- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- It's Labor Day
It's Labor DayFollow
I'm of the opinion she should be fired and replaced with someone less recalcitrant, but that's just me.
Just as Planned.
She's elected, not hired, so firing her isn't an option. I have no idea if there's a method of removing a shitty county clerk who refuses to do their job from office in Kentucky. I'm guessing it doesn't come up very often.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I'm pretty sure breaking the law can have her held off the ballot for reelection. Possibly an impeachment.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
gbaji wrote:
And by "will of the people", you mean "5 unelected judges who decided that they didn't like what the people (75% in this case) wanted". Say they were upholding constitutional rights, if you want, but don't use the phrase "will of the people" when discussing *** marriage in KY. The court ruled strongly against the will of the people when making that ruling.
Funny, right?
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
I suppose one benefit of having the same arguments over and over is that I can save keystrokes by copy 'n pasting.
I've no idea what "will of the people" is supposed to be about unless it's specific to Kentucky. There's been majority support for both SSM and for the SCotUS decision in this country.
I previously wrote:
Rhetoric about "Five people in black robes!!!" aside, this ruling came on the shoulders of circuit court decisions in favor in the Forth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth districts. And numerous rulings at the district and state level. It was only a 2-1 decision in the Sixth that over turned four additional pro-SSM rulings which finally bumped this to the Supreme Court (and because the ACLU decided to get it over with rather than seek an en banc ruling). It took years for it to hit the Supreme Court because they wouldn't grant certiorari until there was finally a split at the appellate level. The total number of Circuit Court of Appeals justices ruling on the cases was eleven finding a constitutional protection versus four dissenting. I won't even bother trying to count all the lower level judges ruling in favor. This wasn't "OMG Kennedy decided to make history" but a decision made agreeing with the great majority of other judges ruling on this, appointed by both parties and previously thought of as being just fine until they make a decision you don't agree with and then everyone flips their **** and starts hooting.
I've no idea what "will of the people" is supposed to be about unless it's specific to Kentucky. There's been majority support for both SSM and for the SCotUS decision in this country.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
There's Kentucky Statute 522.020 and 522.030 that the people of Kentucky decided was a good law to have since 1975 pointing out that it's a class A and B misdemeanor for a public servant to not do their job even if the law changes. And, you know, the whole separation of church and state and how part of any public servant oath involves a statement about upholding the laws and constitution and no rider about how they can choose not to if the world changes. But no, it's probably just those five people that decided on their own.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Quote:
When? Where? The article you linked says this:
Yesterday. All the links I can find have naughty grownup words in them, but there was an article in the WSJ.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
www.wallstreetjournal.com/news/national/marriage-licenses-legal-fart-fart-poop-peepee.html.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Such harsh language. Wall Street. 
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Hey, what a surprise: The Sixth Circuit US Court of Appeals has, yet again, told Davis to do her job.
Quote:
On Tuesday, the day after Davis returned to work following a stint in jail for defying a federal judge, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals shot down another of her requests to delay issuing the licenses.
After four couples sued Davis for refusing them licenses, she filed a counter lawsuit against Gov. Steve Beshear, alleging that he improperly instructed clerks to abide by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in June that legalized gay marriage. The appeals court rejected her request to delay that directive.
After four couples sued Davis for refusing them licenses, she filed a counter lawsuit against Gov. Steve Beshear, alleging that he improperly instructed clerks to abide by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in June that legalized gay marriage. The appeals court rejected her request to delay that directive.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Imagine that, breaking a real law isn't legal.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Jophiel wrote:
So basically, the law says they aren't valid, but since it's politically expedient *now* to ignore that, they are. But when it would have prevented this whole issue 6 months ago, it was not. I see. Kinda seems like you're proving my "this could have been handled trivially, months ago, without someone having to go to jail" point quite well.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Again, it shouldn't be on anyone else to find an alternate route beyond Davis doing the job she was elected to do and that she was ordered to do, multiple times now, by the courts.
Yes, it would be easier to let her refuse to do her job and to accommodate her unlawful discrimination. It's also easier to give toddlers ice cream than to make them clean their bedrooms.
Yes, it would be easier to let her refuse to do her job and to accommodate her unlawful discrimination. It's also easier to give toddlers ice cream than to make them clean their bedrooms.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
There you go again, infantilising women as usual. Tell me, Jophiel, do you ever get tired of wallowing in your own misogyny?
I thought not.
Edited, Sep 19th 2015 1:06am by Kavekkk
I thought not.
Edited, Sep 19th 2015 1:06am by Kavekkk
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
Well, duh... otherwise I'd stop.
Also, that should be toddlerizing.
Edited, Sep 19th 2015 1:44am by Jophiel
Also, that should be toddlerizing.
Edited, Sep 19th 2015 1:44am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Again, it shouldn't be on anyone else to find an alternate route beyond Davis doing the job she was elected to do and that she was ordered to do, multiple times now, by the courts.
Yes, it would be easier to let her refuse to do her job and to accommodate her unlawful discrimination. It's also easier to give toddlers ice cream than to make them clean their bedrooms.
Yes, it would be easier to let her refuse to do her job and to accommodate her unlawful discrimination. It's also easier to give toddlers ice cream than to make them clean their bedrooms.
A case could be made for reasonable accommodation on religious grounds, by allowing someone else to take over all marriage licenses signings. She would have standing if she had presented an alternative solution rather than recalcitrance.
Just as Planned.
So, apparently Ms KY Jaily has intentionally violated the court order by confiscating all of the marriage license forms. Strike a blow for.... well, whatever the hell you're flailing at.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
A case COULD have been made... until multiple courts said "Nope, you actually don't have a case here; do your job".
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I'm not arguing that she doesn't need to be removed. These particularists have got to go, with extreme predjudice.
Just as Planned.
Timelordwho wrote:
A case could be made for reasonable accommodation on religious grounds
"the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Hermann Goering, April 1946.
Hermann Goering, April 1946.
Timelordwho wrote:
A case could be made for reasonable accommodation on religious grounds,
Romans 13:1-2 wrote:
13 - 1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Recent Visitors: 432
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (432)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- It's Labor Day
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC