Why does KY Clerk still have a job?

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 78 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #13615
    Andy Brown
    Participant

    #13618
    Alfredo_T
    Participant

    Kim Davis’s current husband, Joe Davis, recently told the press that he believes that the government is bullying citizens and that “If we don’t take our country back, we’re going to be in worse shape than this.” Mike Huckabee is planning on starting a “Free Kim Davis” petition.

    Yes, rational people would ask, why doesn’t Kim Davis just quit her job or perform the duties requested of her while using legal means to challenge the gay marriage decision? However, I think that in the minds of Kim Davis and of her supporters, she is like David fighting Goliath or like that guy that stood down the tank in Tiananmen Square in 1989.

    #13647
    edselehr
    Participant

    Right-wing authoritarians in America must be in a tizzy right now, as the country slowly shifts politically leftward and their “good ol’ boys” (in Davis’ case, girls) are either not making the laws, or not olding the reigns of power as they have traditionally.

    The Bush II Administration (most notably Cheney) laid this out starkly: they believed in the “unitarian president”, an person in authority that could override mere “written law” when it conflicted with their own sense of what was right or wrong. From “enhanced interrogation (torture)” to the attempted Terry Schiavo intervention, the right believes that good, God-fearing people should be elected to high office and should have the authority to override the fickle will of the masses, or the oppressive dictates of the federal courts. They believe it is the duty and right of the Kim Davis’s of the world to intercede when the law is wrong – “rule of law” be damned. Remember when Eric Cantor said that the US House of Representatives should be able to pass laws directly, without the Senate or the President? He was not demonstrating ignorance of the Constitution, he was expressing his his full Authoritarian belief that leaders are the ultimate law, not the law itself.

    And the funny thing? These are the exact same people that wave the Constitution in the air when they feel it supports their political position. And they deride Obama for supposed dictatorial actions – because he is the “wrong” leader, not because as president he should not have the authority to do some of the things he does (and Obama is not guiltless in exceeding his authority).

    This to me is the inherent contradiction of the authoritarian right: they don’t mind dictators as long as it’s the *right* dictator. They love Putin; they hate Castro; they despise Obama; they adore Davis. When the right, particularly the religious right, start talking about the rule of law, just laugh it off. It’s a funny-as-hell joke they don’t even know they are telling.

    #13648
    Vitalogy
    Participant

    +1 Ed. Nailed it hard.

    #13717
    Vitalogy
    Participant

    The ingrate is free. Any bets she’s back in jail in 1-2 weeks?

    Also, the average income in Rowan County KY is $13,888. Which means almost 100% of them are on the government tit in one way or another. And if you only make $14K per year, are you really a viable voice for anything?

    #13719
    edselehr
    Participant

    I’m going to give her a small degree of credit – she has been trying to get the governor to issue an executive order that would allow marriage licenses to be issued from her office without her signature (now a legal state requirement) But the governor won’t act, and the soonest the legislature could act would be January.

    In the end, she refuses to do her job, and her job can’t be done by anyone else. She needs to resign.

    Amazing how when Republicans are guilty of official misconduct, giving up their elected seat is always their last option, but if a Democrat does the same resignation is the only option.

    #13742
    Amus
    Participant

    I’m curious about something.
    Maybe someone with connections with the legal system knows.

    Kim Davis’ lawyer from Liberty Counsel, Matt Staver, has vowed that she will indeed try to bar clerks in her office from issuing marriage licenses to gays couples.

    If he is in fact, as her legal counsel, advising her to break the law, or not advising her to follow the law, is that grounds for disbarment?

    #13745
    Vitalogy
    Participant

    You would think. But thankfully I’m not a lawyer who paid a shitload for law school who works 70 hours a week for minimum wage.

    Personally, I hope she goes back to jail and stays there until she resigns her $80K a year gig when the average wage in her county is $14K.

    #13879
    Amus
    Participant

    Good points….

    “I think she’s wrong on the merits, wrong theologically and her stance is harmful to Christians both in the religious liberty debate and in trying to present Christianity to the watching world,” said Peter Wehner, a Christian commentator who served in the last three Republican presidential administrations.

    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7e2c85dd132947a2afa7eb1c54515fad/kentucky-clerk-case-divides-religious-liberty-advocates

    #13881
    Alfredo_T
    Participant

    Kim Davis’ lawyer from Liberty Counsel, Matt Staver, has vowed that she will indeed try to bar clerks in her office from issuing marriage licenses to gays couples.

    Any claim that Kim Davis might have had that she was a poor victim who was being “bullied” by the government into acting against her conscience just went out the window. OOPS!

    #13930
    Amus
    Participant
    #13931
    Deane Johnson
    Participant

    Certainly an attention getter. Seems much more European in cleverness than one might expect in the stogie U.S.

    #13932
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    The attorney won’t be in the wrong as this is a question of law that will need to be resolved. She is elected and has been granted some measure of authority and, I believe, agency.

    She can serve the public the best way she knows how.

    Being true to her convictions means denying licenses. Her case is made weaker when she allows licenses with her signature. The people gave her that authority, not her staff.

    All the attorney needs to do is advise her and comply with ethics.

    From an ethics standpoint, her legal question is valid, and it will need to be resolved as a matter of the people, meaning she will not be reelected, or as a matter of law.

    The latter can be legislative, and she asked for that option to avoid violating her beliefs. Thus is dubious, but I can’t go into it on mobile…

    It could also mean new definition of her office too.

    Attorneys face this on civil disobedience in general. They are not in conflict with the law when the themselves stay ethically sound and do not violate the law.

    Crime is about intent too. If the intent is something noble, the attorney is free to advise.

    The question of noble is yet to be resolved here from a strict legal point of view.

    The Judge would not have released her from contempt had he not seen genuine intent and her asking for the executive order speaks to that in that she her self cannot proceed, but does appear willing to find a way for the people to proceed.

    Many of us will see her as ugly bigot. The legal vision here is a more basic question that takes process to answer.

    Attorneys must be involved or she would have a claim of failure by the State and Nation to provide due process and I would agree with that claim.

    #13933
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    I should add, her attorney probably has told her where and how this may be ill advised and will also advise her when she does things that may be ethically or legally out of bounds.

    So long as Kim makes the call, she is on the hook for the consequences.

    The attorney would be judged on their competency, intent and overall compliance, where the clear and prudent action is a matter of genuine ambiguity.

    Where a person and their intent conflict with the bounds of the legal profession, the attorney would have to step away and or make disclosures, etc….

    We need this wide latitude so that we may get the benefit of a permissive legal system. I am in strong favor, despite the potential for abuse. And you know there is abuse, but it’s just kept very close and quiet.

    My .02 on it.

    I’m sure I have some of that wrong.

    #13937
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    Ok, I’m in a spot now to add what I wanted above.

    If she grants her staff authority to sign gay licenses, she condones them. For her, not an option.

    The court is compelling her to do that and she won’t do it. The prospect of her becoming a martyr is also undesirable given the general trend toward public acceptance.

    So a bargain was proposed. If the Governor, or whoever in the State legislature makes an order to allow her staff to sign, she does not condone any of it, but the people are free to marry too.

    Her position is maximized by simply not doing it nor condoning it, and if she is acting on legal advice, that is strong advice as it keeps the door open for the best and most favorable resolution.

    Done this way, she might never have to sign or condone a gay marriage, and the State would establish a predecent for abiding by individual religious conviction by acting to provide a way that preserves her desire and intent to not condone or grant license to gay couples to marry.

    On the other hand, if she herself grants authority to her staff, she undermines her cause, and that of other religious people facing similar circumstances.

    People can and need to seek legal advice of this kind. I don’t see a conflict in any of it.

    That does not mean I agree, but I for sure see the valid questions being posed as well as the potential implications going forward, and it’s those implications that drive others to support Kim as they represent moves in a much bigger context when it comes to religion and the law.

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 78 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.