Kim Davis

#101
#101
volinbham said:
There were some cases of Muslim cab drivers not allowing people to bring alcohol in the cab and I believe people were supporting that right.
Click to expand...

Not the same. A privately owned cabbie should get to dictate whatever the hell he wants.

The flight attendant was totally OK with alcohol on the plane. She just didn't want to serve it. It's not remotely comparable with Kim Davis's position of refusing a governmental service to the people who pay her salary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#102
#102
lawgator1 said:
Jailing her is necessary if she continues to be in contempt because, otherwise, she is an elected official defying a direct Supreme Court order, and that cannot go unaddressed. Its also a question of dissauding others from doing the same thing she is doing, on this or some other issue.
Click to expand...

House arrest would have served the same purpose or a restraining order keeping her from going to work.
 
#104
#104
hog88 said:
Since she was refusing to issue ANY marriage licenses, how does this violate the SCOTUS ruling?
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS ruling denied the relief she was getting from not issuing the license if I recall, ianal.

She went to jail because she defied a court order.

Frankly, why she did so should be inconsequential to the argument.
 
#105
#105
hog88 said:
I've googled without luck and have asked here. Is there a KY law that says County Clerks MUST issue marriage licenses?
Click to expand...

Dont know but suspect it works like the DMV. Cant get a drivers license at the same place you get a marriage license and vice versa.
 
#106
#106
Septic said:
Not the same. A privately owned cabbie should get to dictate whatever the hell he wants.

The flight attendant was totally OK with alcohol on the plane. She just didn't want to serve it. It's not remotely comparable with Kim Davis's position of refusing a governmental service to the people who pay her salary.
Click to expand...

Actually on the cab deal they are were not privately owned and they were directly licensed by the municipality to provide service. Original plans were to allow accommodation but designating some of the cabs as alcohol free but in the end it was decided refusal of service was not going to be allowed and licenses could be suspended.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#109
#109
Septic said:
The Muslim flight attendant wasn't forcing the airline or even her plane not to sell alcohol due to her belief. That's the only way those examples could be remotely similar.
Click to expand...

Its no different then applying to be a bartender and only wanting to pour soda's and water. I find it funny that she is willing to be a wh#re but not serve alcohol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#110
#110
volfanhill said:
But not as effective
Click to expand...

How do you know this?

Presumably what jail did was prevent her from interfering, those other methods would have done the same thing.

There is talk that an accommodation is being worked out (one she asked for prior to being jailed).

If that accommodation is granted then jailing didn't accomplish anything.
 
#111
#111
lawgator1 said:
Jailing her is necessary if she continues to be in contempt because, otherwise, she is an elected official defying a direct Supreme Court order, and that cannot go unaddressed. Its also a question of dissauding others from doing the same thing she is doing, on this or some other issue.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, what about an elected official defying federal law by keeping classified information on a network that wasn't authorized?

Should this person be jailed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#112
#112
volinbham said:
Actually on the cab deal they are were not privately owned and they were directly licensed by the municipality to provide service. Original plans were to allow accommodation but designating some of the cabs as alcohol free but in the end it was decided refusal of service was not going to be allowed and licenses could be suspended.
Click to expand...

Did the muslim cab drivers defy that 'no refusal of service' rule? If so, seems like they should be terminated by their employer or the contract with the municipality should have been voided.
 
#113
#113
volinbham said:
How do you know this?

Presumably what jail did was prevent her from interfering, those other methods would have done the same thing.

There is talk that an accommodation is being worked out (one she asked for prior to being jailed).

If that accommodation is granted then jailing didn't accomplish anything.
Click to expand...


Its not just the specific deterrence point of removal of her from the equation. Its also a general deterrence issue.

An elected county official cannot violate a direct Supreme Court order. Our system cannot tolerate that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#114
#114
Septic said:
The SCOTUS ruling denied the relief she was getting from not issuing the license if I recall, ianal.

She went to jail because she defied a court order.

Frankly, why she did so should be inconsequential to the argument.
Click to expand...

No.

If there is no state law she was violating by not issuing marriage licenses the federal courts overstepped their authority in a egregious way. The ruling in simple terms stated people have to be treated equally, she was.

This is what needs to be examined.
 
#115
#115
lawgator1 said:
Its not just the specific deterrence point of removal of her from the equation. Its also a general deterrence issue.

An elected county official cannot violate a direct Supreme Court order. Our system cannot tolerate that.
Click to expand...

Show the evidence that using the max civil punishment here will be a more effective deterrent than other options?
 
#116
#116
FLVOL_79 said:
Its no different then applying to be a bartender and only wanting to pour soda's and water.
Click to expand...

No, its totally different. It would be similar if she was hired to be a bartender and then decided that the bar wouldn't be selling drinks - at all. The owner comes in and commands the sale of beverages and the bartender feeling persecuted when she's fired.

This is closer, still not as egregious - but far more similar.


FLVOL_79 said:
I find it funny that she is willing to be a wh#re but not serve alcohol.
Click to expand...

Have you suffered a head injury?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#118
#118
FLVOL_79 said:
Its no different then applying to be a bartender and only wanting to pour soda's and water. I find it funny that she is willing to be a wh#re but not serve alcohol.
Click to expand...

Wait...They are whores. I have been doing travel wrong for way too long
 
#119
#119
volinbham said:
You think no bail was appropriate? What's the logic?

If she returns to her ways she'll be punished again. I would imagine a court could bar her from her job.
Click to expand...

This gets a bit tricky. Contempt of court is not a bailable offense.


Indirect contempt occurs outside the immediate presence of the court and consists of disobedience of a court's prior order. Generally a party will be accused of indirect contempt by the party for whose benefit the order was entered. A person cited for indirect contempt is entitled to notice of the charge and an opportunity for hearing of the evidence of contempt and, since there is no written procedure, may or may not be allowed to present evidence in rebuttal.


The civil sanction for contempt (which is typically incarceration in the custody of the sheriff or similar court officer) is limited in its imposition for so long as the disobedience to the court's order continues: once the party complies with the court's order, the sanction is lifted. The imposed party is said to "hold the keys" to his or her own cell, thus conventional due process is not required. The burden of proof for civil contempt, however, is a preponderance of the evidence, and theoretically punitive sanctions (punishment) can only be imposed after due process but the due process is unpublished.
 
#120
#120
Looks like the removal of her name from the license is coming.

The plaintiffs are apparently okay with it.

Will we be able to move on? Doubtful.
 
#121
#121
volinbham said:
Show the evidence that using the max civil punishment here will be a more effective deterrent than other options?
Click to expand...


I don't have to prove anything. Jailing her is one of a number of options the Court can choose to punish her contempt. Its an option that courts have and use all the time.

If the judge in this case feels that is warranted, then her recourse is to appeal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#124
#124
lawgator1 said:
I don't have to prove anything. Jailing her is one of a number of options the Court can choose to punish her contempt. Its an option that courts have and use all the time.

If the judge in this case feels that is warranted, then her recourse is to appeal.
Click to expand...

I never questioned the authority of the judge to do this; I questioned the wisdom:

Doesn't mean that a judge's sentence cannot be questioned does it?

Doesn't mean they're weren't other sentencing options does it?

Doesn't support your claim that jailing was necessary to serve as a deterrent does it?

No, no, no.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top