|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 04 2015 04:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2015 03:19 Plansix wrote:
I find the entire analogy to be sort of silly since the main goal of violating the law was to start the discussion about gay marriage and work through the process in the court and political system. His intent was clear and the people who lived in the city supported it.
This case is a clear example of someone pushing against a solved ruled upon issue, like a Governor standing in-front of a public school with a fire ax. Mayor violates law, but you agree that the law is bad, therefore it's "start[ing] a discussion" and a clear goal of a court process (???). It sounds like you're advocating judicial immunity for unpopular laws and the supremacy of courts over legislative process. I'm constantly reminded how much of this reduces to faith in justices to govern and outright rejection of government by the people. How easy you find it to whitewash activists that agitate for your preferred direction of social change.
I never have faith in the majority to provide minorities with basic human rights. History has proven over and over that doesn't happen. The south didn't get desegregated without the court forcing it to happen. Same with this. This issue was never going to be resolved by the political process because one side was passing laws to outlaw gay marriage, even if it was issued from another state, and those were always going to be challenged in the federal court.
And I am constantly reminded that some people would let others be treated second-class-citizens until the public got together and decided they could be equal.
On September 04 2015 04:55 zlefin wrote:
Lately I've heard a fair number of complaints about "unelected judges." I'm not referring necessarily to what danglars just said (that simply reminded me of this), but more generally its something I've heard from a variety of sources.
As an empirical observation, the approval ratings of the unelected justices of the Supreme court is consistently higher than that of Congress. The analyses I've seen that compare the performance of elected judges vs appointed judges found appointed judges to be better on average (less corrupt, better performance views by the community, less misconduct).
I suspect people have a knee-jerk pro-democracy reaction, that things should be done by vote, regardless of whether those specific things tend to actually turn out more to their satisfaction through voting. All forms of governments have strengths and weaknesses, and most people probably aren't properly aware of the weaknesses in democracy (as typically practiced), so that may be why they default to saying do it through elected people, even though that may be demonstrably inferior.
John Adams used the phrase tyranny of the majority for a reason. Its why they created the Judicial Branch.
|
U.S. Sen. Cory Booker will vote in favor of the nuclear deal with Iran.
New Jersey’s junior Democratic senator announced his position Thursday afternoon in a 3,395-word essay after “hours and hours” of study, saying sanctions have “only delayed — not blocked — Iran’s potential nuclear breakout.”
“We have now passed a point of no return that we should have never reached, leaving our nation to choose between two imperfect, dangerous and uncertain options. Left with these two choices, I nonetheless believe it is better to support a deeply flawed deal, for the alternative is worse,” Booker wrote. “Thus, I will vote in support of the deal. But the United States must recognize that to make this deal work, we must be more vigilant than ever in fighting Iranian aggression.”
His position marks a break from his state's senior senator, Robert Menendez, who announced his opposition to the deal last month.
Booker’s vote became less critical Wednesday when Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland announced her support for the Iran deal, becoming the key 34th vote needed to ensure that Senate could not override a veto of an effort to cancel the deal. However, President Barack Obama needs 41 votes in the Senate to support a filibuster that could keep such a bill from reaching his desk.
Booker has faced more pressure than anyone in New Jersey’s congressional delegation over Iran. Despite his long — if at times rocky — alliance with Obama, he represents one of the state’s most heavily Jewish states, filled with activists both for and against the measure. He’s faced calls from J Street to support it, from Gov. Chris Christie and his longtime friend Rabbi Shmuley Boteach to oppose it. Former Sen. Joseph Lieberman is in Livingston on Thursday night to speak out against the deal, at an event that was billed as an appeal to Booker.
Source
|
On September 04 2015 04:55 zlefin wrote:
Lately I've heard a fair number of complaints about "unelected judges." I'm not referring necessarily to what danglars just said (that simply reminded me of this), but more generally its something I've heard from a variety of sources.
As an empirical observation, the approval ratings of the unelected justices of the Supreme court is consistently higher than that of Congress. The analyses I've seen that compare the performance of elected judges vs appointed judges found appointed judges to be better on average (less corrupt, better performance views by the community, less misconduct).
I suspect people have a knee-jerk pro-democracy reaction, that things should be done by vote, regardless of whether those specific things tend to actually turn out more to their satisfaction through voting. All forms of governments have strengths and weaknesses, and most people probably aren't properly aware of the weaknesses in democracy (as typically practiced), so that may be why they default to saying do it through elected people, even though that may be demonstrably inferior.
Most of the time the phrase "unelected judges" isn't used to advocate for judicial elections. It's to point out that their power and reach should be carefully watched and managed, since they are appointed and very hard to remove. I don't know anyone who says that the Supreme Court should be nationally elected, for instance.
|
On September 04 2015 05:23 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2015 04:55 zlefin wrote:
Lately I've heard a fair number of complaints about "unelected judges." I'm not referring necessarily to what danglars just said (that simply reminded me of this), but more generally its something I've heard from a variety of sources.
As an empirical observation, the approval ratings of the unelected justices of the Supreme court is consistently higher than that of Congress. The analyses I've seen that compare the performance of elected judges vs appointed judges found appointed judges to be better on average (less corrupt, better performance views by the community, less misconduct).
I suspect people have a knee-jerk pro-democracy reaction, that things should be done by vote, regardless of whether those specific things tend to actually turn out more to their satisfaction through voting. All forms of governments have strengths and weaknesses, and most people probably aren't properly aware of the weaknesses in democracy (as typically practiced), so that may be why they default to saying do it through elected people, even though that may be demonstrably inferior. Most of the time the phrase "unelected judges" isn't used to advocate for judicial elections. It's to point out that their power and reach should be carefully watched and managed, since they are appointed and very hard to remove. I don't know anyone who says that the Supreme Court should be nationally elected, for instance.
Cruz does :p
www.washingtonpost.com
|
Term limits for the Senate first. And Cruz loves to promise things to his base that he can never deliver on.
|
Aid groups and at least 14 senators have called on the US government to take in thousands more Syrian refugees by the end of 2016, recommending at least five times more than the approximately 1,500 Washington has admitted since the conflict began in 2011.
Despite the US being considered a leader in providing in humanitarian aid, the number of Syrian refugees it is set to admit pales in comparison to the 800,000 people German chancellor Angela Merkel has said Germany will take in this year.
Shannon Scribner, humanitarian policy manager at Oxfam America, said the most useful approach would be for world governments to find a political solution to the crisis in Syria, but since that is not expected any time soon, the organization is pushing for the US to resettle 70,000 Syrian refugees.
The group is also pushing for donors, including the US, to increase the amount of funding they are sending to the World Food Programme, which only has enough money to aid Syria and Lebanon until the end of September. “This is not going to go away any time soon, and what we are hearing from refugees in both Lebanon and Syria is that people are seeing their children becoming increasingly more hungry,” Scribner said.
Oxfam America and other aid groups believe the US also needs to expedite itsresettlement process, while pressuring other communities to accept more refugees.
A State Department official told the Guardian that the US “is committed to maintaining a robust refugee admissions program, and is particularly aware of the needs of the Syrian refugee population”.
The US has admitted approximately 1,500 Syrian refugees since the beginning of the civil war there in 2011, mostly within the last fiscal year. Since April, the number of admitted refugees has more than doubled from an estimate of 700.
Source
|
I'm aware of that introvert, though I'd say it's not just used to say you gotta keep an eye on them (even though you really need to keep even more of an eye on the elected people) but to imply that they are less worthy/appropriate to be making such decisions.
|
Clerk Rejects Proposal to Let Deputies Issue Marriage Licenses
ASHLAND, Ky. — A defiant county clerk rejected a proposal that would have allowed her deputies to grant same-sex marriage licenses, hours after she was sent to jail by a federal judge for disobeying a court order.
Through her lawyer, the clerk, Kim Davis of Rowan County, said she would not agree to allow the licenses to be issued under her authority as county clerk. Had she consented, the judge would have considered releasing her from custody.
Five of the six deputies have told Judge David L. Bunning of Federal District Court that that they will issue the licenses, though some of them said they would do so reluctantly. The lone holdout was Ms. Davis’s son, Nathan.
[...]
Lawyers for the same-sex couples seeking licenses had asked Judge Bunning to fine Ms. Davis and not send her to jail, but the judge said he thought that a fine would not be enough to prompt the clerk’s compliance.
source
this stuff is getting funny
|
On September 04 2015 05:41 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2015 05:23 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2015 04:55 zlefin wrote:
Lately I've heard a fair number of complaints about "unelected judges." I'm not referring necessarily to what danglars just said (that simply reminded me of this), but more generally its something I've heard from a variety of sources.
As an empirical observation, the approval ratings of the unelected justices of the Supreme court is consistently higher than that of Congress. The analyses I've seen that compare the performance of elected judges vs appointed judges found appointed judges to be better on average (less corrupt, better performance views by the community, less misconduct).
I suspect people have a knee-jerk pro-democracy reaction, that things should be done by vote, regardless of whether those specific things tend to actually turn out more to their satisfaction through voting. All forms of governments have strengths and weaknesses, and most people probably aren't properly aware of the weaknesses in democracy (as typically practiced), so that may be why they default to saying do it through elected people, even though that may be demonstrably inferior. Most of the time the phrase "unelected judges" isn't used to advocate for judicial elections. It's to point out that their power and reach should be carefully watched and managed, since they are appointed and very hard to remove. I don't know anyone who says that the Supreme Court should be nationally elected, for instance. Cruz does :p www.washingtonpost.com
That's not the same thing. And I favor term limits for all branches. Rotation is good.
|
On September 04 2015 05:56 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2015 05:41 Gorsameth wrote:On September 04 2015 05:23 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2015 04:55 zlefin wrote:
Lately I've heard a fair number of complaints about "unelected judges." I'm not referring necessarily to what danglars just said (that simply reminded me of this), but more generally its something I've heard from a variety of sources.
As an empirical observation, the approval ratings of the unelected justices of the Supreme court is consistently higher than that of Congress. The analyses I've seen that compare the performance of elected judges vs appointed judges found appointed judges to be better on average (less corrupt, better performance views by the community, less misconduct).
I suspect people have a knee-jerk pro-democracy reaction, that things should be done by vote, regardless of whether those specific things tend to actually turn out more to their satisfaction through voting. All forms of governments have strengths and weaknesses, and most people probably aren't properly aware of the weaknesses in democracy (as typically practiced), so that may be why they default to saying do it through elected people, even though that may be demonstrably inferior. Most of the time the phrase "unelected judges" isn't used to advocate for judicial elections. It's to point out that their power and reach should be carefully watched and managed, since they are appointed and very hard to remove. I don't know anyone who says that the Supreme Court should be nationally elected, for instance. Cruz does :p www.washingtonpost.com That's not the same thing. And I favor term limits for all branches. Rotation is good.
Elected judges a terrible idea at most levels. Especially for the highest court where they are supposed to overturn laws created by popular demand. I could see appointing new ones after 8-12 year terms. But I also think the stability of the Supreme Court is a boon for the government. Having a branch that is basically immune to the whims of public opinion and the politics of the moment has a place in the system.
|
Term limits sound nice in principle; but in practice they don't tend to actually improve the situation much, if at all, from the analyses I've read. What have you heard of their effects in practice?
|
On September 04 2015 06:00 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2015 05:56 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2015 05:41 Gorsameth wrote:On September 04 2015 05:23 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2015 04:55 zlefin wrote:
Lately I've heard a fair number of complaints about "unelected judges." I'm not referring necessarily to what danglars just said (that simply reminded me of this), but more generally its something I've heard from a variety of sources.
As an empirical observation, the approval ratings of the unelected justices of the Supreme court is consistently higher than that of Congress. The analyses I've seen that compare the performance of elected judges vs appointed judges found appointed judges to be better on average (less corrupt, better performance views by the community, less misconduct).
I suspect people have a knee-jerk pro-democracy reaction, that things should be done by vote, regardless of whether those specific things tend to actually turn out more to their satisfaction through voting. All forms of governments have strengths and weaknesses, and most people probably aren't properly aware of the weaknesses in democracy (as typically practiced), so that may be why they default to saying do it through elected people, even though that may be demonstrably inferior. Most of the time the phrase "unelected judges" isn't used to advocate for judicial elections. It's to point out that their power and reach should be carefully watched and managed, since they are appointed and very hard to remove. I don't know anyone who says that the Supreme Court should be nationally elected, for instance. Cruz does :p www.washingtonpost.com That's not the same thing. And I favor term limits for all branches. Rotation is good. Elected judges a terrible idea at most levels. Especially for the highest court where they are supposed to overturn laws created by popular demand.
A retention election by the Senate is not the same thing, though it's still not my favorite idea. Though personally I would just limit them to a term of some number of years. It would also spread the appointment process out among presidents. Except for deaths, every president would be able to appoint 1-2 justices (per cycle or not).
Edit: I agree with the stability argument, which is why I would make the terms on the longer side. It's an interesting idea, at least.
|
On September 04 2015 06:01 zlefin wrote:
Term limits sound nice in principle; but in practice they don't tend to actually improve the situation much, if at all, from the analyses I've read. What have you heard of their effects in practice?
What analyses are you talking about? Are you referring to other countries, or something that looks at state houses?
|
On September 04 2015 06:03 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2015 06:00 Plansix wrote:On September 04 2015 05:56 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2015 05:41 Gorsameth wrote:On September 04 2015 05:23 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2015 04:55 zlefin wrote:
Lately I've heard a fair number of complaints about "unelected judges." I'm not referring necessarily to what danglars just said (that simply reminded me of this), but more generally its something I've heard from a variety of sources.
As an empirical observation, the approval ratings of the unelected justices of the Supreme court is consistently higher than that of Congress. The analyses I've seen that compare the performance of elected judges vs appointed judges found appointed judges to be better on average (less corrupt, better performance views by the community, less misconduct).
I suspect people have a knee-jerk pro-democracy reaction, that things should be done by vote, regardless of whether those specific things tend to actually turn out more to their satisfaction through voting. All forms of governments have strengths and weaknesses, and most people probably aren't properly aware of the weaknesses in democracy (as typically practiced), so that may be why they default to saying do it through elected people, even though that may be demonstrably inferior. Most of the time the phrase "unelected judges" isn't used to advocate for judicial elections. It's to point out that their power and reach should be carefully watched and managed, since they are appointed and very hard to remove. I don't know anyone who says that the Supreme Court should be nationally elected, for instance. Cruz does :p www.washingtonpost.com That's not the same thing. And I favor term limits for all branches. Rotation is good. Elected judges a terrible idea at most levels. Especially for the highest court where they are supposed to overturn laws created by popular demand. A retention election by the Senate is not the same thing, though it's still not my favorite idea. Though personally I would just limit them to a term of some number of years. It would also spread the appointment process out among presidents. Except for deaths, every president would be able to appoint 1-2 justices.
I can't agreed. I don't like the highest court being swayed in any way by public opinion. 1-2 Judges every 4 years is to much and makes everyone thinking about how to stack the bench.
|
On September 04 2015 06:04 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2015 06:01 zlefin wrote:
Term limits sound nice in principle; but in practice they don't tend to actually improve the situation much, if at all, from the analyses I've read. What have you heard of their effects in practice? What analyses are you talking about? Are you referring to other countries, or something that looks at state houses?
It's been a long time so I can't remember the names of the analyses, or which, if any were academic vs reporting based; they mostly looked at state houses I think. Either way the question stands of course.
|
On September 04 2015 05:55 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +Clerk Rejects Proposal to Let Deputies Issue Marriage Licenses
ASHLAND, Ky. — A defiant county clerk rejected a proposal that would have allowed her deputies to grant same-sex marriage licenses, hours after she was sent to jail by a federal judge for disobeying a court order.
Through her lawyer, the clerk, Kim Davis of Rowan County, said she would not agree to allow the licenses to be issued under her authority as county clerk. Had she consented, the judge would have considered releasing her from custody.
Five of the six deputies have told Judge David L. Bunning of Federal District Court that that they will issue the licenses, though some of them said they would do so reluctantly. The lone holdout was Ms. Davis’s son, Nathan.
[...]
Lawyers for the same-sex couples seeking licenses had asked Judge Bunning to fine Ms. Davis and not send her to jail, but the judge said he thought that a fine would not be enough to prompt the clerk’s compliance. sourcethis stuff is getting funny
So what is the next step after getting jailed for Contempt?
|
On September 04 2015 06:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2015 06:03 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2015 06:00 Plansix wrote:On September 04 2015 05:56 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2015 05:41 Gorsameth wrote:On September 04 2015 05:23 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2015 04:55 zlefin wrote:
Lately I've heard a fair number of complaints about "unelected judges." I'm not referring necessarily to what danglars just said (that simply reminded me of this), but more generally its something I've heard from a variety of sources.
As an empirical observation, the approval ratings of the unelected justices of the Supreme court is consistently higher than that of Congress. The analyses I've seen that compare the performance of elected judges vs appointed judges found appointed judges to be better on average (less corrupt, better performance views by the community, less misconduct).
I suspect people have a knee-jerk pro-democracy reaction, that things should be done by vote, regardless of whether those specific things tend to actually turn out more to their satisfaction through voting. All forms of governments have strengths and weaknesses, and most people probably aren't properly aware of the weaknesses in democracy (as typically practiced), so that may be why they default to saying do it through elected people, even though that may be demonstrably inferior. Most of the time the phrase "unelected judges" isn't used to advocate for judicial elections. It's to point out that their power and reach should be carefully watched and managed, since they are appointed and very hard to remove. I don't know anyone who says that the Supreme Court should be nationally elected, for instance. Cruz does :p www.washingtonpost.com That's not the same thing. And I favor term limits for all branches. Rotation is good. Elected judges a terrible idea at most levels. Especially for the highest court where they are supposed to overturn laws created by popular demand. A retention election by the Senate is not the same thing, though it's still not my favorite idea. Though personally I would just limit them to a term of some number of years. It would also spread the appointment process out among presidents. Except for deaths, every president would be able to appoint 1-2 justices. I can't agreed. I don't like the highest court being swayed in any way by public opinion. 1-2 Judges every 4 years is to much and makes everyone thinking about how to stack the bench.
If there is are 3 justices quitting, then that is 3 by a president and has just as great an impact. Like I said, it's an idea I like but not adamant on. I'd much rather term limits for Congress first and foremost.
On September 04 2015 06:08 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2015 06:04 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2015 06:01 zlefin wrote:
Term limits sound nice in principle; but in practice they don't tend to actually improve the situation much, if at all, from the analyses I've read. What have you heard of their effects in practice? What analyses are you talking about? Are you referring to other countries, or something that looks at state houses? It's been a long time so I can't remember the names of the analyses, or which, if any were academic vs reporting based; they mostly looked at state houses I think. Either way the question stands of course.
I was hoping you had something, cause it's been a while since I did any digging on the topic. I think though most studies evaluate the partisan effects (i.e. party change for a seat) but I don't think that's the end all be all anyway. I don't know how you would evaluate the change of person, or how it would keep some from sticking around in government too long. I think the intellectual argument for term limits is strong.
On September 04 2015 06:11 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2015 06:09 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2015 06:06 Plansix wrote:On September 04 2015 06:03 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2015 06:00 Plansix wrote:On September 04 2015 05:56 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2015 05:41 Gorsameth wrote:On September 04 2015 05:23 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2015 04:55 zlefin wrote:
Lately I've heard a fair number of complaints about "unelected judges." I'm not referring necessarily to what danglars just said (that simply reminded me of this), but more generally its something I've heard from a variety of sources.
As an empirical observation, the approval ratings of the unelected justices of the Supreme court is consistently higher than that of Congress. The analyses I've seen that compare the performance of elected judges vs appointed judges found appointed judges to be better on average (less corrupt, better performance views by the community, less misconduct).
I suspect people have a knee-jerk pro-democracy reaction, that things should be done by vote, regardless of whether those specific things tend to actually turn out more to their satisfaction through voting. All forms of governments have strengths and weaknesses, and most people probably aren't properly aware of the weaknesses in democracy (as typically practiced), so that may be why they default to saying do it through elected people, even though that may be demonstrably inferior. Most of the time the phrase "unelected judges" isn't used to advocate for judicial elections. It's to point out that their power and reach should be carefully watched and managed, since they are appointed and very hard to remove. I don't know anyone who says that the Supreme Court should be nationally elected, for instance. Cruz does :p www.washingtonpost.com That's not the same thing. And I favor term limits for all branches. Rotation is good. Elected judges a terrible idea at most levels. Especially for the highest court where they are supposed to overturn laws created by popular demand. A retention election by the Senate is not the same thing, though it's still not my favorite idea. Though personally I would just limit them to a term of some number of years. It would also spread the appointment process out among presidents. Except for deaths, every president would be able to appoint 1-2 justices. I can't agreed. I don't like the highest court being swayed in any way by public opinion. 1-2 Judges every 4 years is to much and makes everyone thinking about how to stack the bench. If there is are 3 justices quitting, then that is 3 by a president and has just as great an impact. Like I said, it's an idea I like but not adamant on. I'd much rather term limits for Congress first and foremost. That everyone but Congress can agree with a term limit on them :p
There are two ways to amend the Constitution, but only one ever gets used. It would take quite the effort to get the states to do it on their own.
|
On September 04 2015 06:09 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2015 06:06 Plansix wrote:On September 04 2015 06:03 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2015 06:00 Plansix wrote:On September 04 2015 05:56 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2015 05:41 Gorsameth wrote:On September 04 2015 05:23 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2015 04:55 zlefin wrote:
Lately I've heard a fair number of complaints about "unelected judges." I'm not referring necessarily to what danglars just said (that simply reminded me of this), but more generally its something I've heard from a variety of sources.
As an empirical observation, the approval ratings of the unelected justices of the Supreme court is consistently higher than that of Congress. The analyses I've seen that compare the performance of elected judges vs appointed judges found appointed judges to be better on average (less corrupt, better performance views by the community, less misconduct).
I suspect people have a knee-jerk pro-democracy reaction, that things should be done by vote, regardless of whether those specific things tend to actually turn out more to their satisfaction through voting. All forms of governments have strengths and weaknesses, and most people probably aren't properly aware of the weaknesses in democracy (as typically practiced), so that may be why they default to saying do it through elected people, even though that may be demonstrably inferior. Most of the time the phrase "unelected judges" isn't used to advocate for judicial elections. It's to point out that their power and reach should be carefully watched and managed, since they are appointed and very hard to remove. I don't know anyone who says that the Supreme Court should be nationally elected, for instance. Cruz does :p www.washingtonpost.com That's not the same thing. And I favor term limits for all branches. Rotation is good. Elected judges a terrible idea at most levels. Especially for the highest court where they are supposed to overturn laws created by popular demand. A retention election by the Senate is not the same thing, though it's still not my favorite idea. Though personally I would just limit them to a term of some number of years. It would also spread the appointment process out among presidents. Except for deaths, every president would be able to appoint 1-2 justices. I can't agreed. I don't like the highest court being swayed in any way by public opinion. 1-2 Judges every 4 years is to much and makes everyone thinking about how to stack the bench. If there is are 3 justices quitting, then that is 3 by a president and has just as great an impact. Like I said, it's an idea I like but not adamant on. I'd much rather term limits for Congress first and foremost.
That everyone but Congress can agree with a term limit on them :p
|
On September 04 2015 06:09 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2015 05:55 Toadesstern wrote:Clerk Rejects Proposal to Let Deputies Issue Marriage Licenses
ASHLAND, Ky. — A defiant county clerk rejected a proposal that would have allowed her deputies to grant same-sex marriage licenses, hours after she was sent to jail by a federal judge for disobeying a court order.
Through her lawyer, the clerk, Kim Davis of Rowan County, said she would not agree to allow the licenses to be issued under her authority as county clerk. Had she consented, the judge would have considered releasing her from custody.
Five of the six deputies have told Judge David L. Bunning of Federal District Court that that they will issue the licenses, though some of them said they would do so reluctantly. The lone holdout was Ms. Davis’s son, Nathan.
[...]
Lawyers for the same-sex couples seeking licenses had asked Judge Bunning to fine Ms. Davis and not send her to jail, but the judge said he thought that a fine would not be enough to prompt the clerk’s compliance. sourcethis stuff is getting funny So what is the next step after getting jailed for Contempt?
Crowdfund
Speaking tour
Book deal
Fade into obscurity, except for occasional tweets and public appearances
|
United States41988 Posts
On September 04 2015 06:12 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2015 06:09 Gorsameth wrote:On September 04 2015 05:55 Toadesstern wrote:Clerk Rejects Proposal to Let Deputies Issue Marriage Licenses
ASHLAND, Ky. — A defiant county clerk rejected a proposal that would have allowed her deputies to grant same-sex marriage licenses, hours after she was sent to jail by a federal judge for disobeying a court order.
Through her lawyer, the clerk, Kim Davis of Rowan County, said she would not agree to allow the licenses to be issued under her authority as county clerk. Had she consented, the judge would have considered releasing her from custody.
Five of the six deputies have told Judge David L. Bunning of Federal District Court that that they will issue the licenses, though some of them said they would do so reluctantly. The lone holdout was Ms. Davis’s son, Nathan.
[...]
Lawyers for the same-sex couples seeking licenses had asked Judge Bunning to fine Ms. Davis and not send her to jail, but the judge said he thought that a fine would not be enough to prompt the clerk’s compliance. sourcethis stuff is getting funny So what is the next step after getting jailed for Contempt? Crowdfund Speaking tour Book deal Fade into obscurity, except for occasional tweets and public appearances
One Nation Under God: My struggle to defend the sanctity of marriage available in a book store near you
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
