Breaking: Five deputy clerks in Kentucky county agree to start issuing marriage licenses tomorrow

posted at 4:41 pm on September 3, 2015 by Allahpundit

I guess this answers the question in the last post about whether they have the authority to defy Davis’s orders. Or does it? What if Davis attempts to fire her deputies for insubordination? If they could have defied her all along, why’d they wait until she was in jail to do so? Alternately, if the judge had the authority to order the deputies to issue licenses over Davis’s objection, why didn’t he do that in the first place instead of sending her to jail? Was jail possibly some sort of necessary prerequisite, to render her temporarily “unable to carry out her duties” as clerk, to empowering the deputies?

Davis, who was tearful at times, testified that she could not obey [Judge David] Bunning’s order because God’s law trumps the court. The sixth of her deputies who also said he would not issue licenses is her son…

Bunning warned other clerks — at least two other counties in Kentucky also shuttered their marriage-license operations for all couples — that his order applied to them, too. Five of Davis’ six deputy clerks told Bunning in an afternoon hearing that they would issue licenses, WOWK-TV, Charleston-Huntington, W.Va., reported; the holdout was Davis’ son, who works in his mother’s office.

As word of Davis’ arrest became known in the crowd that numbered more than 100 protesters outside the courthouse, cheers and chants erupted.

It’s all about following the law. Take it from another famous stickler for following the law, Hillary Clinton:

I wonder how long Davis’s jail sentence will last now. There can’t be such a tremendous backlog of gay couples waiting to get married in one county in Kentucky that the licenses will take more than a day or two to process. If everyone gets processed tomorrow, will Davis be released with a warning that she’ll be sent back each and every time another gay couple is turned away? I don’t know how you handle an ongoing act of lawlessness by a public official who can’t be fired but also, for political reasons, almost certainly can’t be impeached.

Or rather, I don’t know how you handle that sort of lawlessness when it’s coming from someone other than the president.

Ted Cruz issued a statement this afternoon siding with public officials’ right to refuse, as a matter of conscience, to implement a new legal standard imposed by a “lawless court decision,” i.e. Anthony Kennedy’s gay-marriage ruling. Where that leaves us in forcing liberal officials to abide by the Citizens United decision or the Heller gun-rights ruling, I have no idea. Cruz is right about this much, though: The line between impermissible acts of legal defiance by rogue functionaries and noble acts of civil disobedience by public-spirited bureaucrats is exceedingly fine, and getting finer by the day.

“For every politician — Democrat and Republican — who is tut-tutting that Davis must resign, they are defending a hypocritical standard. Where is the call for the mayor of San Francisco to resign for creating a sanctuary city — resulting in the murder of American citizens by criminal illegal aliens welcomed by his lawlessness?

“Where is the call for President Obama to resign for ignoring and defying our immigration laws, our welfare reform laws, and even his own Obamacare?

“When the mayor of San Francisco and President Obama resign, then we can talk about Kim Davis.

Excellent point, although it would be more excellent if Cruz was calling for all three — Obama, the mayor, and Davis — to follow the law. He’s not. What he’s doing here is taking the Trump-ish attitude that the left has so eroded the rule of law that it’s time for the right to play along and fight fire with fire. That’s a bad precedent if you think executive overreach by a Republican president would be bad, if not as quite as bad as Obama’s. But it’s darned good politics. There’s a reason Trump’s leading the field.

Exit quotation from Josh Earnest, official spokesman for a guy who declared his own war in Libya a few years ago and then granted himself the power to proclaim amnesty for illegals last year: “No one is above the law. Not the president of the United States nor the Rowan County clerk.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Interesting that they ave turned on one of their own. Kim Davis is a Democrat, so she thought she could ignore laws she doesn’t like or agree with. That is what they do, isn’t it?

Texas Eagle on September 3, 2015 at 10:34 PM

I dont’t know why Christians are surprised by this, we are to be persecueted. They didn’t like Jesus why you would think they like you? What worries me more is other things funded by the federal government like abortion, could a doctor be made to perform one?
Our country is lost it makes me sad.

mnkatie on September 3, 2015 at 10:35 PM

Interesting that they ave turned on one of their own. Kim Davis is a Democrat, so she thought she could ignore laws she doesn’t like or agree with. That is what they do, isn’t it?

Texas Eagle on September 3, 2015 at 10:34 PM

Not one of her supporters today are Democrats.

ConstantineXI on September 3, 2015 at 10:36 PM

I dont’t know why Christians are surprised by this, we are to be persecueted. They didn’t like Jesus why you would think they like you? What worries me more is other things funded by the federal government like abortion, could a doctor be made to perform one?
Our country is lost it makes me sad.

mnkatie on September 3, 2015 at 10:35 PM

No.

An abortion is a pretty specific medical procedure. If a doctor has never been trained to do one they can’t really be forced to perform one. They don’t make cardiologists do brain surgery so I think the “Doctors forced to perform abortions!” idea is pretty farfetched.

alchemist19 on September 3, 2015 at 10:40 PM

No.

