General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"What law has Kim Davis broken?"
I've been seeing that question quite a bit on Twitter from idiots.
If your favorite idiot has asked that question, the answer is:
42 U.S.C. §1983
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983
If they want to know specifically how she broke that law, the manner in which she did so is described in detail here:
http://www.aclu-ky.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Rowan-complaint.pdf
There, they can also find the law on which jurisdiction by the court is premised, the law she has violated, and the law under which the court can order her to stop violating it or hold her in contempt.
It is a desperately stupid question.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
randys1
(16,286 posts)religion teaches premarital sex is not allowed, thus preventing us from having sex.
....??? $$$
I have seen damages for this when someone is injured and deprived of sex.
You win the thread 
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)What you are looking at in the OP is the lawsuit from which the current preliminary order of interest has issued.
And, no, insofar as I can understand your question, you are asking whether a loss of consortium claim could be premised on refusal to issue the license to a couple who did not believe in premarital sex. The short answer is no, because it is your own religious belief and/or choice of partner who is the proximate reason why you are not having sex.
The long answer is a lot longer, but it also ends in "no".
Clever, but no.
randys1
(16,286 posts)I do try and speak in short hand sometimes when I assume the person I am addressing knows what I am talking about, but I am curious.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...followed by "....??? $$$"
I wasn't sure whether that signaled a question or was some sort of pornographic emoticon.
randys1
(16,286 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)A lot of people find me annoying. There are worse things in life.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)But it had me scratching my cranium as well. I spent an inordinate amount of time reading the title line of your post too - trying to discern if it was intentional or a typo
Specifically ", and my and my loves" I concluded it was a typo you overlooked. I do such myself sometimes.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Yes, "my and my love's" is, to a lot of people, an awkward construction.
It is more usual to say "our religion" instead of "my and my love's religion".
The thing is, since he is addressing another person, the phrase "our religion" as used here, could ambiguously include the audience. Now, what you would normally do is quickly resolve that ambiguity to mean him and his beloved, because you know that "our" to include you... just wouldn't make sense.
BUT, there are English speaking cultures where repeating possessive pronouns, and repetitive pronouns in general, are much more common. Malaise, for example, could probably give us a dissertation on "I and I" as a personal pronoun.
lpbk2713
(42,750 posts)If they couldn't think of a specific violation they could always hit you with UCMJ #134.
jmowreader
(50,546 posts)(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)jmowreader
(50,546 posts)Kim Davis and Liberty Council are "conspiring" to strip same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses of their civil rights.
The parts in this statute that talk about going in disguise and on the highway look, at least to me, like the government wanted to enable people to file federal civil rights suits against the Ku Klux Klan.
This will scare the hell out of you: there is a tiny but noisy faction in America today that believes it's unconstitutional to require anyone not driving commercially to have a license or to register their car, and that you can sue a cop who pulls you over. They use this statute as the core of their belief - the claim is a police uniform is a "costume."
Skittles
(153,138 posts)they'd be singing a different tune
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)The judge told her to do something. She refused. She went to jail.
It's no different than if you went into a courtroom and put your feet up on a table. The judge tells you to remove your feet and you don't -- contempt of court, go to jail. There doesn't even need to be a specific law.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I think they know she was jailed for contempt. Or maybe I'm too generous in that assessment.
LiberalArkie
(15,705 posts)I think what surprised her and her backers was the jail time. I wonder he she will be in as long as Susan Mc Dougal?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Contempt of Court....go directly to jail....
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)It's clearer to say that she was jailed for refusing to comply with a court order.
If, at this week's hearing, she had said, "All right, you perverts, I'll give you your license and send two more souls to Satan," then under section 1983 she might still have had financial liability (the plaintiffs could have recovered their attorney's fees), but she would not have gone to jail. No one can be imprisoned solely because of a violation of section 1983.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I was amusing myself with the #FreeKimDavis hashtag, and the moron contingent seems to be at a loss to understand why she is in jail, other than at the whim of a black-robed tyrant.
While she may be in violation of a penal statute of Kentucky, this proceeding in this court has nothing to do with that. She hasn't been charged with any crime, much less convicted of one. Whether she is charged with the KY misdemeanor in question is a matter that is up the KY AG and the KY courts.
The statutory basis of this federal action is 42 USC 1983.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)should be able to see that. However, we are talking about fundies...so thinking they can understand simple legal concepts might be wishful thinking.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)They apparently believe the judge simply did this on some sort of perverse whim, and that she'd been arrested and charged with some criminal violation.
Rex
(65,616 posts)(Hobby Lobby) until they make a ruling he does not like - then all the sudden the SCOTUS did something unlawful and is out of control. Just like that, they were a law abiding body - until they aren't.
Such flippant people should not be in charge of even delivering pizza. They are stupid, angry and violent. Not a good combo.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Its where the 2 conflate....they do not think ANY law they dislike applies to them...
MiniMe
(21,714 posts)That was some right wing idikot on the radio. I was in my car screaming at the radio.
asiliveandbreathe
(8,203 posts)playing like reality TV - perhaps this could take the place of the Duggars....people seem to be so fascinated could be some AD money to be made...National attention...who knows - they might learn what LAW!
The plot line - the BAC - the feigned indignation (no, I do not buy into her 4 times married indignation) children?? - which husband..I am so confused.., the development of her marriages - her election to county clerk - her son working for her - and let's not forget she worked for her mom..more plot - the people of the community who voted her in - more lot - the religious bystanders outside the court house or the prison...
Pathetic rituals..pathetic all around...
world wide wally
(21,739 posts)
roamer65
(36,745 posts)She is violating the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
wolfie001
(2,218 posts)......can't work with these hateful, rednecked, freeperville bible thumpers. Funny how jeebus and gawd are supposed to overlook this person's three divorces/four marriages (latest tally, may change). I call hypocrite!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)apparently unbeknownst to him as it appears it was part of the divorce proceedings....and now public knowledge...poor kids!
James48
(4,429 posts)18 USC 401:
"A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as—
(1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;
(2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;
(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command."
At this moment, she is being held in jail under 18 USC 401(3) for disobedience to a lawful order.
And some point, this transitions to 18 USC 402.
18 USC 402:
"Any person, corporation or association willfully disobeying any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of any district court of the United States or any court of the District of Columbia, by doing any act or thing therein, or thereby forbidden, if the act or thing so done be of such character as to constitute also a criminal offense under any statute of the United States or under the laws of any State in which the act was committed, shall be prosecuted for such contempt as provided in section 3691 of this title and shall be punished by a fine under this title or imprisonment, or both.
Such fine shall be paid to the United States or to the complainant or other party injured by the act constituting the contempt, or may, where more than one is so damaged, be divided or apportioned among them as the court may direct, but in no case shall the fine to be paid to the United States exceed, in case the accused is a natural person, the sum of $1,000, nor shall such imprisonment exceed the term of six months."
--
She's in jail right now for failing to obey the Judge's order. That's only temporary.
If she continues to refuse, at some point, the case should be referred to the U.S. Attorney's office for prosecution under 402.
sarisataka
(18,539 posts)The 14th Amendment in particular.
kiri
(794 posts)These court filings contain enormous information and thoughtful arguments beyond media and even DU information.
They are good reading.
But--a secret revealed--the briefs contain the contact information to all the attorneys involved!
The urge--give a piece of one's mind'; share a worthwhile thought;---should be engaged circumspectly.
These court filings contain enormous information and thougthful arguments beyond media and even DU information.
They are good reading. Wonderfully researched. I always learn something.
But--a secret revealed--the briefs contain the contact information to all the attorneys involved!
The urge--give a piece of one's mind; share a worthwhile thought;---should be engaged circumspectly.
Remember: "plaintiffs do not win cases; attorneys win cases." [Quoted from Schempp of Abington v. Schempp, 1963. Landmark in separation of church and state.]
Histrionics and hysteria of plaintiffs make for TV and blogging, but really have little effect on the courts and law.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Especially if I see a favorable motion in someone's briefs.
JunkYardDogg
(873 posts)go to :
Kentucky clerk’s actions are about deprivation of rights under color of law
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027139022
I actually did a significant amount of research on this
and there is a much more detailed explanation
libodem
(19,288 posts)[img]
[/img]
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts) libodem
(19,288 posts)
libodem
(19,288 posts)[img]
[/img]