The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgiving

[joecct]

A continuance has been granted as we exhausted the thread title in two months and 2 weeks (or so)

BTW - the last thread title. I am surprised nobody got the Flintstones reference (and the last line of the theme song).

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Davis will be spending the night alone.

 

[alfablue]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

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.

How it is an inconvenience to tell her staff to break the law? Her instructions go against a federal judge's instructions. Instructions that 5/6 staff would be willing to comply with.

If the staff were right along with her in the objections, that would be one thing. But it sure sounds like she it telling her staff to not make a choice but just follow her.

I just don't see that as being remotely heroic. Or being a leader of a protest movement. That's more being a dictator of "follow just because" kind of rule.

The other thing I would be interested in is her oath of office. Did she say she would protect and defend the Constitution?

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

The other thing I would be interested in is her oath of office. Did she say she would protect and defend the Constitution?

As an elected officer of the state and possibly of the court, I suspect she did, and that is something that has stuck in my craw from the beginning. She is trying to prevent subordinates from their own individual obligations to uphold the law as well. Resigning in protest would have been principled: this is not.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

The other thing I would be interested in is her oath of office. Did she say she would protect and defend the Constitution?

The former AG decided not to enforce laws on the books. What he did was in accordance with public opinion - the law be d@mn_d.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Just to be clear. From a broader point, she has every right to stand up for what she believes. Its great that she is standing up for what she believes. It is free speech to do so. She used her job to do that and that at very least is against policy. And that's a problem for her because she personally took the hit. If she wanted to have a job and to have long term effectiveness, she should have used different avenues. She deserved to be fired immediately.

Alfa/Burd maybe you're mainly critical that she continued to do it even though she was told she can't. But that's not on her. That's on the system for taking so long to enforce its own policies. And frankly, the system taking so long to enforce its own rules is probably the only aspect of the whole situation that was problematic.

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Alfa/Burd maybe you're mainly critical that she continued to do it even though she was told she can't. But that's not on her. That's on the system for taking so long to enforce its own policies. And frankly, the system taking so long to enforce its own rules is probably the only aspect of the whole situation that was problematic.

I don't know the back story on the lag in enforcement, 5mn. Maybe it should be part of the discussion. I was just viewing it in the context of the SCOTUS decision.

 

[alfablue]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Alfa/Burd maybe you're mainly critical that she continued to do it even though she was told she can't. But that's not on her. That's on the system for taking so long to enforce its own policies. And frankly, the system taking so long to enforce its own rules is probably the only aspect of the whole situation that was problematic.

No, it's not the continuation of it, its the fact that she instructed her subordinates to protest as well, and since 5/6 of them said today that they would comply with the court order, they were not in her camp. Which is to say, she told them to break the law/break a court order.

I see the point about her protesting to her conscience, and using free speech to do that. Even though I do have an issue that a government representative goes against the Constitution. As an elected government representative, who swore an oath- that should be grounds of whatever it's called that she loses her office.

But basically taking other, non willing, people down with her. I do have an extra issue with that. This is where a protest goes from heroic to very much not.

Military people are allowed to not follow orders when the order is unlawful. We can't have people just using their position to order people around just based on what they believe.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

The other thing I would be interested in is her oath of office. Did she say she would protect and defend the Constitution?

Her you go:

I, _____, do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of _____ County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God.

Source: Kentucky Legislative Research Commission

 

[unofan]

The former AG decided not to enforce laws on the books. What he did was in accordance with public opinion - the law be d@mn_d.

Just to be clear, and since I know you're talking about his unwillingness to fight for the state's gay marriage ban, an AG has discretion as a licensed attorney to know when he's going to lose and not waste taxpayer money. Most will still make token efforts at a trial level, but I'm not going to criticize someone who sees the writing on the wall and is ultimately proven correct and saves their client six or seven figures in legal fees.

 

[alfablue]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Her you go:

I, _____, do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of _____ County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God.

Source: Kentucky Legislative Research Commission

So no reference of the Constitution, ok.... But not exactly doing the proceedings of the court without partiality.

Thanks for finding that. Too bad that she's not being held to that standard- it's the oath she swore.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Amor vincit omnia.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

When the derp closes a door, it opens a window.

A judge in Tennessee told a married couple seeking a divorce that he could not grant one for them, arguing that the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decision left him unclear as to when a marriage ends.

"The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces," Hamilton County Chancellor Jeffrey Atherton wrote when denying the divorce petition, according to the Chattanooga Times Free Press.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Meanwhile in Tennessee a judge pontificates that Obgerfell preempts state marriage laws and now all marriage cases should be federal cases.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ght-couple-a-divorce-because-of-gay-marriage/

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Jinx

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

An inevitable result of the federal government reaching into more and more things.

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

An inevitable result of the federal government reaching into more and more things.

What is the inevitable result and what is the causal factor you are talking about (related to the federal government reaching into more and more things)?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

What is the inevitable result and what is the causal factor you are talking about (related to the federal government reaching into more and more things)?

Did you read the article?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

An inevitable result of the federal government reaching into more and more things.

Seems more like a temper tantrum to me.

 

[unofan]

An inevitable result of the federal government reaching into more and more things.

An by inevitable result you mean, elected judge panders to his base, one again demonstrating why judges should not be elected.