An abortion is a pretty specific medical procedure. If a doctor has never been trained to do one they can’t really be forced to perform one. They don’t make cardiologists do brain surgery so I think the “Doctors forced to perform abortions!” idea is pretty farfetched.

alchemist19 on September 3, 2015 at 10:40 PM

Actually, if healthcare is deemed a fundamental right or taken over by the government (something that is a very real possibility in the not too distant future) and abortion is considered “healthcare” then a practice could be forced to offer “abortion services” much the same way all bakers in Oregon must now bake cakes for homosexual weddings. An individual doctor might not be compelled to perform a medical procedure but his practice could be compelled to offer that service and hire a service provider to perform the service. See current O-care attempts for force Christians to make all forms of birth control available under their healthcare plans. All it takes is one court decision like Obergfell and its on.

Speakeasy on September 3, 2015 at 10:49 PM

Interesting that they ave turned on one of their own. Kim Davis is a Democrat, so she thought she could ignore laws she doesn’t like or agree with. That is what they do, isn’t it?

Texas Eagle on September 3, 2015 at 10:34 PM

I’d bet the ranch that most of her detractors don’t know she’s a dem. She’s from a red state and declined gay couples marriage certificates. I’m sure the immediate assumption was she is an evangelical Republican.

dorkintheroad on September 3, 2015 at 10:49 PM

Follow
Hillary Clinton [email protected]
Marriage equality is the law of the land. Officials should be held to their duty to uphold the law—end of story. https://twitter.com/ap/status/639484985162993664
3:17 AM – 4 Sep 2015
2,189 2,189 Retweets 3,431 3,431 favorites

Uphold the law, Hillary?? Who the eff you fooling?

That’s rich.

That clerk put in jail is a travesty but we will need more brave souls like hers to bring about the Second American Revolution. Either that or we go down like rabbits and sheep.

Davis should be rewarded for her act of civil disobedience in the face of an oppressive regime.

Sherman1864 on September 3, 2015 at 10:50 PM

Hillary Clinton [email protected]
Marriage equality is the law of the land. Officials should be held to their duty to uphold the law—end of story. https://twitter.com/ap/status/639484985162993664
12:17 PM – 3 Sep 2015

The ads write themselves.

AesopFan on September 3, 2015 at 10:53 PM

tl;dr thread, but I like this part from the post:

Ted Cruz issued a statement this afternoon siding with public officials’ right to refuse, as a matter of conscience, to implement a new legal standard imposed by a “lawless court decision,” i.e. Anthony Kennedy’s gay-marriage ruling. Where that leaves us in forcing liberal officials to abide by the Citizens United decision or the Heller gun-rights ruling, I have no idea. Cruz is right about this much, though: The line between impermissible acts of legal defiance by rogue functionaries and noble acts of civil disobedience by public-spirited bureaucrats is exceedingly fine, and getting finer by the day.

“Rebellion is always legal in the first person…” Ben Franklin.

See my post on the other thread about Kim Davis for some good articles at the Federalist.
AesopFan on September 3, 2015 at 10:45 PM

AesopFan on September 3, 2015 at 10:56 PM

Hillary Clinton [email protected]
Marriage equality is the law of the land. Officials should be held to their duty to uphold the law—end of story. https://twitter.com/ap/status/639484985162993664
12:17 PM – 3 Sep 2015

The ads write themselves.

AesopFan on September 3, 2015 at 10:53 PM

How often do we have to note that except for her double standards, she’d have no standards?

Athos on September 3, 2015 at 10:56 PM

Actually, if healthcare is deemed a fundamental right or taken over by the government (something that is a very real possibility in the not too distant future) and abortion is considered “healthcare” then a practice could be forced to offer “abortion services” much the same way all bakers in Oregon must now bake cakes for homosexual weddings. An individual doctor might not be compelled to perform a medical procedure but his practice could be compelled to offer that service and hire a service provider to perform the service. See current O-care attempts for force Christians to make all forms of birth control available under their healthcare plans. All it takes is one court decision like Obergfell and its on.

Speakeasy on September 3, 2015 at 10:49 PM

Your premise is fundamentally flawed. The Oregon baker can’t refuse to sell something they would normally sell just because the people who want to buy it is gay. It’s not that the gay couple wants a special or unique service, it’s that they want the same service anyone else could get and are being turned away because of who they are. The government can’t compel a doctor to learn to perform abortions and then perform them any more than they could make a Jewish deli sell a bacon-wrapped shrimp.

Do you not understand the difference between a business not offering a particular service to anyone vs. a business refusing to offer their normal services to a customer because of who the customer is? If so then you should be able to assuage your own concerns here.

alchemist19 on September 3, 2015 at 10:57 PM

You’re really funny. You would see a falling tree and claim that concluding it hit the ground is wild speculation. You see Hillary’s situation and claim that it’s wild speculation to conclude that she had classified information on there. For those of us understand sensitive government work, we know that the tree hit the ground.

blink on September 3, 2015 at 10:47 PM

I’m sure you do realize, at this point, that if that one actually saw the tree hit the ground – but his ideological dogma said that it would never hit the ground – he would argue (badly) until the end of time that the tree never hit the ground. It’s not about believing what one see’s, but only seeing what one believes.

Athos on September 3, 2015 at 11:00 PM

I do not agree with Kim Davis one bit but I think the judge handled the situation in about the worst way possible. What the judge could have done is issued a ruling that says someone in that county needs to sign the marriage certificates. Thats it. Problem solved. There was no reason to arrest her. The only thing he did was turn Davis into a martyr.

tom2789 on September 3, 2015 at 11:02 PM

The government can’t compel a doctor to learn to perform abortions and then perform them any more than they could make a Jewish deli sell a bacon-wrapped shrimp.

