My KY Clerk Questions

[Buckrub]

Not that anyone cares..........

1) She swore to uphold the law when she took office. HOWEVER, the law changed since then; it changed June 26, 2015 in KY. So she did not swear to uphold that new law. The oath should not be (although legally it might be, I'm simply not sure) "I will uphold all laws that might be passed in the future".

2) So, she didn't have to issue a license based on the new law. But she had a choice. Either do 100% of her job under the new law, or do 0% of her job under the new law. The latter would mean she resigned, I suppose.

3) Notwithstanding all of the above, why would anyone be so goofus as to fight her? Why not simply go to another county and get a license there? This is a state issue. Why do folks want such attention brought to them? Do they not realize that is what is inflammatory to their opposition, their 'flauntiness'? I don't get that. Show some humility in your danged life, people.

4) "Contempt of Court".............goes to jail............ hmmm. If the judge had that kind of power over an elected official (She WAS elected, right?), why can't he just fire her?

This is what happens when the "State" (Government) gets in the marriage business. They need to get out of it, 100%, right now.

[BarryBobPosthole]

So any time there's an elected official that decides they don't agree with the laws they are elected to uphold, your answer would be just select another county/state/nation? This isn't a problem in the state issuing marriage licenses, this is about
one county official refusing to do what she was elected to do. And the clerk isn't empowering anyone to do anything. The clerk is simply issuing a marriage document that is filed with the county. It ain't as if she's a preacher 'marrying' anybody.
This is beyond ridiculous. And yes, people go to jail all the time for comtemp of court. She and her slick lawyer pretty much thumbed the judge in the eye with their comments to the media. I'm sure she was contemptible in that aspect.

bKB

[Buckrub]

Ok. But you didn't read what I wrote, or didn't understand it. I explained my opinion that she swore to uphold ONE law, but when it changed, that was no longer the law that she swore to uphold............and further, that she should have resigned if upholding THAT law bothered her.

But I guess you didn't read that part.

[BarryBobPosthole]

Prolly not. And they don't swear to uphold a specific set of laws, they swear to uphold all the laws whatever they may be. And indeed if she is incapable of doing that, then she needs to resign.
I'll only add that its the county clerk's job to file divorces too, which apparently she gleefully does without any guilt pangs.

BKB

[Buckrub]

I think this is clear evidence you don't really read what I write! LOL

[Buckrub]

HAHAHAHA. And HERE you go!!

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/03/tennessee-judge-denies-straight-couple-divorce-same-sex-marriage-ruling

[Arty]

She deserves to be in jail.

She's an idiot.

And had gay couples stopped going to her for marriage licenses, her idiocy would have never been challenged or brought to light.

Bucky you said "why did people go to her, why not go to another clerk".... Well that's like saying that because one clerk in a county won't issue CCW permits that YOU should just go to another clerk. I don't think you'd do that. I think you'd take a stand. Which is exactly what these carpet munchers and knob gobblers did, bless their hearts.

States/fed have no right to declare marriage anyway. It's a biblical institution.

But she's still a nut bag.

[Buckrub]

Agree the "State" should get out of it. But no, she's not a nut bag. That's silly.

One more question for Posthole to ignore or misread. (I crack myself up).

IF she was a Muslim, and refused, what would be happening?

[Arty]

Agree the "State" should get out of it. But no, she's not a nut bag. That's silly.

She's a radical nut bag. She could stay out of jail, out of the news, out of trouble... By either: A) upholding the oath, or whatever it is they take when elected, or B) resigning.

To do neither, and to think this would not explode in her face, is classic trait of a nut bag.

[Thumper]

Well, I think your #1 point is about as silly as they come. If the speed limit on a certain stretch of road is 55 when you become a cop, and gets changed to 65, are you gonna be out there writing speeding tickets for people doing the "legal" speed limit because that's not what it was when you joined the force?

I couldn't agree with your #2 more.

So far, your #1 is asinine and #2 is spot on. But just when I think you're on the right page, you swing another 180 degrees to your asinine #3. She was elected County Clerk, NOT County God. Why should a citizen be inconvenienced to drive to another county because of this total nutbag?

She was told by her boss (the Governor) to issue the licenses, but she still refused. She was given a second chance ... to let any of her 5 deputies issue the licenses without interfering with the process, but she refused to let THEM do it, even though she was not a part of the process. She needs to be kicked to the curb asap 'cause she's a twat!

[Captain]

She is a nutbag, and should be removed from office. A judge, however cannot do that. She cannot be "fired". The judge was right in this case. If she don't want to do her job she should step down.
And in NC/SC you have to get the marriage license IN the county you are going to say your vows in. So going to another county is not an option.
Her invoking God into this whole process is stupid...
It's simple. Do you job or quit.

[Thumper]

Just wondering how this would fly if a guy joined the military during peacetime, then a war broke out before his enlistment ended. Ya' think he could say he ain't goin' 'cause there was no war when he joined? This is a stupid argument and she needs to go. I can't believe it's dragged on this long already.

[Arty]

Just wondering how this would fly if a guy joined the military during peacetime, then a war broke out before his enlistment ended. Ya' think he could say he ain't goin' 'cause there was no war when he joined? This is a stupid argument and she needs to go. I can't believe it's dragged on this long already.
Good analogy but I don't think that's the premise of her argument, I think Bucky was just spit ballin. Although I could be wrong. I haven't read much about it since it's ridiculous.

[Buckrub]

OK, then.

So, objectively answer the last question, then.

IF she was Muslim and doing the same exact thing, what then? NOT what YOU think SHOULD happen.......but what WOULD have happened?

[Captain]

OK, then. So, objectively answer the last question, then. IF she was Muslim and doing the same exact thing, what then? NOT what YOU think SHOULD happen.......but what WOULD have happened?

Same thing

[Buckrub]

Ultimately maybe. But I do doubt it. I think it's PC to say "same thing"..........but I do not think it would be.

I keep waiting on some rabble rouser to ask a Muslim Imam to marry him and his good buddy, and raise a stink when they don't.

I may be wrong.

[Arty]

Ultimately maybe. But I do doubt it. I think it's PC to say "same thing"..........but I do not think it would be. I keep waiting on some rabble rouser to ask a Muslim Imam to marry him and his good buddy, and raise a stink when they don't. I may be wrong.

Even if you are right.... And you may be ...it doesn't change the fact that she's dead wrong.
She's wrong.
The towel head would be wrong.

What other people think, I couldn't give Thumpers pet vermin's ass.

[Buckrub]

Vermin..........

a schooled boy@! Impressive@!

[No-till Boss]

I'm siding with bucky on this one.....

[Arty]

Blind squirrel, meet Nut.

[Thumper]

I'm siding with bucky on this one.....

I'm not sure what "siding with Bucky" means persactly. He's all over the map!

[Buckrub]

Nah.... I'm not.

[Buckrub]

Re-reading this.

What I said originally is almost identical to what everyone else said. But everyone else argued with me. I guess either y'all can't read or I can't write. I suspect the latter.

I tried to say in my first two points that this woman swore to uphold a law that changed on her, and thus she had to either decide to do her job (100% of it) or resign (0% of it). That's exactly what y'all said. But somehow I'm "all over the map".

I think maybe someone can't read a map! :)

[Thumper]

Who the heck reads a map in this day and age? That's why God invented GPS's! :thumbsup

[Buckrub]

hahaha.

This (in great GH fashion) reminds me of a story. When we drove to Montana (3 day trip!) a few years ago to muley hunt, the guy with me kept berating me for using my GPS on the dash to get there. He said "USE A MAP!"......he thought that 'technology' would lead you astray and those were silly.

I laughed........and asked him where he thought the data for the map came from. He stammered, didn't know. I then asked him if he thought that the information/data for the map was coming from a different, or same, source than the data for the GPS? He stammered again.

I said "Both use exactly the same source for their data. The map is about a year old most likely. The GPS is as up to date as the last time I plugged it into my PC with a USB cord and updated it. NOW which do you want to use?"

[Thumper]

I tried to say in my first two points that this woman swore to uphold a law that changed on her, and thus she had to either decide to do her job (100% of it) or resign (0% of it).


Well, here is what you said ... you can't see where the confusion lies? Your statement above has a bit added to it.


She swore to uphold the law when she took office. HOWEVER, the law changed since then .... So she did not swear to uphold that new law.

That sounds to me like you're siding with HER. Laws change daily ... IMHO, she swore to uphold the laws of the State. If ONLY the laws in place at the time of her election are held valid, she wouldn't be in office more than a week! She can't pick and choose.

[Thumper]

IMO, GPS is ONE of the coolest devices invented in my lifetime. I love those things and think they're the neatest things since sliced bread. I'd have given my left nut for one when I had my business. I couldn't tell you how much time I wasted mapping out jobs, estimates and errands everyday as efficiently as possible with a pile of maps. (one for every city I worked in)

I had (expensive) Thomas Guides stacked from floor to ceiling!

[Buckrub]

I honestly.........and I'm NOT trying to be confrontational.........do NOT see the confusion. I just don't.

I said, or tried to say, that the law that she swore to uphold had changed, and thus she had a decision to make. And that decision was to either do her job or resign.

And that, to me, is very clear in what I said. It's pretty much black and white. If that's confusing to you, I apologize, but I can't figure out how I could have said it any plainer.

And that's exactly what everyone of you said..............

[Buckrub]

IMO, GPS is ONE of the coolest devices invented in my lifetime. I love those things and think they're the neatest things since sliced bread.

My truck has a built in one. That is a very neat feature, and you don't have to remember to bring one with you, and all that. But it's not as robust as my Garmin 2797 (I think that's the model ?)........that one tells you more information than the display can handle. You can change each item to something else.............miles to go, distance traveled, moving speed average, total speed average, arrival time, and on and on. Plus, it tells you elevation (sort of neat, something I keep an eye on while driving, just for the heck of it). Just a ton of info, and I agree.......they are just amazing. Especially to men..........who NEVER ask directions!

[Thumper]

I said .... that the law that she swore to uphold had changed, and thus she had a decision to make. And that decision was to either do her job or resign.

You said the above at 7:40 am TODAY ... you did NOT say that at 3:25 pm YESTERDAY in point #1.

That's why I made mention of the fact your #1 sucked, but you were spot on with #2. I suppose they should have been combined to make sense.

What it boils down to is, in MY post, I disagreed with your point 1, but agreed with point 2. So, did I agree or disagree with you?

[Buckrub]

You said the above at 7:40 am TODAY ... you did NOT say that at 3:25 pm YESTERDAY.

Then I conclude that you can't read. :)

Here's a cut/paste of exactly what I DID say:

But she had a choice. Either do 100% of her job under the new law, or do 0% of her job under the new law. The latter would mean she resigned, I suppose.

[Thumper]

Bucky, that was point 2.

I responded to your post one point at a time in the order you made them. Sheeesh. I disagreed with post #1 ... I agreed with post #2. #2 SHOULD have been combined with #1 to make your point.

[Buckrub]

They aren't separate points. They're just the way I think. Hypothesis, conclusion. You can't separate them, or any of them. My POST is my POST. Read it all.

I can't help the way you think. (I doubt anyone can@@!!!! :))

[Thumper]

Then why did you number each thought? I read #1 and responded ... then I moved to #2 and responded. YOU are the one who separated the thoughts. Here's number 1, how do YOU read this?


1) She swore to uphold the law when she took office. HOWEVER, the law changed since then; it changed June 26, 2015 in KY. So she did not swear to uphold that new law. The oath should not be (although legally it might be, I'm simply not sure) "I will uphold all laws that might be passed in the future".

