Kim Davis Freed. Drama Queen Mike Huckabee: Lock Me Up!

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
It is interesting that the Oath Keepers offered armed resistance against anyone whom would arrest Kim Davis again - even against US Marshal's.

news.yahoo.com...

And of course the Oath Keepers have acknowledged the Davis legal team request to not do that.

But some other conspiracies may be in order.

And, can anybody find any actual evidence that any Oath Keepers involvement in any protest or demonstration has ever resulted in any shots fired or arrests of any Oath Keepers members?

Upon request by Kim Davis’ legal team, Oath Keepers is canceling the planned security detail for Mrs. Davis in Morehead, Kentucky.

Oath Keepers has been contacted by Kim Davis’ legal team at Liberty Counsel, and they have, on her behalf, declined our offer of assistance in protecting her from a possible repeat incarceration by Federal District Court judge David Bunning. We will, of course, respect her wishes, and are hereby issuing a stand-down for our security volunteers who were planning on deploying to Morehead, Kentucky on Monday.

Oath Keepers will NOT be conducting a security detail for Mrs. Davis. We always seek the full consent and cooperation of anyone we protect, and we must respect their wishes if they decline that protection. Anyone who was planning on going to Morehead, KY to serve on the security detail are now asked to not do so. We do thank you most sincerely for your willingness to step up, as unpaid volunteers, in defense of due process. That was a very honorable intent, and we commend you.

This is a free country, and of course you are free to still go there on Monday and peaceably assemble to express your support for her due process rights and your opposition to arbitrary arrest if you want to, but Oath Keepers will not be conducting a security detail, and she apparently does not want anyone else to do so. Therefore, we encourage you to save your gas money and time off work for another security detail, at another time (such as for our planned upcoming operation to guard Texas border ranches against drug cartel violence and invasion).

Kim Davis’ Legal Team Declines Oath Keepers’ Offer to Protect Her Against Unlawful Arrest

a reply to: diggindirt

That case is not applicable since it's a private company not a government.

Just accept that you are not going to win the argument.

Let's just wait until tomorrow and see what Kim Davis will do.

a reply to: Deaf Alien
No. Perhaps you need to read the case. It was the South Carolina department of unemployment insurance (a branch of South Carolina government) that was sued. It is coded under "Employment law" and applies to employment---whether you work for government or a private company. Read what the justices wrote. I have neither the time nor inclination to lead you through it word by word. It's not all that complicated. They simply say that no entity can force a person to go against their religious beliefs unless there is a compelling interest of government to do so.
The Commonwealth has no compelling governmental interest to have Kim Davis' name on the document, therefore asking to have her name removed from that document is a reasonable accommodation. I'm not sure why people can't see this.

a reply to: diggindirt

On Friday, for example, her defense attorneys asked Bunning for "injunctive relief," which essentially amounts to a request that she be exempt from having to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples until the matter is resolved by the Federal Court of Appeals. The judge denied the appeal.

Staver said a solution would be to remove not just Kim Davis' name and office from the marriage licenses themselves but from the process entirely. Have the state issue them instead, he said.

Sounds simple enough, but under current Kentucky state law, the authority to issue marriage licenses rests solely with each of the state's 120 county clerks, meaning it would take an act of the legislature to transfer that authority. The legislature, however, doesn't convene until January 5, and Gov. Steve Beshear has said he has no intention of calling lawmakers back to Frankfort for an emergency session before then.

link

You read that right? The only solution would be to remove her name from "all" marriage licenses, but to do so would "require" an act of legislature.

For the governor to do it without legislature would require that there would have already been a legal precedent for such.

There has been legal precedent set before that could allow her name to be removed from all forms at that office. She can step down as a county clerk.

Neither she nor her lawyers have presented such a case.

a reply to: diggindirt

We understand what you are saying. Anyway that case is about benefits.

Read Grimpachi's post very slowly. Let that sink in.

a reply to: Grimpachi
Thank you, no I don't think I'd seen that particular link.
I didn't get the impression that removing her name was the only solution offered but perhaps I'm mistaken.
I haven't seen the specific filing CNN is referencing but I am under the impression that "injunctive relief" is usually simply asking for a stay of the case, a "time-out" to the case until further evidence can be presented, etc.
Here's a link that explains it much more concisely than I'm able.
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

As to what her attorneys are up to? (Other than billing more hours you mean?)
I can only guess without reading the document which CNN hasn't been kind enough to link. I understood the reporter to say this is an appeal to a lower court's ruling. If she is to take this to the Supreme Court all the appeals have to be filed do they not? That's assuming her attorneys are heading in that direction....probably hoping to get out of Judge Bumbling---uh, Bunning's courtroom.

ETA: Upon going back and looking through reports it appears that this link is the same story we discussed several pages back is it not?

Geeze, people
Do you actually not know how the legal system works? If you don't understand injunctive relief and appeals, please, I am imploring you most respectfully and sincerely to do a bit of reading and research.

a reply to: diggindirt

She can take it to whichever court she wishes. That would be the lawful thing to do.

However, you do understand the difference between federal court and state court don't you?

The only court she has been in that I am aware of is federal court which isn't a court that has authority to excuse her from her state duty. The federal court cannot authorize the removal of her name from documents.


If her and her attorneys wish to do such "legally" then they need to file in a state court. Injunctive relief from state statutes may be possible to attain in a state court.

a reply to: Deaf Alien
And I must implore you to do a bit of reading and research on how the legal system is set up, arranged and managed. You wouldn't be asking these circular questions if you had an understanding of the system.

When you go to court, you believe you are on the correct side of the law. When one judge rules against you, you appeal. You keep appealing until the problem is resolved or you get a Supreme Court ruling.

That's the exact same process that got Obergefell v. Hodges to the Supreme Court to get their rights acknowledged.
Those cases have been going on for years, doncha know? They have been beaten and battered to death with each new appeal, just like people are blowing up about Kim Davis pursing her rights under the refuge of law. But the gay activists knew that the only way it was going to happen was in the courts, not in the ballot box. They prevailed and personally I'm celebrating with them. They shed blood, sweat and tears just to get their human rights.
Personally, I believe Mrs. Davis will be able to win her case as well but we won't know the outcome for some time yet. An attorney friend of mine who is gay happens to agree and has already begun an amicus brief in her behalf. He doesn't want to lose his religious rights, just have gained his right to marry.

a reply to: Grimpachi
Tell it to her attorneys.
As I said, I can only speculate on what has been reported. And I'm not terribly confident that the blow-haired beauties on msm knowing the difference between state court and federal court.

a reply to: diggindirt

You wouldn't be asking these circular questions if you had an understanding of the system.

You are the one who is going in circles and we have been trying to follow you and explain to you.

This is pointless. For some reason you want to win.

Anyway let's just see what happens tomorrow. My bet that she will not back down so off back to square one we go.

originally posted by: diggindirt
Personally, I believe Mrs. Davis will be able to win her case as well

So publicly elected officials will not have to serve women, as their "religion" says that, others will not have to deal with blacks, others will only serve women if they are naked etc. etc.

Oh happy days if this religous nutter wins!

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: diggindirt

You wouldn't be asking these circular questions if you had an understanding of the system.

This is pointless. For some reason you want to win.

Pretty sure the judge said she was Not Burdened.

She does not qualify because her job is about the paperwork. Nothing in her job description changed.

If she directly had to be involved in marrying someone, then she might qualify.

a reply to: Annee

If she directly had to be involved in marrying someone, then she might qualify.

Agreed.

a reply to: Deaf Alien
You bet I want to win. I want Kim Davis to win too. I don't want to see anyone's rights taken and I see her point even though I don't share her belief system. I didn't share Dr. King's religious beliefs either but I found him a remarkable leader and teacher.
One of the things my parents taught me very early in life was to respect others who have religious views that differ from mine. I no longer practice any sort of religion but I respect those who do and I can't in good conscience stand by and say nothing when I believe that a person's rights under the law are being ignored.
My extended family is a mish-mash of religions and sects of religions. From fundamentalists to New Agers and atheists. And then there's me, whose spiritual life has nothing to do with churches or organized religion. I grew up in a middle-of-the-road Christian church. (I suppose that's a fair way of characterizing it. It was very close to the doctrine of Dr. King's church.) I heard a lot of sermons on love and forgiveness with a few fire-and-brimstone sermons on the dangers of alcohol and being a hippie.
Until one of my best friends in high school "came out" in 1970, I had no idea that Christians were supposed to believe that gay people were hell-bound. That is exactly what I was told by a preacher, not my pastor, but a preacher who saw us together and decided to "save my soul." I was shocked. Who could believe such a thing?
Since I had never heard anything along those lines in my church, I went to the New Testament (as close to an original source as I could find at the time) to see what Christ had said on the issue. I couldn't find him saying anything about gay people. I went to my pastor. He couldn't find Christ condemning gay people either and he could read the Greek translations!
I no longer call myself a Christian but I believe they have the right to a reasonable accommodation for their religious beliefs. I want that accommodation for all people of faith. And all people of conviction---yeah, I'm just an old hippie idealist who doesn't want to force anybody to do anything that is against their convictions.
I think it's wrong to put a person in jail for possession of a green leafy plant. I think it's wrong to put a person in jail for saying, "Gimme a break here until we can figure this out."
I'm not giving that silly federal judge a break on this either---I've refereed enough disagreements in my years as a parent, teacher and supervisor to know that sometimes the best course of action is to call a time-out and let both sides regroup. He had the option to grant her a stay of that part of her duties in question by this ruling while she pursued her rights under Commonwealth law. He could have ordered her to go to the governor and attorney general in person and get things worked out instead of spending five useless days in jail and bringing her to the attention of the national press. He had plenty of options that didn't include jail. That was just petty and spiteful.
I'm frankly embarrassed that the lack of character in our governor and attorney general has allowed this mess to erupt and end up in Federal Court. Especially after the attorney general stood before the cameras and cried like a girl when he refused to do his statutory duty. (Brought back to my mind the last time a Kentucky politician, Paul Patton, the governor, stood and cried while confessing his adultery. What is it about Kentucky pols and sex?)

Back to the subject---I don't know what will happen tomorrow. I just hope everyone has a peaceful day. I'll be picking tomatoes, peppers and greens to share with my neighbors and preserve for winter.

a reply to: diggindirt

You bet I want to win. I want Kim Davis to win too. I don't want to see anyone's rights taken and I see her point even though I don't share her belief system.

Nobody here wants to see her rights taken away.

Back to the subject---I don't know what will happen tomorrow. I just hope everyone has a peaceful day

Oh me too. But I doubt it. Yes I am worried it will get worse.

I'll be picking tomatoes, peppers and greens to share with my neighbors and preserve for winter.

LOL sounds like fun.

Anyway seems that we have reached an impasse. I will agree to disagree. Thanks for your post and for sharing your life story and conviction.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: diggindirt
Personally, I believe Mrs. Davis will be able to win her case as well

So publicly elected officials will not have to serve women, as their "religion" says that, others will not have to deal with blacks, others will only serve women if they are naked etc. etc.

Oh happy days if this religous nutter wins!

Honestly, where do you get this stuff? Or are you just spouting wild, crazy ideas. I swear you sound like those folks who were opposing gays in the military!

a reply to: Deaf Alien
So you've not seen the posts wishing her jail, losing her job, etc...
I believe the rules prevent me from pointing fingers but if you go through these threads, you'll find plenty of posts wishing her all sorts of ill will, including the total loss of all freedom by sitting in a jail. That is wrong in my opinion.

a reply to: diggindirt

Honestly, where do you get this stuff? Or are you just spouting wild, crazy ideas.

No his point was that if Kim Davis was to be allowed to deny marriage licenses to gay couples what's to stop other court clerks from denying black couples, interracial couples, couples who have been divorced, etc. etc.

a reply to: diggindirt

So you've not seen the posts wishing her jail, losing her job, etc... I believe the rules prevent me from pointing fingers but if you go through these threads, you'll find plenty of posts wishing her all sorts of ill will, including the total loss of all freedom by sitting in a jail. That is wrong in my opinion.

Yes I have seen those posts. I have been following threads on Kim Davis and twitter and news since the whole stinking thing started.

originally posted by: diggindirt
Honestly, where do you get this stuff?

They are just different religious beliefs, so if the Davis nutter wins, then they will have to be allowed!