Do you not understand the difference between a business not offering a particular service to anyone vs. a business refusing to offer their normal services to a customer because of who the customer is? If so then you should be able to assuage your own concerns here.

alchemist19 on September 3, 2015 at 10:57 PM

Under that argument, the government could also force a Muslim baker to participate in a SSM ceremony by providing the wedding cake, or an African-American restaurant owner to has to rent their banquet room to the local KKK chapter for their monthly meeting otherwise they are discriminating. It’s a normal service for that restaurant owner to rent out their banquet room – but they have to rent to the KKK even if the organization and it’s values are odious to the restaurant owner?

The crux of your argument is that a business owner lose their own rights – because those rights are suddenly subservient / lesser than the rights of others to demand that business owner sells them a product / provides them a service. That some rights are superior to others? Not equal, but superior to others – with whom (? – a mob?) deciding whose rights are superior to the rights of others. How is that ‘equal protection’?

Athos on September 3, 2015 at 11:11 PM

Your premise is fundamentally flawed. The Oregon baker can’t refuse to sell something they would normally sell just because the people who want to buy it is gay. It’s not that the gay couple wants a special or unique service, it’s that they want the same service anyone else could get and are being turned away because of who they are. The government can’t compel a doctor to learn to perform abortions and then perform them any more than they could make a Jewish deli sell a bacon-wrapped shrimp.

Do you not understand the difference between a business not offering a particular service to anyone vs. a business refusing to offer their normal services to a customer because of who the customer is? If so then you should be able to assuage your own concerns here.

alchemist19 on September 3, 2015 at 10:57 PM

You misunderstand or misread my argument. I never said that a doctor could be compelled; rather, I stated that the doctor’s practice could be compelled. Please go back and reread what I wrote instead of firing from the hip. Just like a baker can be compelled to perform a particular service just because he is a baker, a doctor’s practice can be compelled to perform a service (either personally or through an agent) if that service is deemed a “right.”

Speakeasy on September 3, 2015 at 11:15 PM

Gee, I wish we could edit comments. Correction:

You misunderstand or misread my argument. I never said that a doctor could be compelled; rather, I stated that the doctor’s practice could be compelled. Please go back and reread what I wrote instead of firing from the hip. Just like a baker can be compelled to perform a particular service just because he is a baker, a doctor’s practice can be compelled to perform a service (either personally or through an agent) if that service is deemed a part of interstate commerce and infringes upon a protected class.

The premise of the Gay wedding case is premised upon the Heart of Atlanta case where the SCOTUS declared that the Heart of Atlanta motel had to provide service to a black patron because it was a service normally offered by the motel, the Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination of a protected class (blacks), and interstate commerce brought the motel’s services within the purview of federal anti-discrimination laws. In the Gay Wedding case, Oregon claimed that gays are a protected class and the bakery could not withhold services from a protected class. The finding of a fundamental right to an abortion coupled with a fundamental right to healthcare would certainly create a “protected class” of persons in women who want to have an abortion. Pregnant women are already a “protected class” from an employment law perspective. Its not that far of a reach to say that a doctor could be compelled to offer abortion services as part of his practice even if he wasn’t the one to perform the service. All it takes is a statute mandating that “abortion”is a fundamental part of “healthcare” and that all providers offer it (kinda like the contraception debate huh).

Speakeasy on September 3, 2015 at 11:28 PM

Nope.

Yes.

She wasn’t disobeying any laws.

Yes, she was. I think (hope?) we can agree that the due process clause of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution is a law. The Supreme Court issued a clear and dispositive holding that the due process clause “requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex.” As the County Clerk for Rowan County, Kentucky, Davis’s official duties include the issuance of marriage licenses. Yet she unilaterally refused to grant them to same sex couples. In doing so she violated the 14th amendment (which is, in fact, a law).

She wasn’t violating anyone’s civil rights in that area of the country.

Yes, for the reasons explained above, she was. And again, I think (hope?) we can agree that the 14th amendment applies to Kentucky.

She was merely refusing to comply with a single judge’s order.

blink on September 3, 2015 at 10:40 PM

Actually, she refused to comply with the order of thirteen judges: a US district judge in Kentucky; a three judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit; and nine Justices of the Supreme Court (none of whom dissented from the denial of her request for a stay).

righty45 on September 3, 2015 at 11:36 PM

I do not agree with Kim Davis one bit but I think the judge handled the situation in about the worst way possible. What the judge could have done is issued a ruling that says someone in that county needs to sign the marriage certificates. Thats it. Problem solved. There was no reason to arrest her. The only thing he did was turn Davis into a martyr.

tom2789 on September 3, 2015 at 11:02 PM

The judge offered her that exact “out” and she refused:

She could remain a free woman, the judge said, if she gave permission to her deputies to sign the certificates in her stead. The judge gave her time to consult with her attorneys.

But when the court reconvened after a short recess Thursday, ­Davis was not in her seat. An attorney explained that Davis, an Apostolic Christian, “does not grant her authority nor would allow any employee to issue those licenses.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/defiant-kentucky-clerk-could-be-found-in-contempt-thursday/2015/09/03/34e50f08-51af-11e5-9812-92d5948a40f8_story.html

That is why she is in jail — it is on her, no one else.

cam2 on September 3, 2015 at 11:55 PM

Hypocrisy squared is Josh Ernest celebrating the victory of the Rule of Law in KY after his boss just side-stepped Congress (those folks that pass laws) in renaming Mt. McKinley with his pen and phone.

Another Drew on September 4, 2015 at 12:05 AM

Some laws are more worthy of enforcement than others it would seem. Depends upon what the various atheists, perverts, Communists, criminals, etc. deem to be just.

Those that think the police and judges won’t (well, many already do) violate their Constitutional oaths are truly delusional. They will kick down your doors, confiscate your stuff, throw you in a camp. The only reason they get away with it is because we let them. We let them have too much power because we were more concerned about making money, watching sports, getting laid, and other pursuits more important than Liberty.

We’d rather focus on what a threat ISIS is to our families and what might happen to poor Israel. There’s no lie we won’t swallow if it sounds righteous. We never stop to think that anything these weasels tell us are lies and that they are in fact behind our fictitious enemies.

And the PTB continue to rob us blind and encroach upon our freedoms.

Read or re-read Nineteen Eighty-Four. It spells it all out rather well. Oh, and Atlas Shrugged.

Dr. ZhivBlago on September 4, 2015 at 12:12 AM

The premise of the Gay wedding case is premised upon the Heart of Atlanta case where the SCOTUS declared that the Heart of Atlanta motel had to provide service to a black patron because it was a service normally offered by the motel, the Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination of a protected class (blacks), and interstate commerce brought the motel’s services within the purview of federal anti-discrimination laws. In the Gay Wedding case, Oregon claimed that gays are a protected class and the bakery could not withhold services from a protected class.

Basically correct so far…

The finding of a fundamental right to an abortion coupled with a fundamental right to healthcare would certainly create a “protected class” of persons in women who want to have an abortion. Pregnant women are already a “protected class” from an employment law perspective.

Getting a little shaky here but you’ve still not gone off the deep end.

Its not that far of a reach to say that a doctor could be compelled to offer abortion services as part of his practice even if he wasn’t the one to perform the service. All it takes is a statute mandating that “abortion”is a fundamental part of “healthcare” and that all providers offer it (kinda like the contraception debate huh).

Speakeasy on September 3, 2015 at 11:28 PM

I knew it wouldn’t last.

You’re still missing the point badly. The Oregon baker got in trouble for refusing to offer a service they would normally offer to anyone who walked in their door. It’s identical to the Heart of Atlanta case except one dealt with race and one dealt with sexual orientation; the Heart of Atlanta offered up hotel rooms but they wouldn’t let black people stay in rooms they would have offered to people who weren’t black. That’s the way anti-discrimination laws work. Business owners don’t have to do anything beyond the services they normally offer but they can’t turn customers away because of their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. Anti-discrimination laws would only come into play for abortion services if clinics that normally provided abortion were only offering them to women of a certain race (somewhere Margaret Sanger is smiling at that notion, but that’s a whole other issue). Even if pregnant women are ever held up to be a protected class that doesn’t mean she can get an abortion at her dermatologist’s office, just that she couldn’t be refused a normal service a business has chosen to offer to everyone else.

Then you try to muddle the issue even more by bringing up contraception. You’re still comparing apples and oranges. The contraception mandate didn’t mean every end health care professional needed to provide contraception, rather that consumers had to have the option to visit an end health care professional who had freely chosen to offer contraceptives. The government mandating insurance plans cover contraceptives is not the same thing as mandating every health care provider provide contraception. Do you not understand the difference here either?

alchemist19 on September 4, 2015 at 12:43 AM

To be fair, clerks enforce farcical laws all the time. Like, having to have a building permit for a storage shed or a screen-enclosed patio, etc. So I guess they should also be expected to issue licenses for non-existent things like “gay marriage”.

I like how the Social Justice crowd are all about the Constitution except when it comes to things like owning guns, or saying/writing mean things about elected Democrats. The same bunch who says Tea Partiers, Ron Paul supporters and military veterans are automatically terrorists.

It’s obvious subterfuge by the Leftists and in some cases their neo-Con, Evangelical, Trotskyite allies that roam these conservative forums telling us that we have to defend Israel and give them billions every year or God will strike us down or something.

Ignore them. They are propagandists and disinfo specialists and hacks.

Dr. ZhivBlago on September 4, 2015 at 1:01 AM

The hypocrisy of the Left:

10 Public Officials Who Defied the Law Over Gay Marriage Mostly Silent on Kim Davis Case

So the Daily Signal contacted or tried to contact all 10 who had defied or refused to defend the laws and constitutional amendments affirming marriage between one man and one woman.

Only two responded. A spokesman for Gavin Newsome who said it’s incomparable (hey, it’s been settled now by the judicial process, donchaknow–not a word on how perverse and lawless that process was) and KY AG Conway who actually said we’re a nation of laws.

INC on September 4, 2015 at 2:27 AM

The Inequality Act: Weaponizing Same-Sex Marriage
by Matthew Kacsmaryk

…Just three weeks after Obergefell, congressional Democrats filed House (H.R. 3185) and Senate (S. 1858) versions of the “Equality Act,” seeking to add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the protected classes listed in the federal code. Americans are on an “equality” roll. What could go wrong?

As it turns out, quite a bit. If enacted, the deceptively titled Equality Act would punish dissenters who disagree with same-sex marriage by using the enforcement tools of the amended Civil Rights Act of 1964, but with even greater force and scope. The Equality Act seeks to weaponize Obergefell, moving with lightning speed from a contentious five-to-four victory on same-sex marriage to a nationwide rule that “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are privileged classes that give no quarter to Americans who continue to believe and seek to exercise their millennia-old religious belief that marriage and sexual relations are reserved to the union of one man and one woman.

The “Love Wins” crowd is really live and let live, eh?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loB8rJGQoTo&feature=youtu.be

canopfor on September 3, 2015 at 6:07 PM

Even Germans didn’t cheer and shout when Jews were rounded up.

faraway on September 3, 2015 at 6:10 PM

It wasn’t clear…but did someone yell “crucify her” in that video?

d1carter on September 3, 2015 at 6:20 PM

Why yes they did.

Crucify that b*tch at 0:03

Tlaloc, is that you?

faraway on September 3, 2015 at 6:30 PM

INC on September 4, 2015 at 2:51 AM

Liberals use our law-abidingness against us. When they legalized gay marriage they expected us to comply.

Make them take every inch in a political bloodbath. Force them to throw Christians into jail for their beliefs. Next year they’ll be jailing ministers.

K. Hobbit on September 4, 2015 at 4:31 AM

Proof that this was a vendetta against Christians. You’re telling me that these 5 people were non existent before yesterday?

Brock Robamney on September 4, 2015 at 5:35 AM

Liberals use our law-abidingness against us. When they legalized gay marriage they expected us to comply.

Make them take every inch in a political bloodbath. Force them to throw Christians into jail for their beliefs. Next year they’ll be jailing ministers.

K. Hobbit on September 4, 2015 at 4:31 AM

I think my copy of the Constitution is broken. It doesn’t have the word “marriage” in it. The only “law” is a judicial fiat applicable to only one case according to the Supreme court opinion. Which is the same court which made the Korematsu opinion

Brock Robamney on September 4, 2015 at 6:11 AM

This clerk is very brave. How many people have the courage to do w hat she has done?

Brock Robamney on September 4, 2015 at 6:14 AM

As one of the few non-internet-attorneys here I wasn’t sure how someone who was apparently 100% obeying the laws covering the role and duties of her elected office ended up in jail for also having a personal view on the matter. Pretty neat trick.
 
rogerb on September 3, 2015 at 6:16 PM

 
She wasn’t obeying the laws. She was violating a pretty important one — the due process clause of the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Hope that helps.
 
righty45 on September 3, 2015 at 7:31 PM

 
No more than someone pulling out a pocket copy of “THE CONSTITUTION!!!” when he doesn’t get to carry his pistol into the bar at the strip club, and mostly because I’m fairly certain her office has some state and local laws and codes governing it.
 
As an attorney, and setting aside this Democrat’s bigotry in oppressing gays for the purpose of your “THE CONSTITUTION!!!” post, I hope you can help us out.
 
1 – Kentucky apparently doesn’t yet have laws on the books governing same sex marriage.
 
2- This Democrat’s elected ability is governed by the laws of the state of Kentucky.
 
3 – Having no legislative ability or authority, this Democrat’s office issues wedding certificates written/governed under and according to the laws of the state of Kentucky.
 
You even noted it here:
 

“requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex.” As the County Clerk for Rowan County, Kentucky, Davis’s official duties include the issuance of marriage licenses.

 
The State licenses, and the County Clerk issues. O-fishul duties.
 
How can someone disobey laws that don’t exist, and how can a judge “deem” the laws governing the activities of her office into existence? Don’t actual laws actually need to be written down in order to govern how our government works?
 
Again, I recognize that this Democrat’s routine and systemic hate of minorities (“having a personal view”) is the problem, but you hoped to help with the law.
 
How does she disobey the law by not licensing per her authority dictated by local and state laws?
 
How does she obey the law by licensing beyond her authority dictated by local and state laws?

rogerb on September 4, 2015 at 6:57 AM

One more question:
 

She could remain a free woman, the judge said, if she gave permission to her deputies to sign the certificates in her stead. The judge gave her time to consult with her attorneys.

But when the court reconvened after a short recess Thursday, ­Davis was not in her seat. An attorney explained that Davis, an Apostolic Christian, “does not grant her authority nor would allow any employee to issue those licenses.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/defiant-kentucky-clerk-could-be-found-in-contempt-thursday/2015/09/03/34e50f08-51af-11e5-9812-92d5948a40f8_story.html

That is why she is in jail — it is on her, no one else.
 
cam2 on September 3, 2015 at 11:55 PM

 
Like you said, she’s in jail because she didn’t grant her authority to the deputies to issue marriage licenses:
 

Bunning then ordered Davis to return to the courtroom. He told her attorney that if she agreed to permit her deputies to sign marriage certificates for all comers then she may be “purged” of her contempt and allowed to go home.
 
But Davis did not come back.

 
Horrible bigot or not, she’s just in jail, not impeached or out of her official capacity as an elected Democrat.
 
Under whose authority are her office’s deputies able to issue the permits today?

rogerb on September 4, 2015 at 7:07 AM

This woman is the Martin Luther King or Gandhi of our time. Jailed for her civil disobedience over immoral and unjust laws. Well done true and faithful servant!

tommyboy on September 4, 2015 at 7:34 AM

Kim Davis has been married four times.
Sanctity of marriage?
Just not at all a surprise.

verbaluce on September 4, 2015 at 7:34 AM

Kim Davis has been married four times.
Verbaluce on September 4, 2015 at 7:34 AM

That was before she became a Christian and was saved. Just like the Apostle Paul was a killer and persecutor before he became a Christian. What a wonder that Christ can so change a wicked and unregenerate heart.

tommyboy on September 4, 2015 at 7:50 AM

Kim Davis has been married four times.
Sanctity of marriage?
Just not at all a surprise.
 
verbaluce on September 4, 2015 at 7:34 AM

 
+1
 

Davis, a Democrat, won a 2014 election for Rowan County clerk handily
 
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/02/436893283/heres-what-we-know-about-the-ky-clerk-refusing-gay-marriage-licenses

 
Oopsies.

rogerb on September 4, 2015 at 8:01 AM

I’m cool with Obama, Davis, and the Mayor of San Fran all resigning.

mazer9 on September 4, 2015 at 9:11 AM

This clerk is very brave. How many people have the courage to do w hat she has done?

Brock Robamney on September 4, 2015 at 6:14 AM

How many people would have the “courage” to blow themselves up for their religious beliefs?

mazer9 on September 4, 2015 at 9:13 AM

How many people would have the “courage” to blow themselves up for their religious beliefs?
mazer9 on September 4, 2015 at 9:13 AM

I always heard suicide was the coward’s way out.

tommyboy on September 4, 2015 at 9:17 AM

Wait, she was just sitting there, right? Didn’t folks go to her building to push her off the roof?

rogerb on September 4, 2015 at 9:37 AM

So ridiculous.

Once again, by definition, marriage is heterosexual. Gays CANNOT marry each other -because the concept, by definition does not apply to them.

It’s just that simple.

The people in the clerks’ positions… should take this position.

Laws don’t change facts.

Wing Chun Man on September 4, 2015 at 9:37 AM

blink on September 4, 2015 at 2:37 AM

I’m honestly not sure how to explain it any more simply. I think you’re having trouble understanding that the 14th amendment is, in fact, a law which Ms. Davis violated. And the 14th amendment (and the Supreme Court’s ruling interpreting it) do in fact apply to Kentucky — that is why Ms. Davis is in contempt. Finally, the fact that she is not granting marriage licenses to anyone does not save her from a due process clause violation. It might if this were an equal protection case, but it’s not. Same-sex marriages have a constitutional right to receive marriage licenses, and Ms. Davis is denying them that right.

righty45 on September 4, 2015 at 9:51 AM

They don’t make cardiologists do brain surgery so I think the “Doctors forced to perform abortions!” idea is pretty farfetched.

alchemist19 on September 3, 2015 at 10:40 PM

Right, because if the cardiologist can’t do the required surgery, the patient can go somewhere else to get it done. Just like these ghey activists could have gone to one of the other 119 counties in the state of Kentucky.

Nutstuyu on September 4, 2015 at 10:22 AM

How many people would have the “courage” to blow themselves up for their religious beliefs?

mazer9 on September 4, 2015 at 9:13 AM

According to recent polls, more than 33% of the 1.57 billion Mooslums.

Nutstuyu on September 4, 2015 at 10:23 AM

Kim Davis has been married four times.
Sanctity of marriage?
Just not at all a surprise.

verbaluce on September 4, 2015 at 7:34 AM

Maybe you should try speaking in Spanish since your English sucks. She has been married three times, and is now married a fourth time.

Nutstuyu on September 4, 2015 at 10:24 AM

All you have to do is hint that female X looks good, or maybe shouldn’t walk through Compton wearing nothing but a mesh bra and verbaluce and the rest would go insane screaming about slut shaming and so forth.

But this woman? She’s the worst person ever to walk the face of the earth, right?

Vanceone on September 4, 2015 at 10:47 AM

Their interpretation does apply in Kentucky, but their ruling isn’t yet enforceable in Kentucky. I don’t think you understand that.

You’re absolutely right. I don’t understand that at all. Please explain (and cite your sources, if you don’t mind).

the fact that she is not granting marriage licenses to anyone does not save her from a due process clause violation
It most certainly does.

Ok. How?

Just be honest. She hasn’t broken any laws. She’s merely in jail because a judge has declared her in contempt.

The judge found her in contempt because she refused to comply with a lawful order. That order was that she comply with a law — the 14th amendment. This is not very complicated.

A cop, city official, or state official that denies someone their 2nd amendment right have violated someone’s right, but they haven’t broken any laws. That’s why these are civil cases.

This does not make any sense. Yes, if a state official violates someone’s constitutional rights (including their 2nd amendment rights) they have, of course, violated the law. Ms. Davis did not violate a criminal law (which is why this is civil, not criminal contempt), but she violated a law.

righty45 on September 4, 2015 at 11:27 AM

righty45 on September 4, 2015 at 9:51 AM

When Justice Kennedy wishes to leave his ramblings to the supposed authority of the 14th Amendment in defiance of the 10th, for a redefinition of marriage which predates the founding of the republic, in an area where the feds should have no authority, I will be happy to consider your argument.

Since he instead chose to call defenders of the historical and socially only legitimately constructed definition of marriage, bigots; I’m not sure I trust the rest of his or the other members of the majority’s analysis at all.

The Court is writing law. Davis is the first, and so I do expect all the sanctuary cities to be cited in contempt of federal immigration law that forces to end their sanctuary status or go to jail, now. So when that starts to happen I will find Davis’ behavior contemptible. Didn’t Obama refuse to enforce immigration rules and the court found in his favor? SO the executive can ignore laws at their choosing and force States to not enforce it? What was the basis for that? Because a court decided they didn’t want to cross Obama or that they are pro-illegal immigrant?

Allah asks a very legitimate question – and “righty” it is of course the basis of your comment. Aren’t we just doing what we abhor in the left? A fair question. What is occurring is the beginning of a larger movement of people who hate DC and all it stands for. Who realize they are not public servants, and that the rule of law for them is a quaint notion used to control the broader population while they ignore it. This decision by Kennedy is a joke. Maybe not quite as bad as Roe from a technical standpoint, but close. They are just making it up based upon how they feel on a given day.

So yes – it is time to engage differently. It’s why Trump is leading the GOP field at the moment, and why the congress approval is in the tank with the GOP voters despite controlling both chambers. Boehner and McConnell are clueless – and the political elite in DC are no one’s friend. The population is beginning to see this. Interesting where it ends. Your argument I understand. But unfortunately, it is what our lords in DC are counting on.

Zomcon JEM on September 4, 2015 at 11:29 AM

Because they were threatened with jail. What a POS that judge is.

TerryW on September 4, 2015 at 12:15 PM

Under whose authority are her office’s deputies able to issue the permits today?
 
rogerb on September 4, 2015 at 7:07 AM

 
Ha.
 

Among other points that Davis’s lawyers made to the judge about the obedience by her deputy clerks was that state law does not allow them to do so without her name and signature on the forms, and they repeated her vow not to provide that authorization.. Even so, the judge then obtained the promise from five of her six deputy clerks to reopen marriage licensing in their office on Friday, and he said he would tolerate no “shenanigans.”
 
http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/09/a-new-legal-cloud-over-same-sex-marriage-in-kentucky/

 
Witness the lesser-known “No Shenanigans” Amendment to the Constitution.
 
I’m guessing the law-and-order solution to this would’ve been to keep her in jail and no one gets marriage licenses in this county until she relented, was released, or was impeached and replaced, but nope. Here are some marriage licenses that don’t comply with your state and local legislation instead.
 
Exactly like before.
 
Congratulations on your once-again illegal and invalid under state law marriages, gay folks.
 
That’s hilarious.
 
Seriously though, what does the Constitution say about this? Is this that something something states one?

rogerb on September 4, 2015 at 12:37 PM

Kim Davis has been married four times.
Sanctity of marriage?
Just not at all a surprise.

verbaluce on September 4, 2015 at 7:34 AM

I’m curious as to why you think this is relevant.

The Schaef on September 4, 2015 at 3:51 PM

I’d be happy to explain it to you. Read the Obergefell decision as homework, then I’ll explain more.

Yep, read it months ago. Go ahead.

This appears to be the last issue you are hung up on so hopefully I can clear this one up for you as well. The other points were regurgitations of things said by Mike Huckabee and the like, so I understood where your confusion was coming from. But this last point is just completely incoherent. Please do explain.

righty45 on September 4, 2015 at 3:52 PM

What he’s doing here is taking the Trump-ish attitude that the left has so eroded the rule of law that it’s time for the right to play along and fight fire with fire.

That’s valid.

The law hasn’t been the law for a long time. The left is above it, as many instances of disregard with impunity demonstrate, and the right is beneath it, not receiving its protection, as IRS harassment of the Tea Party illustrates.

“The law’s the law” for one side only just means: “we quit; you rule.”

David Blue on September 4, 2015 at 5:58 PM

What if this woman was a muslim helath inspector who shut down restaurants and stores for selling pork and alcohol?
What if she was muslim building inspector who condemned churches or private schools?
How many of you would be supporting her then?

TX-eye on September 4, 2015 at 6:52 PM

What if this woman was a muslim helath inspector who shut down restaurants and stores for selling pork and alcohol?
What if she was muslim building inspector who condemned churches or private schools?
How many of you would be supporting her then?
 
TX-eye on September 4, 2015 at 6:52 PM

 
Or a federal judge imprisoning county employees who won’t issue illegal state documents.

rogerb on September 4, 2015 at 7:29 PM

Democratic scofflaws are everywhere.

http://www.weapon-blog.com/2015/09/austin-texas-city-hall-defies-sb-273/

CWforFreedom on September 4, 2015 at 8:01 PM

Read it again keeping this discussion in mind. It will be me clearing this up for you.

blink on September 4, 2015 at 6:21 PM

No thanks. I’d prefer not to suffer through Kennedy’s self-indulgent prose yet again.

If you can explain your position please do. If you cannot, that’s fine but just say so instead of stalling. Judging from the sophistication level of your previous posts I’m getting the sense you’re using this time to once again brush up on Mike Huckabee’s thoughts on the matter.

righty45 on September 5, 2015 at 12:04 AM

Do you think the Kentucky legislature needs to pass enabling legislation for the Supreme Court’s decision to be enforceable or something? I know that’s something Huckabee is saying. If it’s easier you can just link to whatever it is you plan on to regurgitating.

righty45 on September 5, 2015 at 12:23 AM

It’s not a marriage. It will never be … a marriage.

hawkdriver on September 5, 2015 at 12:34 AM

What if this woman was a muslim helath inspector who shut down restaurants and stores for selling pork and alcohol?
What if she was muslim building inspector who condemned churches or private schools?
How many of you would be supporting her then?

TX-eye on September 4, 2015 at 6:52 PM

Sockpuppet for Chris-L

hawkdriver on September 5, 2015 at 12:35 AM

Kim Davis has been married four times.
Sanctity of marriage?
Just not at all a surprise.

verbaluce on September 4, 2015 at 7:34 AM

By your logic, the two heavy drops in Oregon didn’t need to be ordering a cake either. Maybe a wedding salad instead?

hawkdriver on September 5, 2015 at 12:41 AM

Democrats and their …respect…. Of the law… Lol.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/09/failed-targeting-of-scott-walker-by-dem-prosecutors/

CWforFreedom on September 5, 2015 at 5:12 AM

Meanwhile, Davis tried to spend Wednesday morning out of the limelight in her private office. She did emerge to deny a marriage license sought by Robbie Blankenship and Jesse Cruz, a couple from Ohio. Their confrontation was caught on video broadcast by local and national outlets.
 
“What authority do you have under the United States Supreme Court?” Blankenship called out as Davis leaves after rejecting the license request. “None,” he said.
 
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-same-sex-marriage-kentucky-20150902-story.html

 
It’s pretty neat that two guys from Ohio drove through other counties in Kentucky to tie their knots in this specific one.

rogerb on September 6, 2015 at 10:28 AM

Under whose authority are her office’s deputies able to issue the permits today?

rogerb on September 4, 2015 at 7:07 AM

I’m guessing the law-and-order solution to this would’ve been to keep her in jail and no one gets marriage licenses in this county until she relented, was released, or was impeached and replaced, but nope. Here are some marriage licenses that don’t comply with your state and local legislation instead.

Exactly like before.

Congratulations on your once-again illegal and invalid under state law marriages, gay folks.

That’s hilarious.

rogerb on September 4, 2015 at 12:37 PM

If that were right, I am not sure why depriving gay folks of their right to marry would be “hilarious.”

But it is not right. KRS § 402.080 states that a marriage license “may be issued by any county clerk,” and another provision (KRS § 402.100) provides that “[e]ach county clerk shall use the form prescribed by the Department for Libraries and Archives when issuing a marriage license.” But that same latter provision also provides that the license may, alternatively, be issued by a deputy clerk, as it states that the license must contain “[t]he date and place the license is issued, and the signature of the county clerk or deputy clerk issuing the license.” In addition, KRS § 61.035 provides that “[a]ny duty enjoined by law . . . upon a ministerial officer, and any act permitted to be done by him, may be performed by his lawful deputy.”

So the deputy clerks are authorized under Kentucky law to sign and issue the marriage licenses while Ms. Davis is in jail. Even if they were not so authorized under state law, the federal judge could likely authorize them to do so as a means of enforcing his order.

righty45 on September 7, 2015 at 12:23 AM

Here are some marriage licenses that don’t comply with your state and local legislation instead.
 
Exactly like before.
 
Congratulations on your once-again illegal and invalid under state law marriages, gay folks.
 
That’s hilarious.
 
rogerb on September 4, 2015 at 12:37 PM

 
If that were right, I am not sure why depriving gay folks of their right to marry would be “hilarious.”

 
I suspect your overwhelming sense of “is depriving gay folks of their right to marry”-ism is keeping you from seeing the comedy in a judge forcing people to issue, not to mention receive, marriage licenses that don’t comply with state and local legislation, exactly like before the Supremes had their recent dance hit.
 

But it is not right. KRS § 402.080 states that a marriage license “may be issued by any county clerk,”…
 
righty45 on September 7, 2015 at 12:23 AM

 
+1.
 
I’m not sure why you would willingly post that, but yes.
 
You are 100% correct.
 
I cannot possibly agree with you any more than I do, and thank you for finding the relevant, exact, and highly specific legislation covering the matter.
 
You’re 100%, exactly, undeniably correct, full stop.
 
“May be issued by any county clerk” is written down right there, in black and white, in Kentucky law:
 

402.080 Marriage license required — Who may issue.
 
The license shall be issued by the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female is eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her application in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be issued by any county clerk
 
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=36473

 
Immediately after “in which case it” (a neat phrase, isn’t it?) and
 

the female

The female

widow

her

 
and
 

her

 
Thanks again for your help. You’re an attorney, right?

rogerb on September 7, 2015 at 6:15 AM

Two questions:

1) You don’t have to like all the laws, but can you pick and choose which laws to obey?

2) How is this situation (with Kim Davis) any different than a Muslim who refuses to grant a driver’s license to a woman?

Bob Davis on September 6, 2015 at 9:17 AM

Bob Davis on September 7, 2015 at 1:20 PM

rogerb on September 7, 2015 at 6:15 AM

As always, happy to help Roger. Have a good one. :)

righty45 on September 7, 2015 at 6:09 PM

You, too. Sorry I killed the thread again.

rogerb on September 8, 2015 at 6:00 AM