It sounds (to me) like you're agreeing with HER.

How do you read this?

1) Bucky is a curmudgeonly old dufus butt, sucks big weenies, smells like my 10 year old tennis shoes and I can't stand that poophead!

2) Bucky is the most intelligent, kind, understanding individual I've ever known and a true friend!

Now, do I like you ... or not?

[Buckrub]

Sure. I don't need to read your stupid stuff to know that, man!!!

[Buckrub]

But that kind of analogy is invalid. I did not make two diametrically opposing statements. I didn't make ANY value statements in item #1. I just said that she swore to uphold the law and that the law changed. Those are two FACTS, not two value judgments of any kind. There's no conclusion to draw on my opinion based only on #1. If you did, that's on you, not me.

[Thumper]

Sure. I don't need to read your stupid stuff to know that, man!!!

To know what?

See how confusing you are? ;)

[Buckrub]

To know this: Now, do I like you ... or not? No. I really don't see it. I do see some confusion though!!! :)

[Thumper]

I'm confused .... ;)

[Buckrub]

I see.

NEXT????

[No-till Boss]

I too can see her being fired, however, I can not see her being persecuted and put in jail.

[Thumper]

Jail does seem a bit harsh, but I think both sides are trying to make a point. The judge will not tolerate insubordination from an elected official, and I assume she's doing nothing but drawing attention and sympathy to her cause. She would be released the minute she resigns, but she refuses. Why should she be able to hold a job that she refuses to perform? The whole thing is a frigging circus.

[BarryBobPosthole]

She's not being persecuted. She's being prosecuted. I've about had it with persecuted christians. The lady was elected to do a job and she's not in jail for not doing it herself, but for saying she'd prevent others in her department from doing their jobs too. Basically she thumbed the judge in his eye and she hired some slicky boy lawyer who's making big political statements in the media. If that ain't a definition of being contemptful of the law, then I don't know what is.

Of course Todd Starnes and his ilk think of it as persecution.

bKB

[No-till Boss]

She's not being persecuted. She's being prosecuted. I've about had it with persecuted christians. The lady was elected to do a job and she's not in jail for not doing it herself, but for saying she'd prevent others in her department from doing their jobs too. Basically she thumbed the judge in his eye and she hired some slicky boy lawyer who's making big political statements in the media. If that ain't a definition of being contemptful of the law, then I don't know what is.

Of course Todd Starnes and his ilk think of it as persecution.

bKB

She was first persecuted and THEN prosecuted, make no mistakes about that ......

[BarryBobPosthole]

I'm sure the hazing she is getting from the media and public could be classified as persecution. But I was referring to what the law did to her.

And I think she's enjoying this limelight. Her fifteen minutes of fame, brought to you by none other than herself. No wonder she had four husbands.

BKB

[Herb2]

I don't think she can be prosecuted. She has violated no statute (i.e. broken no law), so there is no reason to prosecute her. She DID disobey a Court Order, which is why she's in jail FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT.

This is the same deal as the Teapot Dome scandal back in the 1920s. Harry Sinclair (Sinclair Oil) lent Albert Fall (Secretary of the Interior) $20,000 in war bonds right after Fall, acting as Secretary, gave Sinclair Oil, oil and gas leases covering the Teapot Dome in Wyoming. Some of the bonds were in Sinclair's name and some were in Sinclair Oil Company's name; Harry testified to Congress that he stored both his and his company's bonds in his safe and simply grabbed the wrong stack.

When he wouldn't "confess" to "wrongdoing" Congress cited him for contempt and he served six months in jail. Why wasn't he prosecuted? At the time, there was no legal prohibition against giving the Secretary of the Interior gifts of money or otherwise in exchange for official favors. Fall might have been chastised for appearance of a conflict, but they had precisely NOTHING on Sinclair.

This is what happened here. She violated no statute, simply a court order.

[Thumper]

If your boss (in this case the Governor) tells you to do your job, and you refuse, that's insubordination IMO and grounds for dismissal. I'm not sure I understand why she still has a job in the first place.

[Buckrub]

She does not serve at the pleasure of the Governor. She is an elected official, I believe.

[johnboy]

She has no honour. The honourable thing to do would be to protest then resign. End of story.

[LJ3]

The only complicating factor is that she is, in fact, and elected official. It should be simple enough to follow process and vote her ass out. It would be interesting if the populace voted to keep her in :)

[Thumper]

She does not serve at the pleasure of the Governor. She is an elected official, I believe.

I'm too lazy to figure out the chain-of-command and ... to be honest, I could give a rat's ass! ;)

She's defying Federal Law and I believe the judge who threw her in jail is a Federal Judge. I'd just assume when the Feds are dealing with a county employee, the Governor would be consulted/involved. Again, I'm simply not interested enough to study it all that closely.

She's a frigging, hypocritical dingbat anyway. I "think" I have this straight ... She was married to husband #1 and had twins 5 months after divorcing him. Ha! If my math is correct, there was a bit of adultery in there somewhere!

Then she married some other dude (husband #2) who adopted her "illegitimate" twins, divorced him ... THEN married the father of the already adopted twins (husband #3)! She later divorced him and re-married the dude who adopted her twins (husband #2)!

And she's causing all this stink because she's standing her religious grounds? Give me a frigging break!

[LJ3]

Any bets on race of the babies? Too soon?

[BarryBobPosthole]

Eddie would. say they're democrats.

bKB

[Herb2]

The County Clerk is certainly a Democrat.

[Thumper]

The County Clerk is certainly a Democrat.

Ha ha! Yep, but the N.Y. Times kinda wanted it to be the other way! ;)

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tom-blumer/2015/09/06/ny-times-tags-kim-davis-republican-blames-editing-error

[Buckrub]

What a rag they are..............

[Herb2]

She has no honour. The honourable thing to do would be to protest then resign. End of story.

If that had been the general case, there would have been no Civil War. Two Presidents that I can recall, did exactly the same thing, except that the "Court order" they ignored or disobeyed came from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

The first was Andrew Jackson, murderer, genocidal maniac and founder of the modern Democratic Party (notice how I put his crimes in increasing order of importance). When Chief justice Marshall ordered that Georgia could not remove the Cherokee Nation from Cherokee lands (essentially that Georgia could not steal property belonging to others. Andy is purported to have said "Marshall made the ruling; now let him enforce it".

The other President is also pretty well known: Abraham Lincoln; kidnapper and mass murderer and also first Republican President in history. Before the first shot was fired in the Civil War, Abe rounded up political leaders in Maryland and imprisoned them without trial for the duration of the War. Their crime? Opposing Lincoln politically.

Once again, Supreme Court Chief Justice Taney issued writs of habeas corpus, which were ignored by Lincoln for years.

If those two "dishonorable" presidents had resigned, I think we can at least entertain the notion that the Civil War would not have occurred; in Jackson's case because much of the "Deep South" would have been Indian Country (what wasn't Cherokee was Creek, Choctaw Chickasaw or Seminole) and thus NOT the Cotton Belt of plantations and southern wealth, and in Lincoln's case, HE was personally a trigger for much Southern anger; not Republicans, not Abolitionists (entirely) but LINCOLN.

[Buckrub]

Herb, I have missed you so very immensely!

[BarryBobPosthole]

I'm likin it. Finally I can argue with someone that's as obstinate as me.

bKB

[johnboy]

Don't care what so and so president did xx years ago. She has a decision to make right now. Either do your job or resign and let somebody else do it. She can protest and complain all she wants (go to court, sue, whatever) but in in the meantime she should resign. IMHO.

[Thumper]

Johnboy for President! No wait! We may have birther issues there! ;)

[BarryBobPosthole]

He could run along with his countryman, Ted Cruz.

BKB