What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

You're both right. Protest and using tools to advance your position is what this country is all about. Its the essence of free speech. And if ultimately she profits from it (or further advances her cause), all the power to her.

Having said that, you can't go outside of the bounds of your job and expect to stay there. She should have been fired immediately.

Both aspects are as they should be...and are strengths of our society.

I agree she should be removed from her job. This is Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheepdog; they both show up in the morning, punch the clock, and do their jobs. Davis' job was the protest, the judge's job was to remove her from her position. Everybody played their part correctly. This was a good day for a democratic society.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Ok, I get that part, but I'm not sure if I go along with the idea of imposing your protest onto others like that. Maybe one of the other clerks was ok with doing the job, but she did not let them.

Again, having an individual protesting on their behalf is one thing- using others to do the "protesting" for you (moreso if you are forcing them)- that I don't think it all that heroic. Quite the opposite.

I'll admit that makes it more complex, but I think her involvement of the other people in her office was an inconveniencing in the same way that the couples who were denied licenses were inconvenienced. Also it may give the state grounds to dismiss her: she interfered with another state official's duties.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top