Kim Davis jailed (finally)

[Brant Gaede]

Now what? If I had her job and felt as she does, I'd have had the grace to resign. If I had to make a point by going to jail for contempt, I'd then resign--right now. I could stay on to settle the legal issue or issues, but would not violate any more court orders. My job is essentially secular, after all, not religious. So the law prevails.

If the law is evil then I must choose other means of fighting it or possibly true martyrdom.

--Brant

don't forget the book deal!

[Brant Gaede]

She is let out!

Why do I get the feeling some people are still fighting the Civil War, substituting blacks with gays?

--Brant

[william.scherk]

Now what?

Who knows? Her lawyers seem to believe she will indeed interfere with the issuing of marriage licenses by her deputy clerks, at least according to this Raw Story article: Lawyers vow Kim Davis will violate court order and halt marriage licenses after release from jail

-- I am watching a live video from the courthouse detention centre. At the moment, some odd types are at the podium. Kim Davis herself is expected to speak after all the politicians and pastors finish their perorations ...

-- from slightly earlier in time ...

Edited September 8, 2015 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

We'll soon find out if she's stupid and a narcissist.

--Brant

(Obama is an example of a smart narcissist)

[Mikee]

Five deputy clerks have agreed to carry out the duties repugnant to Kim Davis and have been ordered to do so, she has been ordered to not interfere. I don't think she can stop her deputies from carrying out the judges orders unless she tries to physically restrain them. That's a whole other kettle of fish. We'll see then how she likes assault charges on top of contempt.

[Brant Gaede]

If she simply tells them not to issue the licenses she'll be put back in jail. It's sort of like a federal judge taking over a school system for the sake of integration. The only one with more power is the judge above him. Right now a federal judge is grinding down "the toughest sheriff in the country" in Maricopa County, AZ. While I have little regard for him, it's another illustration of dominant federal power.

--Brant

[Peter]

Chubby Checker sang, “Let’s do the twist,” so . . .

Ayn Rand wrote some dialogue for John Galt speaking to Mr. Thompson in Atlas Shrugged: When you force a man to act against his own choice and judgment, it's his thinking that you want him to suspend.
end quote

Mike E. wrote on the Carly Fiorina thread: She represents the coercive power of government, the people coming to her office were the innocent recipients of her lawlessness, their rights matter more than hers in this matter. She is the initiator of force and the rights violator in this case. Her rights have not been violated.
end quote

I agree with both arguments because both are very convincing. Are they contradictory statements? Was the judge like President Thompson and the Kentucky clerk like John Galt? Perhaps. Yet, she was the Government talking to a civilian so the gay couple would be like John Galt. If she was practicing civil disobedience should she be prosecuted? I will list some reasons why not first.

Should she be prosecuted. NO, sorta!

One. Rather than viewing it as mere law-breaking, civil disobedience occurs because of serious differences in what is moral to an individual and what is current law. This distinction is of importance because it is what separates the conscientious dissenter from the criminal. The conscientious dissenter feels that by violating a particular law, the validity of which is questionable to them, they are doing the moral thing.

Two. Disobedience also works to serve the greater good of society, and that is what a test case accomplishes. Civil disobedience brings dissenting opinions to the forefront. If no one ever opposed the law, then we could quite possibly end up being governed by rules that we morally oppose. A good example of this was the sit-ins that took place during the early 1960’s in the still-segregated, Jim Crow South. From that we got The Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. And remember after much soul searching, the (then new) politician Rand Paul said he would not seek to repeal The Civil Rights Act?

Three. Severely punishing conscientious dissenters, like the Kentucky law clerk, with instant jail time can alienate thoughtful, moral members of society. If that person is willing to face the wrath of the law in order to voice their conscience, clearly it is an important matter to them, not just a means of “testing the limits.” Jailing such people would also deter others with strong views from ever trying to voice them, and would lead to such fear that the first goal (voicing dissent) could never be accomplished.

Four. Civil disobedience rests on the idea of a superseding moral law that exists in all humans. If a law violates one’s moral code, then you have a choice: betray your conscience and conform, or attempt to change the law. Changing the law is better pursued through non-violent means. Some legal protection for conscientious objectors is important to a society that wants to preserve it’s Constitutional Rights.

Now for the flip side. Should she be prosecuted or fired?

Prosecuted yes, but fired, maybe depending on the outcome. The social contract theory obliges all citizens to abide by the rules of the constitution and laws deriving from that document because we need the state to protect us in return. But this is only true if the state holds up their end of the bargain. If citizens do not feel protected (or even feel threatened) by the state, or if the state creates unjust laws, the citizens have a right to challenge them. But it is up to the courts to decide if the law should be null and void, or changed. She should be challenged by the government but not jailed. She should be suspended from her job in the mean time. If the court decides against her then she should be fired.
Peter

[merjet]

Why hasn’t Kim Davis been fired? Boston Globe answer.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Peter wrote:

The social contract theory obliges all citizens to abide by the rules of the constitution and

laws deriving from that document because we need the state to protect us in return.

WTF ? -- protection from the state in return for our obedience to the state?

Never heard such gibberish in my entire life.

[Peter]

Wolf wrote: Never heard such gibberish in my entire life.
end quote

Woof, I have never heard such gibberish in my entire life. Here is how you should state that heretic view.

George H. Smith wrote:
Ayn Rand defends a consent doctrine in several of her essays, but she never explains how this consent should manifest itself - whether, for example, it must be explicit or merely tacit (as Locke believed). Nor does she explain precisely which rights are delegated to government and how they are transferred. Therefore, although Rand appears to fall within the social contract tradition (at least in a general way), it is unclear where she would stand on the nature and method of political consent. I sincerely hope that some of her minarchist followers can shed some light on this problem.”
end quote

And George continued with:
I agree with these critics. If we accept the premise that individuals (and only individuals) possess equal and reciprocal rights, and if we insist that these individuals must consent to be ruled by a government, and if we condemn as illegitimate all governments that rule without consent - then all governments, past and present, have been illegitimate.
end quote

Now that is not gibberish. How about a bit more substance, Wolf? When you live in a country should you (I reiterate, Should YOU) obeys its laws. Motorcycle Outlaws want to know. Bonnie and Clyde want to know.

[Wolf DeVoon]

When you live in a country should you obey its laws?

Irrelevant. The purpose of a constitution is to protect people from the state.

[Peter]

If all taxation is theft, and all governments are illegitimate, do you have a moral right to tear up the Constitution? No, because I say so. I won’t let you. And Ayn Rand’s moral perspective is superior to your nihilism and anarchy.

From The Ayn Rand Lexicon, Fallacy of the “Stolen Concept:” The “stolen concept” fallacy, first identified by Ayn Rand, is the fallacy of using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, i.e., of an earlier concept(s) on which it logically depends.
end quote

Wolf wrote: Irrelevant. The purpose of a constitution is to protect people from the state.
end quote

You can’t in good conscience, use the free speech guaranteed to you in the Constitution and then say it denies you your rights. Bull, Wolf : -)

And from, “Maybe You’re Wrong,” The Objectivist Forum, April 1981, volume 9 by Leonard Peikoff: Observe that Descartes starts his system by using “error” and its synonyms or derivatives as “stolen concepts . . . .” Men have been wrong, and therefore, he implies, they can never know what is right. But if they cannot, how did they ever discover that they were wrong? How can one form such concepts as “mistake” or “error” while wholly ignorant of what is correct? “Error” signifies a departure from truth; the concept of “error” logically presupposes that one has already grasped some truth. If truth were unknowable, as Descartes implies, the idea of a departure from it would be meaningless. The same point applies to concepts denoting specific forms of error. If we cannot ever be certain that an argument is logically valid, if validity is unknowable, then the concept of “invalid” reasoning is impossible to reach or apply. If we cannot ever know that a man is sane, then the concept of “insanity” is impossible to form or define. If we cannot recognize the state of being awake, then we cannot recognize or conceptualize a state of not being awake (such as dreaming). If man cannot grasp X, then “non-X” stands for nothing.
end quote

Some like Wolf might say, “By its nature Government must be able to wield its power without the consent of the people that it is wielding it against. If it had their consent it wouldn't need that power. That person may never have consented, and being born here and not leaving is hardly consent.”

But did all the immigrating occupants of Ayn Rand’s “Atlantis” consent to being there? Yes, unless there was a stowaway / refugee like Dagny living on Midas Mulligan’s land. Did any children born there give their consent? No. But until they reached a “majority age” their right of consent was granted by their parents who are their guardians. After that initial agreement to establish a Government, would “implied consent” be moral? Yes. So I think Wolf’s perspective is invalid.

Ayn Rand moved to America and did not immigrate to a more free land. She paid her taxes, accepted social security, and Medicare and believed in voluntary taxation as the end game of a free society. We know enough about her mind, and convictions that she would not have done that if it had not been morally right. Not so much has changed since her death. The personal tax rates may actually be less now, but the government’s deficit spending and national debt has increased. Does debt define American values? No, but it places an unfair obligation on future generations.

America is a place and an experiment. The chance nature of the universe and the immense expanse of time, has been beaten back by the scientific method, and OUR ingenious government, in a few short centuries. Wolf, fight for America’s perfection through elections and amendments. But to do that and not be simply rioting you must support the Constitution and obey the laws. That is what contractual Government is about. Civil disobedience is fine in this great land but expect to pay the consequences.

Peter

[Wolf DeVoon]

If all taxation is theft, and all governments are illegitimate...

Are you misquoting me, or someone else?

Some like Wolf might say, “By its nature Government ...

Are you misquoting me, or someone else?

As to the rest of your post, concluding that Galt's Gulch mattered, although they fictionally shut down the government, and contrariIy you and I should support the government, vote for majoritarian hacks and obey their laws -- it's evident that you don't know anything about my body of work -- which is fine. It was published on a Need To Know basis.

[william.scherk]

Here's a charming quoat. Kim Davis' Lawyer Says Forcing Clerk To Do Job Is Like Making Her 'Grant A License To Sodomize Children'

 

Details from a radio interview monitored by the folks at Right Wing Watch, via HuffPost Gayvoices ...

 

When Davis was jailed Thursday for refusing to issue marriage licenses, Staver compared her to the persecuted Jews in Nazi Germany.

 

"They were evicted from public employment, then boycotted in their private employment, then stigmatized, and that led to the gas chambers," Staver told Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, during a radio show.

 

U.S. District Judge David Bunning released Davis from jail after five of her six deputies began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

 

Although Bunning warned that Davis may not interfere with the duties of her deputy clerks, Staver told reporters that his client "cannot and will not violate her conscience." 

 

 

As I suggested in my hate-and-punish note on the Carly Fiorina thread, the conflict  between Kim Davis's authority and those five deputy clerks should become apparent the moment she decides to formally 'instruct' her staff to disobey Bunning's last order -- or when she otherwise interferes when the next marriage applicants present themselves to a deputy. If she chooses to let a 'straight marriage' by her god gate, but then attempts to get in the way of a gay marriage application, she is up the legal Nile. Her clerks will likely disobey her instructions, and she may be moved to fire them.

 

The worst actors in the schmozzle, to my eyes, are the Liberty Counsel. They are pushing their unwinnable agenda on the back of Kim Davis. She is the one who will pay (or have charges of misconduct to face), not them.  Their advice has only delivered her unto  contempt so far. She is a pawn, in my opinion, of those who seek to turn back the SCOTUS decision that marriage is a fundamental right for same-sex couples.

 

One thing I haven't seen is the 'new' marriage licenses/certificates that were issued while Kim was in the hoosegow. How do they fudge over the 'signature'/Name line where Kim's Name usually sits -- and what is she intending to do about these 'invalid' licenses let out into the wild? Retract them, refuse to accept and file the Marriage Certificates the wild licenses are expected to return?

 

It seems to me that the Liberty Counsel has set up its pawn for capture, according to the New York Post. The crux of the confrontation is here:

 

Davis, who plans to return to work on Monday, has said any marriage licenses issued without her authority are not valid. Deputy Clerk Brian Mason said Wednesday that if he has to, he will disobey his boss and continue issuing licenses rather than refuse the orders of U.S. District Judge David Bunning.

 

Will Liberty Counsel seek to accommodate Brian Mason's conscience, and allow him to honour the Supreme Court decision in the furtherance of his lawful duties?

 

-- guessing here, but I think the 'new' licenses and attached certificates either have Kim Davis's name typed in as Clerk or have the county name/office typed in, and so have no need for her personal assent or delivery given Judge Bunning's orders.

 

I mean, she never has to deal with a marriage again during her tenure, if she wants to accommodate her staff. She can get a second opinion from a non-Christianist lawyer if she has a glimmer of doubt that her counsel has her best interests in mind.

 

I also guess that Liberty Counsel are advising Kim to believe that the license/certificates issued since her contempt detention are mere scrip, garbage, invalid as legal instruments.

 

That might burn a person with a bureaucratic mind, to think that her typed name or county name/office name on a piece of nuptial paperwork will send her to hell.  

 

This god guy, if he is sort of like the best of human beings, wouldn't he reasonably conclude that Kim Davis has made her love for him clear, tell her he will remember her valiant fight, and thus give her a Laisser-passer for Saint Peter -- valid even if she lets her clerks do what their free conscience compels?

 

I can't unsee this, so had to share:

 

Edited September 12, 2015 by william.scherk

[william.scherk]

And sure enough, Kim Davis's Friday was full of decision. Kim Davis files appeal to continue denying same-sex marriage licences [to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals]:

Davis argues that all the same-sex couples who sued her for a licence received one from her deputies while she was in jail, so her office should not be required to issue them to any more couples once she returns to work.

U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning wrote that his mandate to issue licences applied to all couples, not only those who filed lawsuits. But Davis's lawyers allege that order was issued improperly and again have asked for a delay.

[...]

If the court does not respond before Davis returns to work on Monday, she will have to choose whether to allow her office to continue issuing licences or again disobey the judge who already sent her to jail.

Again, I think Kim needs a second legal opinion. The Liberty Counsel is maneuvering her into a dead end. I don't see any good sense coming from their legal/moral minds on Monday. Hopefully no one shows up for a marriage license and no one gets fired. It sounds like Kim is going to be okay with having the already-licensed couples register their marriage certificates as their partnerships are solemnized elsewhere.

Doesn't the Liberty Counsel argument in yesterday's motion seem odd? -- to require that the next marriageable couple in Rowan County sue the Clerk/s once more to gain rightful access to a license? Counsel seem to be asking the appeals court to draw a magic circle around those folks who actually were given licenses while Kim was in the klink. Doesn't that seem like turning the timer clock back to 'refuse'/comtempt/klink once more? How is that novel legal accommodation going to play out at the appeal level?

Moreover, is this just a prelude to Kim Davis ordering her staff, in the name of God, to refuse to follow the Bunning order? To my eyes, Liberty Counsel is asking the appeal court to simply rub out preceding decisions so they can start the whole stupid client-defeating process all over again.

Edited September 13, 2015 by william.scherk

[Selene]

So you really do not understand Christians and their tradition of acting in testament of their religion, even if martyred?

[Guyau]

Not only martyred, but themselves murderous, under the same fanaticism.

The good news is that overwhelmingly Christians in America are opposed to this sort of zealotry. (And unlike much of the Liberty outfit here in my hometown, did not choose their denomination for political-hatred reasons.)

Worse times in America: How Kentucky Became a Confederate State

This too will pass. Thing is, the North won.

[william.scherk]

So you really do not understand Christians and their tradition of acting in testament of their religion, even if martyred?

Who are you addressing, Adam? (and isn't this another way of saying "so you really don't understand that gay marriage is an abomination?") You quote no one, so it is not clear what your opinions are regarding the legal advice given to Kim Davis.

With squinting and an angle to the sun, it almost seems you are praising Liberty Counsel for their latest knucklehead motion. But that would be interpreting your one-liner beyond its limits, perhaps.

I find the Liberty Counsel to be a nasty outfit of gay-hating fuckheads, with their greatest triumph/shame agitating in Africa in favour of death penalties for homosexual acts.

If you were addressing some other part of my opinions above, Adam, fair enough, but I don't know what you are arguing for. You may like me see bigotry and animus on the part of Kim Davis's attorneys, or you may find all but Kim and her deputies acting in good faith,

What kinds of issues did I miss in my last analysis? Maybe you would like to give a Randian take on the conflict of authority and conscience between Clerk and deputies that may still be played out in Morehead.

[Selene]

U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning wrote that his mandate to issue licences applied to all couples, not only those who filed lawsuits. But Davis's lawyers allege that order was issued improperly and again have asked for a delay.

[...]

If the court does not respond before Davis returns to work on Monday, she will have to choose whether to allow her office to continue issuing licences or again disobey the judge who already sent her to jail.

Again, I think Kim needs a second legal opinion. The Liberty Counsel is maneuvering her into a dead end. I don't see any good sense coming from their legal/moral minds on Monday. Hopefully no one shows up for a marriage license and no one gets fired. It sounds like Kim is going to be okay with having the already-licensed couples register their marriage certificates as their partnerships are solemnized elsewhere.

So you really do not understand Christians and their tradition of acting in testament of their religion, even if martyred?

[Guyau]

Adam, thanks for the note of clarification. Your play on dead is foul.

It is really very easy, Adam, for straight people to let us know if you regard us as defective because we are gay, think we should not be allowed in the military, should be criminalized, or should not be allowed to marry a lover. It is so easy. Just state your view, square out. (Unfortunately, it can be missed or forgotten and may need some repeating.*)

It has been a matter of survival and in our realistic best interest to presume a homophobe, unless there is square statement to the contrary and statement of alliance with us on those issues (or explanation of one's dissent not entailing legal inequality, such as simply being opposed to all anti-discrimination laws). Still goes.

Stephen

[Brant Gaede]

So you really do not understand Christians and their tradition of acting in testament of their religion, even if martyred?

Her motivation has been established? Well, she's going to prove it. Patience. Which is stronger--bigotry or faith?

She's a truth teller?

Was Joan of Arc a Christian? Did Christ talk to her? I thought it was God. She certainly seems to have been martyred.

Wasn't St. Peter happy he was crucified--and upside down? Did he cry out to his Father too? Who was Jesus imitating? If martyrdom is imitation, then isn't the religion itself? Was Jesus a Christian? If Jesus was the first Christian wasn't he also the last? Like the Muslims the Christians are soldiers--or used to be. It is the cross of Jesus that leads against the foe--not Jesus.

I do have this thing against martyrdom I don't have against Christianity. I can't say the same about the Muslim religion and the idiotic and insane Jihadists. And I sure don't respect martyrdom lite, but prefer it to the alternative way to go be. The lady now needs to resign for the sake of her principles, not go to jail for them--or toss in the towel. It's the preacher down the street who gets not to join in matrimony whom he disapproves of, not a public servant. And the baker doesn't have to bake a wedding cake for gays and gay fascists. Let the county start a bakery just for them.

--Brant

[Selene]

Adam, thanks for the note of clarification. Your play on dead is foul.

Stephen

Stephen:

There was no "play" on dead.

Here are the facts.

First, I was responding to William's direct question...

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=15448&page=3#entry238390

Secondly, I was explaining to Bill that going to jail for her religion is required to make a point.

There has been a tradition in non-monetary conditional contempt cases where the contemptnor refused to bow to the Orders of the Court.

Buck Stove being one of the first contempt cases that reached SCOTUS and in a landmark decision in SAMUEL GOMPERS, John Mitchell, and Frank Morrison, Petitioners, v. BUCK'S STOVE & RANGE COMPANY.

There has been general recognition of the fact that the courts are clothed with this power, and must be authorized to exercise it without referring the issues of fact or law to another tribunal or to a jury in the same tribunal. For, if there was no such authority in the first instance, there would be no power to enforce its orders if they were disregarded in such independent investigation. Without authority to act promptly and independently the courts could not administer public justice or enforce the rights of private litigants. Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co. 194 U. S. 337, 48 L. ed. 1005, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 665.

Congress, in recognition of the necessity of the case, has also declared (Rev. Stat. 725, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 583) that the courts of the United States 'shall have power . . . to punish by fine or imprisonment . . . contempts of their authority,' including 'disobedience . . . by any party . . . to any lawful . . . order . . . of the said courts.' But the very amplitude of the power is a warning to use it with discretion, and a command never to exert it where it is not necessary or proper. For that reason we can proceed no further in this case, because it is both unnecessary and improper to make any decree in this contempt proceeding.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/221/418

In my opinion, you gain nothing long term when you sacrifice a Constitutionally guaranteed individual right of a citizen for a short term gain.

King Pyrrhus, as you know, found that out against the Romans.

A...

[Guyau]

.

Adam, the first definition of martyr in my American Heritage Dictionary is: "One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles." That was your foul play with William's reference to legal and employment dead end. There is no need for you Republicans to be coddling these homophobes who have used their official position to pontificate on the morality of homosexuality. Dressing them up as citizens having their rights violated is obscene. Comparing a persecutor told she must desist, comparing that to a martyr is obscene. Mr. Trump has shown you guys need not kowtow to this old "moral majority" faction.

[Selene]

.

Adam, the first definition of martyr in my American Heritage Dictionary is: "One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles." That was your foul play with William's reference to legal and employment dead end. There is no need for you Republicans to be coddling these homophobes who have used their official position to pontificate on the morality of homosexuality. Dressing them up as citizens having their rights violated is obscene. Comparing a persecutor told she must desist, comparing that to a martyr is obscene. Mr. Trump has shown you guys need not kowtow to this old "moral majority" faction.

First, I then misused the word.

Second, I am not a Republican.

Third, I am not a homophobe.

However, you make a rational conclusion about that because I publicly supported the NY City Equal Rights for Homosexuals bill that was pending in the NY City Council when I was running in the Democratic primary for Councilman at Large for Queens County .

I have advocated vociferously for the individual right of every citizen to practice their personal lives without the interference of the state.

Therefore, the apparent attempt to publicly excoriate folks who do not believe in your particular agenda is, frankly, not worthy of support.

A...

[Guyau]

.

Yes, I knew you were not a homophobe, as indicated by my link in #45.

How are you different from a Republican now?