On Kim Davis
I’m not a legal type guy. But he is and runs down why her supporters are wrong.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
September 14th, 2015 at 7:47 pm
If you say Kim Davis is wrong you are asking the wrong question.
September 14th, 2015 at 11:26 pm
She still has her job and she still has her finger in GLADD’s eye. She’s good.
September 15th, 2015 at 5:50 am
People who support Davis are missing the fact that they are not opposing gay marriage as much as they are supporting the ability of a county clerk to ignore the Supreme court whenever they see fit.
Imagine if various jurisdictions would simply ignore Heller or McDonald, and continue to arrest gun owners and toss them in jail.
September 15th, 2015 at 12:00 pm
“No fishing licenses will be issued effective immediately. The clerk is now Vegan.”
September 15th, 2015 at 12:20 pm
Joke not, o tincankilla. Kentucky provides an accommodation to employees of the conservation department who do not want to issue hunting licenses. It’s one of the Peeves of the Davis supporters. If for hunting licenses, why not for Obergefell licenses? The answer is that Governor Beshear and his AG Conway, who is now running for governor against Matt Bevin, are sucking up to the gay Mafia and trying to force Obergefells down everybody’s throats.
September 15th, 2015 at 1:31 pm
@nk:
Davis wasn’t jailed for refusing to do her job and issue marriage licenses. She was jailed for refusing to follow a court’s orders, and violating what the court says is the civil rights of others.
There is no court order that says that a clerk must issue a hunting license, nor does anyone have a civil right to hunt, unless you want to read the 2A as the anti gun folks do, and claim the 2A is for hunting.
September 15th, 2015 at 1:51 pm
Okay, so what is the right question?
September 15th, 2015 at 3:14 pm
How about this: She broke the law, she goes to jail. She can go to the end of the long ass line of all the other politicos who should be in a jail cell but never will be.
I’ll join the pack howling for Davis’ head right after Hillary(or pick another one, it’s not like it’s an exclusive list) is sitting in a jail cell awaiting trial.
Davis is in the news because her views are out of favor with the anointed ones, not because she broke the law.
September 15th, 2015 at 8:08 pm
Agreed, She’s wrong, and should be in jail or fired;
and, the Sanctuary City Mayors and leaders are wrong, and should be in jail or fired;
and, the Police who wont’ issue CCWs in DC, Cali, etc. are wrong, and should be in jail or fired;
and, Obama and Holder are wrong for Fast and Furious, and ignoring Federal immigration law and should be in jail or fired;
and, Hillary is wrong on so many counts, and should be in jail;
September 15th, 2015 at 9:33 pm
XRLQ blogged something. For a while there it was a tossup whether his blog or mine was getting more rusty. I missed him.
September 15th, 2015 at 11:22 pm
Right thing, wrong reason. Two wrongs don’t make it right. Right?
September 16th, 2015 at 2:38 pm
This marriage licensing debacle is a prime subject for gun bloggers to understand, on the basis of “shall issue” versus “may issue” standards of laws regarding licensing and permitting of gun ownership and carry.
Obtaining a hunting license is a “shall issue” procedure. One produces necessary documents, pays a fee, and the license will be issued. If the issuing authority has a conscientious or religious objection to participating in this government licensing procedure, and can be accommodated reasonably, their participation is not required in the process, but the license must still be issued, regardless of the issuing authority’s subjective beliefs.
Likewise, a marriage license is a “shall issue” document. You show up with proper documentation as described under law, pay a fee, and the government document is issued to you and your marriage is filed with the state. No subjective standards of the issuing authority are involved in the procedure, which if followed must result in a marriage license.
Again, objections to issuing some marriage licenses based on religious or conscientious reasons, that can be reasonably accommodated by the employer, must be honored. Yet the license must still be issued to all who follow the prescribed procedures and pay the fees.
Kim Davis, a Democrat elected in a Democrat county, is flouting the law, refusing to accept reasonable accommodations of her beliefs, and attempting to subvert the rule of law by applying her subjective standards to a procedure that can, and apparently should, be relegated to filling out an online form and obtaining a printable certificate.
Democrat Davis will lose her court case, based on all precedents. After that, she can accept reasonable accommodation of her beliefs or not. If the latter, she must resign or be fired for cause.
I, for one, would use this to get the government out of the marriage business. Make getting a marriage license an online form akin to registering a car every year in your state. That marriage license can be autofiled for tax and divorce purposes, and save some money at the county clerks’ offices nationwide.
Ditto for carry licenses and hunting licenses and other minor government documentation of everyday life.
September 17th, 2015 at 7:42 am
Davis is an elected official, the county clerk of Rowan County. She has official immunity, written into the county code that authorizes her office. She has discretionary authority, black letter law.
The judge acted illegally. The judicial branch of the federal government doesn’t have the authority to imprison elected county or state officials they don’t like, for performance or nonperformance of duties.
Judicial contempt for the rule of law is a root cause of America’s problems. If you think Kim Davis was ‘wrong’, that’s fine. But if you think we should be governed by Feelings rather than Laws, then you are part of the problem.
September 17th, 2015 at 7:56 am
I don’t suppose anyone will be persuaded by learning that the Kentucky state constitution protects her: ‘No human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.’
Or that Kentucky law still defines marriage as between a man and women. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/chapter.aspx?id=39205 and http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=36469
Judge David Bunning cited her for contempt of court. I can’t find his actual ruling. http://www.kyed.uscourts.gov/ What legal basis does he have? What claim of authority did he cite? Raw naked political power.
September 17th, 2015 at 10:43 am
Both the Kentucky state constitution and the Kentucky law defining marriage are subordinate to the US Constitution, so no, that’s not persuasive.
September 18th, 2015 at 4:02 am
I’m an immigrant to the United States. I had to pass a test of American civics (amongst other things) to become a U.S. Citizen. Those arguing that Kim Davis is in the right, clearly don’t understand the three branches of government or separation of powers. You should consider yourselves lucky that the 14th Amendment calls for birth-right Citizenship, because other than that, you would fail the test and not be allowed to be a Citizen of this great nation.