General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsQuite Interesting - Constitutional Law Professors Weigh in on Kim Davis Lawsuit
The article is not that long, but it is interesting, what several constitutional law professors say about her and her attorneys nonsense. This is extremely important because of the precedence being set. Ignoring marriage equality, etc., does a clerk have the authority to change things as they see fit.
There are several professors weighing in on this, it's an interesting read. I just did one excerpt below.
http://cooleylawschoolblog.com/2015/09/26/constitutional-law-professors-weigh-in-on-kim-davis-lawsuit/
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,280 posts)because she is an elected official. Only the legislature can remove her, and it doesn't look like they will.
RKP5637
(67,032 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)and if that's in the local or state constitution, then the pressure to do so should follow!
RKP5637
(67,032 posts)Thank you!
I have said it before and I hope my fears are never realized; if she gets away with this, it's the beginning of the end. It will cause a train wreck that won't be stopped and clerks all over the country will start deciding what laws they will and won't enforce.
RKP5637
(67,032 posts)They want to inject their brand of religion. And then use this test for precedence, of course, when they do their next stunt.
marym625
(17,997 posts)hlthe2b
(101,730 posts)(as well there should NOT be)
RKP5637
(67,032 posts)it seems that might be one way to end this entire charade by Kim Davis and her cohorts.
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)like a PD.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
The huge disqualifying factor for both the "religious freedom" and "civil disobedience" parallels attempted to be drawn is that Davis' "belief" is that she'd like to abuse and discriminate against people.
That's not a "right," nor is it the type of belief that deserves any kind of accommodation.
There is an old bromide Wikipedia attributes to American judicial philosopher Zechariah Chaffee that makes the point pretty well:
"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins."
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)And your jobs requires you to do something you consider immoral -- you quit your job.
It's not that freaking hard. You don't need to be a law professor to figure it out.
Refusing to do your job and follow the law, while still taking your salary, is immoral. She is basically a thief.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)But who's counting?
Gothmog
(144,005 posts)This is not a close constitutional issue and the attorneys representing Davis are idiots and are committing malpractice. This is not a close legal call at all which is reflected by the comments of the law professors.
RKP5637
(67,032 posts)Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)She is not following the Constitution (SCOTUS ruling) and not discharging the duties of her office, which is a state misdemeanor.
RKP5637
(67,032 posts)someplace he could rule she was a criminal and put her into a trial with something like a mandatory 6 month jail sentence. She is being used as a stooge by her attorneys. And, they are getting wealthy at the same time. The whole herd of them are delusional IMO. I also heard a Public Defender could be assigned by the judge to handle her clerk affairs getting her entirely out of the picture.