Kim Davis: It's not MY fault
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-09-2015, 03:36 PM
RE: Kim Davis: It's not MY fault
(25-09-2015 03:10 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(25-09-2015 01:30 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Kim was not elected to issue same sex marriage licenses. She was elected to issue opposite sex marriage licenses. The requirement that county clerks issue same sex marriage licenses is a new one that was imposed after she was elected.

She was elected to do her job. She is not doing her job. The slavery issue was already raised up but would you be whining if it were a man refusing to give ballots to women after universal suffrage was passed? Or how about the civil rights act and a clerk refused to issue a marriage license to a mixed-race couple? You seem incapable of figuring this out.


(25-09-2015 01:30 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Now I have always maintained that the first amendment does not protect one from fulfilling their conditions of employment and still do.

The first amendment does not allow for the violation of the 14th. This has been explained to you several times by several people.

(25-09-2015 01:30 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The question I would like to pose is who is responsible for determining whether or not Mrs Davis is fulfilling her conditions of employment? Is it a judge? The governor, or the electorate?

The Supreme Court you retard. This has already been ruled on by the highest court. If she has a conscious objection to it, she only needed to hand in her letter of resignation. People do it all the time.

(25-09-2015 01:30 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The Judge doesn't have the power to remove her from office so it would stand to reason he/she isn't mandated with the task of determining if Mrs Davis is doing her job or not. That task belongs to the electorate and the state government who can impeach her.

The judge can't impeach her, you are right. It however, is well withing the judge's discretion whether to compel a government employee who is violating the law, to issue a ruling with caselaw as precedent should the case come before him.


PS. Please keep ignoring people. PLEASE. Eventually, you will ignore everyone and then perhaps you will fuck off. I forgive you for being a retard, you just happened to be on the shallow side of the gene pool.

I forgive you for calling me a retard. I am sadden that a person as bright at you has to resort to insults to make themselves feel better.

Anyways the clerk is not an employee. She is an elected official. And the Supreme Court cannot remove an elected official from office. Jailing this woman is tantamount to removing her from office.

Suppose this issue was turned around. Suppose gay marriage was previously legal and then it was made illegal. If a judge ordered her to stop issuing marriage licenses to gays, and she continued to issue them, would you support jailing her for not doing her job in accordance with the change in the law? Would you support the judiciary effectively removing her from office by jailing her for contempt? If you are consistent in your position that the judiciary has this power then you should support the jailing a pro-gay marriage county clerk if the tables were turned.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2015, 03:47 PM
RE: Kim Davis: It's not MY fault
(25-09-2015 03:36 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Suppose this issue was turned around. Suppose gay marriage was previously legal and then it was made illegal. If a judge ordered her to stop issuing marriage licenses to gays, and she continued to issue them, would you support jailing her for not doing her job in accordance with the change in the law? Would you support the judiciary effectively removing her from office by jailing her for contempt? If you are consistent in your position that the judiciary has this power then you should support the jailing a pro-gay marriage county clerk if the tables were turned.

She was elected to fulfill the duties of the office. When those duties change she can comply or she can quit. My job duties change regularly and if I went to my boss and said I was going to keep doing things the old way because that's how it was when I was hired I would be out of work quickly. She can't be fired so it becomes a matter for the court.

If any elected official is acting in direct violation of the law and has been ordered by the courts to comply then they should face contempt charges in exactly the same way. I might agree in some cases that they are acting morally by violating the law but that is beside the point and they still must face the consequences of their actions.

Davis may think she is acting morally but until the law is changed she is in contempt of court and subject to imprisonment. She can advocate for a change in the law but in the meantime she has to either do the job or quit.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like unfogged's post
25-09-2015, 03:59 PM
RE: Kim Davis: It's not MY fault
(25-09-2015 03:47 PM)unfogged Wrote:  She was elected to fulfill the duties of the office. When those duties change she can comply or she can quit. My job duties change regularly and if I went to my boss and said I was going to keep doing things the old way because that's how it was when I was hired I would be out of work quickly. She can't be fired so it becomes a matter for the court.


Except that it isn't a matter of the court. The executive and legislative branches can impeach her or the electorate can re-call her/vote her out of office.

(25-09-2015 03:47 PM)unfogged Wrote:  If any elected official is acting in direct violation of the law and has been ordered by the courts to comply then they should face contempt charges in exactly the same way. I might agree in some cases that they are acting morally by violating the law but that is beside the point and they still must face the consequences of their actions.

So you agree that if hypothetically speaking the tables were turned, A court could hold Davis in contempt and jail her for issuing marriage licenses to gays in violation of the law?


(25-09-2015 03:47 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Davis may think she is acting morally but until the law is changed she is in contempt of court and subject to imprisonment. She can advocate for a change in the law but in the meantime she has to either do the job or quit.

I don't know that I want the judiciary to have the power to jail the other branches of government.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2015, 04:19 PM
RE: Kim Davis: It's not MY fault
(25-09-2015 03:59 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Except that it isn't a matter of the court. The executive and legislative branches can impeach her or the electorate can re-call her/vote her out of office.

I did not mean to imply that there weren't other, longer-term solutions, but what happens if she gets re-elected and/or the legislature does not take action. A Kentucky county clerk may be relatively safe from those remedies which means she would be free to continue ignoring the law.

Quote:So you agree that if hypothetically speaking the tables were turned, A court could hold Davis in contempt and jail her for issuing marriage licenses to gays in violation of the law?

Yes

Quote:I don't know that I want the judiciary to have the power to jail the other branches of government.

If an elected official is breaking the law then they need to be held accountable and waiting for the next election cycle or for an impeachment process takes time (and may not happen). The courts have the power to jail lawbreakers and there is no reason I see to exempt elected officials from that.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2015, 04:26 PM
RE: Kim Davis: It's not MY fault
Courts can jail officials for being in contempt. That they're elected is irrelevant legally.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2015, 05:46 PM
RE: Kim Davis: It's not MY fault
If she were president of the United States and refused to comply with the law she'd be impeached.

From John Kennedy's speech on the separation of church and state.

“I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish – where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source – where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials"

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
25-09-2015, 06:31 PM
RE: Kim Davis: It's not MY fault
(25-09-2015 03:36 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(25-09-2015 03:10 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  She was elected to do her job. She is not doing her job. The slavery issue was already raised up but would you be whining if it were a man refusing to give ballots to women after universal suffrage was passed? Or how about the civil rights act and a clerk refused to issue a marriage license to a mixed-race couple? You seem incapable of figuring this out.



The first amendment does not allow for the violation of the 14th. This has been explained to you several times by several people.


The Supreme Court you retard. This has already been ruled on by the highest court. If she has a conscious objection to it, she only needed to hand in her letter of resignation. People do it all the time.


The judge can't impeach her, you are right. It however, is well withing the judge's discretion whether to compel a government employee who is violating the law, to issue a ruling with caselaw as precedent should the case come before him.


PS. Please keep ignoring people. PLEASE. Eventually, you will ignore everyone and then perhaps you will fuck off. I forgive you for being a retard, you just happened to be on the shallow side of the gene pool.

I forgive you for calling me a retard. I am sadden that a person as bright at you has to resort to insults to make themselves feel better.

Anyways the clerk is not an employee. She is an elected official. And the Supreme Court cannot remove an elected official from office. Jailing this woman is tantamount to removing her from office.

Suppose this issue was turned around. Suppose gay marriage was previously legal and then it was made illegal. If a judge ordered her to stop issuing marriage licenses to gays, and she continued to issue them, would you support jailing her for not doing her job in accordance with the change in the law? Would you support the judiciary effectively removing her from office by jailing her for contempt? If you are consistent in your position that the judiciary has this power then you should support the jailing a pro-gay marriage county clerk if the tables were turned.

Ok, so a few days ago, I was a child and now I am bright. Whatever. I call people retarded who do not ever seem to learn from new information as it is presented to them. By that standard, you are a retard.

To answer your question, I would support her inprisonment if she defied a judge's order which was based on the law of the land. If the law was against the health department giving out free condoms and there was someone who was defying that law, then yes, I think they should be held accountable. It is not her place to cherrypick which laws she wants to follow. And she is on the government payroll, she is a government employee. So is the president. They removed her because she was defying a judicial order that was put in place because she was denying citizens their constitutional right. No matter which way you slice it, this is entirely her doing. And I forgive you for forgiving me.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
25-09-2015, 07:29 PM
RE: Kim Davis: It's not MY fault
(25-09-2015 02:40 PM)mediocrates Wrote:  
(25-09-2015 02:16 PM)pablo Wrote:  It's just a marriage license, there isn't a new specific same sex license that she needs to fill out, it's the same as any other.
The only difference is the way she sees it.

Or the way she sees the people she's giving it to...
...

D'you think she sees them as people?

Therein lies the problem.

Consider

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2015, 07:39 PM
RE: Kim Davis: It's not MY fault
(25-09-2015 01:30 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(25-09-2015 12:28 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  That's right, it's not for her refusing to the job she was elected to do, it's not for defying a judge's orders, it's the governor's fault.

Kim was not elected to issue same sex marriage licenses. She was elected to issue opposite sex marriage licenses. The requirement that county clerks issue same sex marriage licenses is a new one that was imposed after she was elected.

Now I have always maintained that the first amendment does not protect one from fulfilling their conditions of employment and still do. The question I would like to pose is who is responsible for determining whether or not Mrs Davis is fulfilling her conditions of employment? Is it a judge? The governor, or the electorate?

The Judge doesn't have the power to remove her from office so it would stand to reason he/she isn't mandated with the task of determining if Mrs Davis is doing her job or not. That task belongs to the electorate and the state government who can impeach her.


Just out of curiosity, if one is elected to support a certain law, when the law changes would they not lose their positions and have to be re elected? And did it say on her application "Marriage" or "Hetrosexual marriage"?

Why is this job an electable position anyway?

American laws confuse me.

Cheers.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
25-09-2015, 07:50 PM
RE: Kim Davis: It's not MY fault
(25-09-2015 07:39 PM)Banjo Wrote:  American laws confuse me.

They do that to a lot of us. I think it is by design. Yes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like pablo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: