The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Those wonderful Supremes (17 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..13~14~15~16~17 [Next]
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
4930 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2015, rockwall wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2015, landmark wrote:
Just disagreement is not interesting; what's interesting is the religious belief component.


If only someone had told her that if she had simply said she wasn't going to issue the licences because she 'disagreed' with them instead of out of some silly moral conviction we could have avoided all this bruhaha.

Ah, so your position is that mere disagreement is sufficient grounds for not fulfilling your job responsibilities. I disagree. But fortunately, you don't work for me.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2015, Destiny wrote:

I certainly don't understand her being jailed though. In Australia, unless refusing to do your job includes negligence which leads to death or another serious outcome, you are simply fired.

From :

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2......licenses

She Can't Be Fired: Because Davis is an elected official and is accountable to the voters, she can't be fired from her job.

According to a report by the Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, Davis would have to be removed by the legislature. According to the Kentucky constitution, she would have to be impeached by the state's House of Representatives and tried by the state's Senate.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
Destiny
View Profile
Inner circle
1429 Posts

Profile of Destiny
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2015, balducci wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2015, Destiny wrote:

I certainly don't understand her being jailed though. In Australia, unless refusing to do your job includes negligence which leads to death or another serious outcome, you are simply fired.

From :

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2......licenses

She Can't Be Fired: Because Davis is an elected official and is accountable to the voters, she can't be fired from her job.

According to a report by the Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, Davis would have to be removed by the legislature. According to the Kentucky constitution, she would have to be impeached by the state's House of Representatives and tried by the state's Senate.


Goodness me - in the good old days we could have just thrown her to the lions, but that would please her supporters no end.
Smile
E.S. Andrews
View Profile
New user
63 Posts

Profile of E.S. Andrews
The reason this county clerk was jailed is that she is in contempt of court. She defied the order of the federal district court for that part of Kentucky to issue marriage licenses and not interfere with clerks in her office issuing marriage licenses. The remedies available to the federal court for her contempt are imprisonment or the imposition of fines (the court doesn't have the jurisdiction or authority to remove her from her job). The judge realized that fines wouldn't bring her into compliance with his order because her supporters would contribute the money to pay them. That left imprisonment. She holds the key to her cell. She can comply with the court order and her sworn duties as county clerk, resign her position, or languish in jail. Her choice.
Randwill
View Profile
Inner circle
1915 Posts

Profile of Randwill
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2015, E.S. Andrews wrote:
She can comply with the court order and her sworn duties as county clerk, resign her position, or languish in jail. Her choice.

I wonder if, at some point between winning the election and beginning work, she placed her hand on the Christian Bible and swore to carry out the legal responsibilities of her office to the state of Kentucky.
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2015, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2015, rockwall wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2015, landmark wrote:
Just disagreement is not interesting; what's interesting is the religious belief component.


If only someone had told her that if she had simply said she wasn't going to issue the licences because she 'disagreed' with them instead of out of some silly moral conviction we could have avoided all this bruhaha.

Ah, so your position is that mere disagreement is sufficient grounds for not fulfilling your job responsibilities. I disagree. But fortunately, you don't work for me.


Actually, no, that's not my position. It appeared to be yours from your previous comment. But if not yours, it certainly is the position of most of the left as to fulfilling their job responsibilities in regards to a number of laws they disagree with. (i.e. drug enforcement, immigration enforcement, etc.)
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2015, Destiny wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2015, rockwall wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2015, landmark wrote:
Just disagreement is not interesting; what's interesting is the religious belief component.


If only someone had told her that if she had simply said she wasn't going to issue the licences because she 'disagreed' with them instead of out of some silly moral conviction we could have avoided all this bruhaha.


Rockwall,

I'd agree if she was running a private business, but she isn't.

She is paid with taxpayers money - all tax payers, including gay taxpayers, to administer an equal service to all according to law.

If she gets away with this there is nothing to stop an atheist clerk refusing building permits for churches because they are against his or her belief, or lack thereof. Smile

I certainly don't understand her being jailed though. In Australia, unless refusing to do your job includes negligence which leads to death or another serious outcome, you are simply fired.


I'm afraid you missed my point Destiny. I actually agree with you 100%. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of others.
E.S. Andrews
View Profile
New user
63 Posts

Profile of E.S. Andrews
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2015, Randwill wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2015, E.S. Andrews wrote:
She can comply with the court order and her sworn duties as county clerk, resign her position, or languish in jail. Her choice.

I wonder if, at some point between winning the election and beginning work, she placed her hand on the Christian Bible and swore to carry out the legal responsibilities of her office to the state of Kentucky.


She didn't have to place her hand on a bible but she did have to swear or affirm that she would support the Constitution and faithfully execute her office according to law. By the by, she also had to swear or affirm that she hadn't fought any duels, challenged anyone to a duel, or seconded anyone in a duel. Hey, it's Kentucky.

Oath of Officers and Attorneys, Section 228 of the Kentucky Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of _______ according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
4930 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2015, rockwall wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2015, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2015, rockwall wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2015, landmark wrote:
Just disagreement is not interesting; what's interesting is the religious belief component.


If only someone had told her that if she had simply said she wasn't going to issue the licences because she 'disagreed' with them instead of out of some silly moral conviction we could have avoided all this bruhaha.

Ah, so your position is that mere disagreement is sufficient grounds for not fulfilling your job responsibilities. I disagree. But fortunately, you don't work for me.


Actually, no, that's not my position. It appeared to be yours from your previous comment.

No, I specifically said that where I thought the conflict gets interesting is when it has to do with religious rights. I actually think she might have a case. In the long run, I don't think she can win it, but on the other hand, I think she has the right to bring it up.
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Thanks for clarifying. I misunderstood the intention of your post.

It appears then, that you would agree with me, that another elected official who disregards the law because they disagree with it is at least equally wrong. (If not more so.)
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
4930 Posts

Profile of landmark
The Kentucky case has in my opinion has two important distinguishing factors:

1) The state employee has a strong demonstrable religious belief.

On the other hand,

2) Her actions are denying (not just disagreeing with) the legal rights of other parties .


Points one and two are in direct conflict in this case. I think it would be interesting to see how the courts sort out this specific kind of conflict.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Also, the criminal-law doctrine of prosecutorial discretion does not apply to a clerk simply issuing marriage licenses. Thus possibly distinguishing the Kentucky example from at least some of the others rockwall may be thinking of.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
There seems that there may be some misunderstanding/misrepresentation here about the difference between federal laws and federal regulations, and their administration, as well as the prosecutorial discretion referenced by balducci.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
4930 Posts

Profile of landmark
Bob, could you expand on that please?
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
I think there seems to be a bit of misunderstanding/misrepresentation here about the use and meaning of proscecutorial discretion.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On Sep 6, 2015, rockwall wrote:

I think there seems to be a bit of misunderstanding/misrepresentation here about the use and meaning of proscecutorial discretion.

Perhaps. Here is a refresher from an online law and legal reference library:

http://law.jrank.org/pages/1870/Prosecut......ion.html

The author of the above is a United States federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Paul J. Kellner Professor of Law at Columbia Law School.

I suspect that the last paragraph of the article is relevant to this discussion, at least when it comes to higher officials.

(Excerpt: "As a practical matter, moreover, the prosecutor is not merely the attorney who represents society's interest in court, but also the public official whose job it is to decide, as a substantive matter, the extent of society's interest in seeking punishment. The prosecutor is thus not merely a barrister, exercising technical skill to advocate positions decided by someone else, but a significant public official, exercising political authority on behalf of the state to determine its substantive position. Consequently, the prosecutor is normally a politically responsible actor.")
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27097 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On Sep 6, 2015, landmark wrote:
The Kentucky case has in my opinion has two important distinguishing factors:

1) The state employee has a strong demonstrable religious belief.

On the other hand,

2) Her actions are denying (not just disagreeing with) the legal rights of other parties .


Points one and two are in direct conflict in this case. I think it would be interesting to see how the courts sort out this specific kind of conflict.


How does one person's beliefs about what is right (for themselves) diminish the civil rights of another?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
I believe he said her actions did, not her beliefs.

"Her ACTIONS are denying ... the legal rights of other parties."
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27097 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On Sep 6, 2015, balducci wrote:
I believe he said her actions did, not her beliefs.

"Her ACTIONS are denying ... the legal rights of other parties."


is it a civil right to get married? (life, liberty...)
...to all the coins I've dropped here
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Quote:
On Sep 6, 2015, balducci wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 6, 2015, rockwall wrote:

I think there seems to be a bit of misunderstanding/misrepresentation here about the use and meaning of proscecutorial discretion.

Perhaps. Here is a refresher from an online law and legal reference library:

http://law.jrank.org/pages/1870/Prosecut......ion.html

The author of the above is a United States federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Paul J. Kellner Professor of Law at Columbia Law School.

I suspect that the last paragraph of the article is relevant to this discussion, at least when it comes to higher officials.

(Excerpt: "As a practical matter, moreover, the prosecutor is not merely the attorney who represents society's interest in court, but also the public official whose job it is to decide, as a substantive matter, the extent of society's interest in seeking punishment. The prosecutor is thus not merely a barrister, exercising technical skill to advocate positions decided by someone else, but a significant public official, exercising political authority on behalf of the state to determine its substantive position. Consequently, the prosecutor is normally a politically responsible actor.")


Hmmmm. I see nothing in the article that says that Prosecutorial discretion has the legal effect of repealing criminal laws enacted by Congress.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Those wonderful Supremes (17 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..13~14~15~16~17 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.24 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL