, not some county district clerk, to say "this is the line." I'd like to see a District Court try to put a governor in jail for contempt.
Were the Supreme Court to rule that up is down and out is in, would there be no remedy? No sanity to correct them? Well, they have done so. They have ruled that the federal government is allowed to tax us if we don't buy broccoli (or health insurance, whatever). They have ruled that not being allowed to establish exchanges means must establish exchanges. They have ruled that an Amendment to protect people recovering from slavery and oppression because of their skin color means that homosexuals must be allowed to be married.
The solution is NOT to appoint a different set of justices that rule on the basis of their whims. The solution is to check them and refuse to follow them until such time as they abide by the plain meaning of the law.
The Constitution does not give the Court the power to determine constitutionality exclusively. All branches have that responsibility, as do the states. That the Civil War robbed the states of that inalienable right of sovereignty does not mean that they shouldn't continue to exercise it when necessary.
Skyler,
Yet, in spite of your objections, this is the law and judges have been jailing people forever for civil and criminal contempt. To suggest that the rule of law is wrong is to endorse anarchy. If you don't like what is going on (and I am not saying that I do, by the way) then there are legal remedies which include the court system. A good example is the Heller decision - for years those of us who thought that the 2nd Amendment gave us the right to own weapons were frustrated and while this is still an ongoing process, it is working out to my satisfaction. But it took a lot of work, money and time to happen as per the US Constitution.
If you want to limit the power of the Judicial branch, you will have to amend the Constitution. If you want the various states to be sovereign you may have to call another constitutional convention as that matter seems to have been settled, much to my ancestors woe. The process of Obergefall was hardly a whim on the part of SCOTUS, unless you want to call Heller a whim too. This process took years in the courts, many comments from the legislative and judicial branches (including several presidents who opposed gay marriage) and a sea change in the polled opinions of the general population.
The bottom line is that Kim Davis is still a state actor. As you point out, KY banned same sex marriage but it also has laws that require that the license has to be obtained in the county of the female's residence and Davis would not issue that license to one of the couples that sued her based on her own religious beliefs (something she continues to state.) This constitutes the imposition of religion on these opposite sex couples, something clearly a violation of their rights under the 1st Amendment.
If you don't like the way the 14th Amendment is being administered by the Executive branch and ruled upon by the courts, you have a way to change it, but good luck. As I pointed out above, the conservative way to change is to follow the rules as laid out in the Constitution. We don't always agree with what is going on, but we have a basis for the rule of law and a way to amend it if needed. There have been untenable provisions in the Constitution (slavery, prohibition, method of national elections, etc.) that have been successfully changed.
I don't recall elected officials being jailed for not obeying a court order to follow a law passed solely by a court. Tell me when that has happened.
No, to limit judicial power only takes people to ignore them. They are not supposed to have the power to enforce laws. They can use contempt power to require delivery of documents, compel certain behavior related to court procedures, but contempt power is not intended to enforce laws. Did she have a jury decision before this law was applied to her? Did the legislature create criminal penalties for not following this law? Of course not, the legislature didn't even make this law.
This is exactly the situation that separation of powers is intended to prevent. The legislature is supposed to craft the laws. The executive branch is supposed to enforce the law, and the judicial branch is supposed to, with DUE PROCESS, decide whether the law is being correctly applied.
This isn't about homosexuality. This isn't about religion. This is about separation of powers. And the action of this court is dangerous.
"If you don't like the way the 14th Amendment is being administered by the Executive branch and ruled upon by the courts, you have a way to change it,"
My view is that if the court can ignore law, and the president can ignore law, and the congress can ignore law, so can anyone else. I prefer that the state governors do so, because they have more guns than I have. Eventually, if this lawlessness doesn't end, it will go the hard way. Let's hope it doesn't come to anarchy, because anarchy rarely survives long before dictators take charge.
mikeeyes: Know what else is law?
RFRA. Both at the federal level and in Kentucky. As long as you're ignoring the plain requirements of RFRA here - to provide reasonable accommodation to those asserting religious objections to state actions IN THE LEAST INTRUSIVE MANNER POSSIBLE consistent with the aims of government (which ain't gonna involve jailing someone for refusing to sign a form, fascist), then you can take your claims of law and shove them up your ass.
Skyler,
There was no judicial law applied to her, per se, this is a civil action brought on by injured parties asking the court to compel her to do her duty. She refused to grant marriage licenses to anyone in spite of the prevailing KY law and for a reason that violated the 1st Amendment. She refused to do so in spite of a court order and gave as an excuse that God was the authority in this case. This is all within a court's duties and privileges including the civil contempt charges. This is the same reason that deadbeat dads can be jailed for non-support of children, failure to honor a court order.
A quick perusal of google finds that a number of elected officials have been jailed for contempt of court. In this case it was civil contempt which can continue until the plaintiff's rights are restored -which happened so she was released. She was also ordered to fulfill her duties as clerk: to determine if the applicants are legally entitled to a license and to then issue it. If she continues to refuse, she is liable for criminal contempt in which case there will be a federal criminal trial. It is all up to her.
If I remember correctly, the last governor to defy federal law in a civil rights case found the 82nd Airborne Division on his doorstep. There is no excuse for any official to defy the law and your response is a call for anarchy. If you want to do away with the powers of the court, all federal regulation and allow anyone to defy the law if they sincerely believe they are right and should not suffer the consequenses, good luck to you. Change needs to be slow, like Heller, if it is to last.
The case most brought up to rebut the Davis case, namely the SF mayor issuing marriage licenses, stopped when a civil suit was brought and he was ordered to desist. He did. The President recently had a court rule against one of his executive orders and he complied. In order for this type of civil action to be brought, there has to be a plaintiff who has standing. Is there such in the cases you mention?
If the courts do rule that down is up, etc, there is a remedy, impeachment. Such petitions have been circulated in Congress for some of the present Justices, but so far nothing has come of it. I suspect because down is still down so far.
For a reason that violated the 1st amendment?
Laughable.
Wow, look. Five whole paragraphs attacking your imaginary straw man and not a single word addressing RFRA, even after the law had specifically been raised to you.
You don't care about the rule of law, and you certainly don't give a rat's ass about the First Amendment. You want a scalp.
Jason,
It is always a pleasure to read such eloquent discourse.
You are correct, there is a possibility of relief due to the KY state law and it is one of the remedies I recommended above. She would have to file a petition in state court for it to take effect. Thiis still leaves open the Ky state law that makes it a Class A Misdemeanor to not fulfill your duty as a state official and the 1st Amendment rights of the plaintiffs in this civil case.
The issue here is not whether or not her religious rights were not accomdated, but her acting as the state and protection of individual rights of her constitutents. The argument that a Quaker sheriff could not issue a concealed permit in a Shall Issue state, etc. still holds. State actors have to follow the law. She is required to sign the document if the applicants meet the requirements. She did not and was sued. She lost the case and then told the judge she would not comply. By your logic a deadbeat husband could claim an exemption to child support due to religious belief and a judge could not compel him to do so.
By the way, KY does not have a Religous Freedom Act but there is one on the docket for 2016. It's the reason she asked the govenor to call an extraordinary session of the Assembly. Once it is law she can appeal.
Justice Scalia, in a 2002 essay on the death penalty, wrote that a judge who cannot follow the law due to moral or religious conviction should resign. This is her best option right now but I understand that she wants to continue her family's service to Rowan County so she is looking for other ways.
The issue here is not whether or not her religious rights were not accomdated [sic]
That is PRECISELY the issue.
News flash: The plaintiffs in the case are not the only people involved with individual rights.
The argument that a Quaker sheriff could not issue a concealed permit in a Shall Issue state, etc.
Not a problem. Someone else can issue the permit. Why are you making this difficult?
State actors have to follow the law.
Yes. And RFRA is law.
She is required to sign the document if the applicants meet the requirements.
No. Absolutely not. Fuck. That.
The state CANNOT compel any individual to sign his or her signature or seal to anything against his or her religious conscience. No entity in the United States government has that power. Henry VIIIth asserted that power, of course, as St. Thomas More found out. That's why the Founders wrote the Constitution the way they did. It's why Thomas Jefferson wrote the Religious Freedom statute of Virginia the way he did. Specifically to repudiate that odious, offensive and evil concept you embrace.
That way lies the fast track to tyranny.
No.
Full stop.
If you're looking for something I'm willing to go back to the battlefield over, you found it.
Keep jailing Christians, or Jews or Muslims or ANYBODY else for refusing to affix their names to a form, license, confession, affidavit, oath, affirmation or any other document on account of their religious conscience and we'll have some serious issues very fast. The Nevada rancher was nothing.
As I've always said: Scratch a libtard, you'll find a fascist. Every. Time.
Mikeyes, I am intimately familiar with defending men and women in court who are held in contempt for not paying child support. While for some it might be a reasonable approach, what it in fact amounts to is debtor's prison. There is an affirmative defense of "impossibility" to pay but for some judges impossibility is impossible. I believe it is an abuse of the legal system. But even then, contempt for child support at least started with a court order and due process to create the child support obligation -- and there is a child that must be supported who is unable to get relief elsewhere.
Here we have a court creating a new law, then deciding that requiring a clerk to act in a certain way is the only possible way to accommodate that court-created right, and then without any due process throwing the clerk in prison.
Homosexuals have not been allowed to be married in most of this country for more than 200 years. Any homosexuals suddenly discovering a right to have their desire to marry allowed can wait for the country to establish a way to do it that accommodates other long held rights (or petition another county for a license). The court could just as easily decided that the clerk was wrong and directed the legislature to explain why they can't come up with a way to get this done that doesn't infringe on the first amendment. But the court preferred to use its last resort first.
Were I the governor, I would have let her out of jail, seeing as how the jailers work for me. Then what would the court do? Jail the governor? Were I the governor, I might have charged the judge with a crime, say, false imprisonment, just to throw my own weight around.
When courts behave lawlessly, there is no obligation to recognize their authority.
Mikeyes wrote: "A quick perusal of google finds that a number of elected officials have been jailed for contempt of court."
Sure, but my challenge was to find a case where an elected official has been jailed for contempt for not obeying a court created law.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा