Kentucky Clerk Seeks Yet Another Delay In Issuing Same Sex Marriage Licenses

[DonViejo]

Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS

FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) —

-snip-

2:55 p.m.

A Kentucky county clerk is again asking a judge to delay his ruling ordering her to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

U.S. District Judge David Bunning's order has been upheld by a federal appeals court and the U.S. Supreme Court. But Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis continues to disobey it, saying she cannot do something that violates her religious beliefs. Bunning has scheduled a hearing for Thursday. He could hold Davis in contempt of court, which could lead to fines or jail time.

But on Wednesday, Davis again asked Bunning to delay his order so she can appeal an earlier decision on a related issue. Davis had asked Bunning last month for an injunction against Gov. Steve Beshear for ordering her to issue the marriage licenses. Bunning refused to hear that motion. By doing that, Davis' attorneys argue that Bunning effectively denied their motion, which they have the right to appeal.

Davis' attorneys asked Bunning to delay his order while they appeal to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

###

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/kentucky-clerk-seeks-yet-another-delay-in-issuing-same-sex-marriage-licenses

[tomm2thumbs]

1. ... dragged kicking and screaming to her bath

but the bath will come

and that one needs it bad

[mucifer]

3. She will be a millionaire from speaker's fees. I hope she doesn't go to jail

Hateful people will says she is their Rosa Parks. It's so ugly.

[mucifer]

15. She will sell books written by a ghost writer and make millions.

Can't help it I'm cynical

[bucolic_frolic]

4. This Case holds Large Importance

By refusing to hear her case, the Supreme Court has implicitly
ruled that there ARE boundaries to one's religious beliefs. If
there were not, society would decay into religious chaos and warfare.

It also shows the separation of Church and State, and the existence
of the State.

For there to be order in society, there must be clear rules, boundaries,
laws.

Is Judge Bunning any relation to former Senator and baseball pitcher
Jim Bunning? He was a conservative Republican as I recall.

[LeftofObama]

6. I think I read somewhere that the two Bunnings are related.

And this judge was appointed by GWB

[DownriverDem]

7. What is the judge waiting for?

No one's religion is our government. It never was and never will be. Part of the problem is that the repub base is truly ignorant as to how our country works. Fine her and jail her. I doubt though that funds from those in agreement with her can be blocked. Unfortunately she will be made a martyr. If she is fined and/or jailed, the money will flow to her big time. The woman makes 80K per year. I bet there are many folks in KY that would love her job.

[jberryhill]

9. The hearing on the show cause order is tomorrow

A federal judge hears motions and arguments and conducts trials on everything from soup to nuts, and their calendars are pretty full.

Because this is coming in on a preliminary injunction, it's moving relatively fast, but it's not as if they read the newspapers and say "Oh, I think I'll call these people in today."

The judge is waiting for the hearing on the contempt question.

[Downwinder]

11. Can the penalty extend to her legal representatives?

[jberryhill]

12. No, I don't see why it would

They haven't violated any rules as far as I can tell.

She has a right to legal representation.

What is it you want to penalize them for?

[geek tragedy]

18. they have violated the rules of professional conduct. This probably isn't the forum

for that, but they should be censured if not disbarred for advising a client to violate a court order, after the denial of an appeal by the Supreme Court, against her own interest.

These are not people who should ever be allowed to have clients.

[jberryhill]

20. I doubt it

I would guess that they have explained to her the potential consequences of various courses of action.

They can't make her disobey an order, and I don't see where there is any suggestion that they were "advising a client to violate a court order".

Are we going to do this to every attorney who represents a client engaging in intentional civil disobedience, or just the ones we disagree with?

"These are not people who should ever be allowed to have clients."

Their client is doing what she chooses to do. They are representing her, and I would be surprised if she is not fully informed of her options and consequences.

[atreides1]

27. I doubt they did!

Matthew Staver is her attorney!


http://www.rawstory.com/2014/06/grilled-by-congress-antigay-attorney-denies-support-for-russias-lgbt-crackdown/


Right now Davis is under some impression that she's a modern day Joan of Arc...and I would wager you a 6-pack of your favorite libation that Staver is fueling that delusional belief.

[jberryhill]

44. You think she doesn't know she's resisting s court order?

You really think she doesn't know that?

[jberryhill]

50. Kim Davis: 'I’m Prepared To Go To Jail, I Sure Am'

It sounds to me as if she has been fully advised of potential incomes and has made an informed decision.

[jberryhill]

21. Here's the closest you get under the Kentucky Rules

Rule 1.2:

(d) A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage,
or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer
knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer
may discuss the legal consequences of any
proposed course of conduct with a client and may
counsel or assist a client to make a good faith
effort to determine the validity, scope,
meaning or application of the law.

and here are the notes on that one:

(9) Paragraph (d) prohibits a lawyer from knowingly
counseling or assisting a client to commit a
crime or fraud. This prohibition, however, does
not preclude the lawyer from giving an honest
opinion about the actual consequences that appear
likely to result from a client's conduct.
Nor does the fact that a client uses advice in a course of
action that is criminal or fraudulent of itself
make a lawyer a party to the course of action. There is a
critical distinction between presenting an
analysis of legal aspects of questionable conduct and
recommending the means by which a crime
or fraud might be committed with impunity.

[geek tragedy]

24. "the office was advised by its attorneys with the Christian law firm

Liberty Counsel to continue refusing same-sex couples is it appeals the judge's decision."

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/43d991ef406c49039fcf828d482e1cce/defying-order-clerk-wont-give-gay-couple-marriage-license

[jberryhill]

28. Because nuance in legal reportage at the AP is spot on?

It is unlikely that any reporter is privy to communications conducted between these lawyers and their client.

[jberryhill]

30. But there are still problems

Even accepting that press account as a fulsome and complete expression of what communications have occurred, the KY rule refers to "criminal or fraudulent" behavior, where the advice is geared toward getting away with it.

[geek tragedy]

32. the press was quoting a county clerk, who referred the reporter to the lawyers

If her attorneys are counseling her to commit official misconduct, a crime under Kentucky law by telling her she doesn't have to obey the law, then yes they should be disbarred.

[jberryhill]

43. Which reduces to saying "if"

A lawyer doesn't have any obligation to stop their client from doing something illegal.

She is engaging in civil disobedience in support of her utterly misguided beliefs. This notion that she does not know a court ordered her to issue the licenses is simply absurd.

As you should well know, lawyers engaged by clients engaged in civil disobedience is not some new thing, unusual to the circumstances here. Civil disobedience is a tactic. Engaging in it does not make any cause nobler or more correct than any other. There are income tax nutters locked up all of the time for it. The public at large does not rally to their cause, and so for them it is a failed tactic.

She bloody well knows what the court has ordered her to do. She bloody well knows that her motion for a stay was denied all the way up the line. She bloody well knows she has a hearing tomorrow on a contempt motion. There is no way that she's been magically hypnotized by her jackass lawyers.

In order to make a test case, it is not at all unusual for circumstances to be engineered with the aid of legal counsel. The relevant rule deals with helping people commit crimes and get away with them. That has nothing to do with advising on circumstances designed specifically to set up a test case.

Now, are they going to lose? Of course they are.

But, absolutely, if the point is to intentionally challenge the application of a legal principle of some kind for the purpose of bringing a test case then of course there is going to be a lawyer advising on specifically how to break the law in a way that brings out and isolates the issue sought to be litigated. That's not some radical concept in the history of how laws are challenged in this country. It's also no guarantee of success.

I don't question these peoples' sincerity. I question a lot of other things about them, but not their sincerity. They are sincerely wrong.

[jberryhill]

48. Would you disbar Greenpeace's lawyers, yes or no?

For the blockade of the Shell drilling support vessel in Portland last month?

Judge issued a $5k per hour contempt order, the protesters stayed on that bridge, and Greenpeace's lawyers kept arguing against the order.

And if you wouldn't disbar Greenpeace's lawyers, then can you tell me what legal principle you are applying to which "lawyers counseling people violating court orders" are to be disbarred and which ones are not?

Or how about this guy's lawyers:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-against-antiwar-protester/2014/02/26/772abae4-9ef9-11e3-9ba6-800d1192d08b_story.html

The court threw out a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco, which had overturned lower court convictions of John Dennis Apel, a longtime peace activist who was arrested several times in 2010 for violating a federal law that forbids a person from entering a military base after being ordered not to do so by the commanding officer.

"Arrested several times in 2010" for the same crime, over and over again. And yet, somehow, he is entitled to the same lawyers every time to take his case all the way up to a unanimous Supreme Court ruling against him. Think that will stop him from doing his thing or his lawyers from representing him?

All of these people are adults. This notion of going after issue-advocacy lawyers on the basis of whether we like or don't like their pet issue, is not a good road to go down.

[avebury]

29. I uld like to see the people that she has

been denying marriage license start to file civil cases against her. And then I would love to see juries start to rule against her with high dollar verdicts to eat away at any money that she thinks that she can make from this. Any fines should include tapping into any future earnings.

[RKP5637]

8. Enough is enough. She needs to be removed from office forcefully if necessary. How much of

this is supposed to be tolerated. She is unfit for duty and is now abusing the system.

[randys1]

26. If it was a liberal refusing gun licenses, I am sure she would have been gone a while ago

[RKP5637]

36. Yep, instantaneously! Probably would have sent in the National Guard asap and have

labeled them a domestic terrorist.

[procon]

10. Who is behind all this?

This woman doesn't have the means, and probably not the skill set, to organize let alone afford the level of legal defense needed to continue flogging her case in one court after another. Is it some sleazy religious conmen or political opportunists who putting up the cash and providing the legal team to keep this ridiculous case prominent in the public eye?

Some big money backers are propping her up and whipping up the religious base, but what do they get out of it? Money, lots and lots if money from people who are just like this Kim Davis who are mistakenly lead to believe that they are somehow being denied religious freedom if they can't subjugate everyone else.

[jberryhill]

13. Neither do the plaintiffs, for that matter

But, in 42 USC 1983 cases, attorney's fees are on the table.

Both the plaintiffs and the defendant in this case are represented by lawyers from advocacy organizations. The plaintiff's lawyers are with the ACLU and the defendant's lawyers are with "Liberty Counsel" (lc.org).

[tanyev]

19. The Liberty Counsel. They've been milking it for some time.

This beg-a-thon is from July.

Just as Justice Alito predicted in his dissent in the Obergefell ruling, secularists are trying to ‘stamp out every vestige of dissent’ by targeting people of faith who do not agree with same-sex marriage.

Yesterday’s court case is not just for Kim Davis, it is for every Christian who holds office or owns a business. It is for every pastor and church member in America.

We are fighting for your rights to exercise your deeply held religious beliefs. The First Amendment specifically declares, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Please stand with us in our defense of natural marriage, religious liberty, and the right of conscience. Click here or on the banner below to give a special gift to Liberty Counsel’s litigation fund to empower us to stand against the likes of the ACLU, whose war chest is virtually unlimited.


http://libertycounsel.com/battle-lines-are-being-drawn-across-the-nation-liberty-counsel/

[procon]

25. Grifters, snakeoil peddlers, crooks and conmen,

they ain't got nuttin on a good hellfire and brimstone scam from a pulpit.

[7962]

14. Isnt there someone ELSE who can issue marriage licenses???? nt

[MissB]

23. Maybe her son?

He works there, apparently.

[A Little Weird]

33. That's what she wants

She wants the state to issue marriage licenses online so she doesn't have to. But that is a problem. If she is allowed to pick and choose which laws she follows then others will follow suit. There are plenty of religious nutjobs who will do exactly the same. The Casey County clerk has been publicly supportive of her. I suspect the only reason he hasn't denied anyone a marriage license is because no one has applied there yet.

The only reasonable action in my opinion is for her to resign or be removed from office.

[Starry Messenger]

34. Is there any reason she can't do her fucking job?

[RKP5637]

37. If she can't fulfill the requirements for her job then she needs to be gone.

[Starry Messenger]

38. Bingo!

[RKP5637]

39. This clerk is such a bozo! I hope she goes down royally. I do think the nation is really

getting fed up with her bigotry. I have absolutely no sympathy for her. She is a flawed individual in clearly the wrong job. She so reminds me of George Wallace. She's a dinosaur, a relic of nasty times passing.

[7962]

40. Well, sure, but quit giving her all this publicity! Let someone else do it.

And get the judge to start fining her. Tossing her in jail will just make her MORE of a hero.

[Starry Messenger]

41. She's only in the news because she's the last holdout on issuing marriage licenses.

If she'd do her job, the story goes away. She's not a hero to anyone, no one important has stepped up to say what she is doing is heroic. There's no need to reward her bigotry by giving her what she wants, a way to not do her job.

[7962]

42. Oh, plenty of dolts have shown up at the courthouse to support her

The Gov needs to figure out how to get rid of her & get someone else to give out the licenses while he does.
No difference in this and a judge who is against the death penalty but still imposes it as a sentence because its the LAW. He wouldnt be able to avoid the sentencing without getting in trouble
Stop giving her the spotlight

[Starry Messenger]

46. That's why I said no one IMPORTANT.

And plenty of gay couples have showed up to protest her at the same courthouse. Those folks deserve better than seeing this idiot getting away with not FOLLOWING THE LAW. A judge who imposes the dp as a sentence is FOLLOWING THE LAW, which this woman isn't, so I'm not sure why you'd even throw that into the mix. Quit giving her an out.

[7962]

47. Oh, I'm not giving her an out, i want HER out!

I probably wrote the post poorly; I should've said if the judge DIDNT impose the dp and it was called for under the law he'd be just like her. I kinda got it backwards.
I'm just tired of seeing her continue to get the soapbox day after day.

[d_legendary1]

16. This is a Duggar in the making

Pretty soon TLC will give her a show about where she can preach about good christian morals...at least the ones she agrees with.

[Historic NY]

17. Send in the Sheriff!!!

she is in contempt.

[jberryhill]

22. Sheriff's don't enforce federal court orders and...

...there is no order holding her in contempt.

There is likely to be one tomorrow.

[avebury]

31. The county can fire all the minions because they are not

elected officials. They could be fired for non-performance of their duties and possible for being in contempt of court after tomorrow.

[Monk06]

35. I am pretty sure she can't use an appeal in an unrelated case as grounds for delaying an order in

the current one, any more than a judge can force her to comply in an unrelated case over which he is not presiding.

Rwers are such Philadelphia lawyers constantly picking away at minutiae in order to avoid legal rulings.

[jberryhill]

45. Ahem...

Not all Philadelphia lawyers are RWers.

[Monk06]

49. That's an expression my Philosophy professor used for legal formalism and obsessive preoccupation

with textual details at the expense of common sense understanding of language.

Not meant to reflect on the competence of lawyers practicing in Pennsylvania today lol

[The Blue Flower]

51. Oh, so now she wants to take refuge in the legal system

Head-spinning hypocrisy.